GENERAL PROVISIONS § Estate of Hemady v.

Luzon Surety Co
Surety filed claim against estate based
(Arts. 774 – 782) on counterbids that Hemady guaranteed
as surety. Prayed for contingent claim on
Succession and Inheritance
20 bonds executed. Lower court
§ Inheritance refers to the decedent’s
dismissed because Hemady ceased to be
properties, rights and obligations not
guarantor upon death. Court reversed;
extinguished by death and transmitted to
heirs succeed not only to rights of
heirs
deceased but also to obligations.
§ Succession is a mode of acquisition by which
Payment from estate is payment by heirs
the decedent’s property, rights and
and distributees.
obligations are transmitted to his heirs
Transmission to the Heirs through
Elements of Succession
the Estate
§ A Mode of Acquisition
§ Limjoco v Estate of Fragante
§ Transmission of an Inheritance
PSC granted Certificate of Public
(Property, Rights and Obligations)
Convenience to intestate estate of Pedro
§ Butte v Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc.
Fragrante to operate ice plant. Oppositor
Jose Ramirez co-owned house and lot;
contends error to allow substitution of legal
died and gave one third of free portion to
representative of estate as part applicant.
Angela Butte. Co-owner of property sold
Court rules there would be a failure of justice
undivided share, Butte wants to redeem.
unless the estate is considered a person;
Entitled to redemption because by law,
quashing of proceedings would entail
rights to succession transmitted to heirs
prejudicial results to his investment.
from moment of death, and includes all
property rights and obligations.
Object of Succession
§ National Housing Authority v Almeida
§ Inheritance of decedent; includes properties,
Land awarded to Margarita Herrera;
transmissible rights and obligations
daughter Francisca executed Deed of
Self – Adjudication based on affidavit
Future Property and Future Inheritance
allegedly executed by Margarita
§ Future Property is anything which a person
bequeathing land to her. During trial to
does not own at present but which the
assail Deed, NHA granted application
person may acquire.
made by Francisca on the lots. NHA
§ Future Inheritance is the contingent
should have noted that original applicant
universality or complex of property, rights
Margarita already died; interest of
and obligations that are passed to the heirs.
Margarita should go to her estate.
It may not be the object of a contract.
§ Verdad v Court of Appeals
§ Requisites of Future Inheritance
Zosima Verdad purchased lot from
§ Succession not yet been opened
Macaria Atega’s son from first marriage;
§ Object of the contract forms part
Socorro is Macaria’s mother in law, her
of the inheritance
husband being from her second
§ Promissor has with respect to the
marriage. Socorro wants to redeem
object an expectancy of a right
property but not allowed due to low
purely hereditary in nature
price. Socorro can redeem; she is a legal
heir of her husband David, part of whose
estate is a share in his mother’s
inheritance, applying Art. 995.
 § Santos v Blas
Simeon Blas contracted first marriage
with Marta Cruz; later contracted second
marriage with Maxima Santos without
liquidating properties of the first
marriage. Issue is “Exhibit A” where
Maxima promises to give ½ of her share
to their properties to heirs and legatees
named in the will of her husband. Not
future inheritance, as it deals with
existing properties which she will receive
by law because it is her share in conjugal
assets. Estate ordered to deliver one half
because Maxima did not keep her
promise.
  and due to not being executed with
§ Concurring Opinion by JBL Reyes
Inheritance consists of totality of assets
and liabilities at time of demise; if the
questioned contract envisages all or a
fraction of that contingent mass, then it
is a contact over future inheritance.
§ Vda. de Cabalu v Tabu
9000 sq. meter lot in the name of
Faustina Maslum who died with no
children; holographic will, not probated,
assigned property to nephews and
nieces, one of which was Benjamin
Laxamana, father of Domingo. Domingo
executed Sale disposing of share of land
to Cabalu (1975); after, Deed of
Extrajudical Succession imparted the
9000 sq. meters to Domingo who sold
half to his nephew Tabamo and the other
half to Tabu (1994). 1975 sale not valid;
simulated, but even if not, cannot be
valid because Domingo was not yet
owner of the property. Could not dispose
because he was not the sole heir.
 
Definition of Terms
§ Decedent: Person whose property is
transmitted through succession, whether or
not he left a will
§ Testator: If he left a will, also called testator
§ Heir: Person called to the succession either
by will or operation of law
§ Legatee: Person called to the succession in
testator’s will who will receive movable
property
§ Devisee: Person called to the succession in
testator’s will who will receive immovable
property
Exclusions to the Inheritance
§ Subject of fideicommisary substitutions
§ Subject of reserve troncal
§ Subject matter of valid aleatory contracts
§ Macam v Gatmaitan
Deceased Macam and defendant
Gatmaitan purchased house (Macam’s),
Buick automobile (Gatmaitan’s) and
furniture; in consideration of “friendship”,
whoever dies first shall leave to survivor
the said properties excluding listed
furniture belonging to Macam. Plaintiff
contends that with respect to the house,
donation mortis causa in favor of Juana
formalities is invalid. However, act is not
donation but an aleatory contract (now
Art 2010 NCC); reciprocally assigned
property conditioned upon who dies first,
is binding upon the parties.
§ Rivera v People’s Bank
Validity of survivorship agreement
between Edgar Stephenson and
housekeeper Ana Rivera, where
Stephenson’s account was transferred to
a joint account between them. Bank
refused to pay due to doubtful validity.
Valid agreement; aleatory contract,
Rivera served master for 19 years without
compensation.
§ Vitug v Court of Appeals
Romarico Vitug filed motion asking for
authority from probate court to sell stock
and real properties belong to estate of
his wife to cover allegedly his advances to
the estate, which he claimed were
personal funds through a survivorship
agreement. Rowena Corona opposed on
ground that same funds withdrawn were
conjugal partnership properties and part
of the estate. Conveyance is not mortis
causa, which should be embodied in a
will; no showing funds belonged to one
party, presumed conjugal. Not donation
inter vivos because it was to take effect
after the death of one party.
Opening of Succession
§ The rights to succession are transmitted from
the death of the decedent.
§ Bonilla v Barcena
Fortunato instituted a civil action to quiet
title, but passed away; defendants filed
motion to dismiss based on her having
lost capacity to sue. Plaintiff’s children
asked for substitution but trial court
refused. The Court rules that while a
dead person cannot sue in court, he can
be substituted by his heirs in pursuing
the case. From the moment of the death
of the decedent, the heirs become
absolute owners of his property. When
Fortunato died, heirs acquired interest.
§ Salvador v Sta. Maria
Celestino Salvador sold lots to spouses
Salvador; later filed a suit for
reconveyance alleging sale was void for
lack of consideration. Later died intestate
and heirs substituted. Branch I rendered
judgment ordering reconveyance; three
years later, Branch II ordered one of the
lots sold to pay debtors. Hence action to
question Branch II’s power to dispose of
the lands involved. Heirs cannot
distribute properties among themselves
without the debts of the estate being first
satisfied. The right of heirs to specific
distributive shares of the inheritance does
not become fully determinable until all
the debts of the estate are paid. Until
then, rights cannot be enforced, are
inchoate and are subject to the existence
of a residue after payment of the debts.
§ Ramirez v Baltazar
Victoriana Eguaras executed real estate
mortgage over land; upon demise,
mortgagees filed petition for foreclosure
against administrator, who was also
Deputy Clerk of Court. Administrator was
duly served summons but failed to
answer, so sheriff sold the property. Heirs
filed a complaint averring that
administrator and mortgagees acted in
collusion to defraud them. As a general
rule, formal declaration or recognition to
successional rights needs judicial
declaration, but Court has under special
circumstances protected rights from
encroachments made or attempted
before declaration. Although heirs have
no legal standing upon commencement
of testate or intestate proceedings,
exception as when administrator fails or
refuses to act.
§ Puno v Puno Enterprises, Inc.
Carlos Puno was incorporator of Puno
Enterprises; Joselito as heir initiated
complaint for specific performance
averring he is son with common-law wife
and claiming entitlement to rights and
privileges as stockholder. Failed to prove
filiation. Moreover, upon death of a
shareholder, the heirs do not
automatically become stockholders of
the corporation. The stocks must be
distributed first to the heirs in estate
proceedings, and the transfer must be
recorded in the books of the corporation.
§ Reyes v RTC of Makati Branch 142
Case involves two supposed
heirs/children of Anastacia Reyes
claiming stocks from Zenith; relevant to
establish whether an intra-corporate
relationship exists for a derivative suit.
Rodrigo cannot be considered a
stockholder of Zenith, as he must prove
there are shareholdings that will be left
and must register the transfer
§ De Borja v vda. de Borja
Francisco (husband) and Jose (son) were
co-administrators of testate estate of
Josefa until Francisco’s death; Francisco
took second wife Tasiana who instituted
testate proceedings and was appointed
special administratix upon death of
Francisco. Jose and Tasiana executed
compromise agreement where latter
agreed to convey land, now being
attacked for not having first probating
will of Francisco. Agreement is valid. No
legal bar to a successor disposing of
hereditary share immediately after death,
even if the actual extent is not
determined until the subsequent
liquidation of the estate.
§ Lee v RTC of Quezon City Branch 85
Dr. Ortanez owned 90% of subscribed
capital stock of Phil. International Life
Insurance Company Inc. Wife and son
Jose claiming to own 1014 and 1011
shares sold them to FLAG. Appropriation
 and therefore the sale held invalid. An
heir can only alienate such portion of the
estate that may be allotted to him in the
division of the estate after final
adjudication. This means that an heir
may only sell his ideal or undivided share
in the estate.
§ Heirs of Sandejas v Lina
Lina sought to intervene in a Motion for
Reconstitution of records alleging
Sandejas as administrator bound to sell
parcels of land belonging to the estate of
the late Sandejas subject to procurement
of lower court approval. CA obligated
petitioner to sell the pro-indiviso share.
Contract was a conditional sale;
stipulation requiring court approval does
not affect validity of the effectivity of the
sale as regards the selling heirs.
§ Santos v Lumbao
Heirs of petitioners sold to Spouses
Lumbao subject property, part of her
share in estate of deceased mother.
Lumbao occupied but no title yet
because not yet partitioned; claims
petitioners acted fraudulently dividing
estate including the property already
sold. That heirs are bound by contracts
entered into by their predecessors-in-
interest applies; sale is valid but only with
respect to the aliquot share of the selling
co-owner.
Types of Succession
§ May be testamentary, legal or intestate, or
mixed.
§ Testamentary: That which results from
the designation of an heir, made in a will
executed in the form prescribed in the
law.
§ Intestate: That which results by law. Only
subsidiary to the estate, since intestacy
only takes place in absence of a valid will
§ Mixed: Partly by will and partly by
operation of law.
TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION
Characteristics of a W ill
§ Statutory right
§ Unilateral act
§ Formal act
§ Personal act
§ Effective mortis causa
§ Essentially ambulatory
§ Free act
Limitations on the Power to Control
Dispositions
§ Legitime
§ Reservable property
§ Mistress cannot inherit
§ Fideicomissary substitution: first and second
heirs must be related
§ Condition not to marry is void
§ Dispocicion Captatoria
§ Dispositions in favor of incapacitated persons
Necessity of Conveyance of Property
§ Seangio v Reyes
Respondent prayed to settle intestate estate
but petitioners opposed claiming Segundo
left a holographic will disinheriting one of the
respondents for cause. For disinheritance to
be valid, must be effected through a will; in
this case, it is a will because there is an act of
disposition, i.e. intent to dispose mortis cause
can be clearly deduced from the terms.
Non-Delegability of Testam entary
Discretion (Art. 784 – 787)
§ The making of a will is a strictly personal act;
it cannot be left in whole or in part to the
discretion of a third person, or accomplished
through the instrumentality of an agent or
attorney.
§ The duration or efficacy of the designation of
heirs, devisees or legatees, or the
determination of the portions which they are
to take, when referred to by name, cannot be
left to the discretion of a third person
§ The testator may entrust to a third person
the distribution of specific property or sums
of money that he may leave in general to
specified classes or causes, and also the
designation of the persons, institutions or
establishments to which such property or
sums of money are to be given or applied.
§ The testator may not make a testamentary
disposition in such manner that another
person has to determine whether or not it is
operative.
Defective Dispositions (Art. 789)
§ Latent and Patent Defects: Latent if apparent
from a reading of the will, patent if not
§ Remedial Measures: Efforts must be exerted
to determine true intention. Examine will in
its entirety and use other provisions. If the
will does not provide, use extrinsic evidence
Interpretation of Dispositions
(Art. 788, 790 - 792)
§ Interpretation by which the disposition is to
be operative shall be preferred.
§ Terms are to be taken in their ordinary and
grammatical sense, unless a clear intention
to use them in another sense can be
gathered.
§ Technical words are to be taken in their
technical sense, unless:
§ Context clearly indicates a contrary
intention, or
§ It satisfactorily appears that will was
drawn solely by the testator and that he
was unacquainted with such technical
sense.
§ De Roma v Court of Appeals
Candelaria had two legally adopted
daughters; Buhay was appointed
administratix and filed inventory.
Opposed by Rosalinda on grounds of
certain properties given to Buhay were
not included. Issue is whether lands
subject to collation; Buhay claims deed
prohibited collation. However, nothing in
deed of donation prohibits collation;
phrase “sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay
na di na mababawing muli” merely
described donation as irrevocable. Use of
such terms as “legitime” and “free
portion” indicates prepared by lawyer,
and would have included express
prohibition.
§ Interpretations that will give to every
expression some effect, rather than one
which will render any of the expressions
inoperative, are to be favored.
§ Of two modes of interpretation, that is to be
preferred is that which will prevent intestacy.
§ Dizon-Rivera v Dizon
Agripina Valdez died leaving seven
compulsory heirs; left last will in
Pampango, commanded that her
property be divided in accordance with
testamentary disposition. Oppositors
submitted own counter-project of
partition. Testator’s wishes and intention
constitute first and principal law in
matter of testaments; when expressed
clearly and precisely in his last will,
amount to the only law whose made
must be faithfully obeyed. Vda. de
Villaflor v Juico: Don Villaflor executed a
holographic will bequeathing one half of
properties to his brother and the other
half to his wife; Clauses 6 and 7 deemed
annulled from moment he bore any child
with his wife. Plaintiff institutes present
action against administration contending
that upon widow’s death, became vested
with ownership. Plain desire of testator
was to invest widow with only a usufruct.
Speculation as to the motives of the
testator should not be allowed to obscure
the clear and unambiguous meaning.
§ The invalidity of one of several dispositions
does not result in the invalidity of the other
dispositions, unless it is presumed that
testator would not have made such other
dispositions if the first disposition had not
been made.
§ Balanay, Jr. v Martinez
Felix Balanay filed petition for probate of
mother’s notarial will, where she
declared she was the owner of the
southern half of nine conjugal lots and
that properties should not be divided
among her heirs during her husband’s
lifetime; same will partitioned and
devised conjugal lands as if they were all
owned by her. Probate court erred in
declaring will was void; statement on
“southern half” was void because share
was inchoate, and provision that
properties of testatrix should not be
divided during lifetime is contrary to
Article 1980 of Civil Code. No right to
require legitime be paid in cash because
did not assign whole estate.
After – Acquired Properties
(Art. 781 – 793)
§ The inheritance of a person includes not only
the property and the transmissible rights and
obligations existing at the time of his death,
but also those which have accrued thereto
since the opening of the succession
§ Refers to the accruals to the inheritance
after succession has opened; belongs to
heirs by right of accession although liable
for payment of testator’s debts
§ Property acquired after the making of a will
shall only pass thereby, as if the testator had
possessed it at the time of making the will,
should it expressly appear by the will that
such was his intention
§ Permits testator to dispose future
property, as it allows testator to dispose
the property without having to execute a
new will or to amend the existing will
§ Every devisee or legacy shall convey all the
interest which the testator could devise or
bequeath in the property disposed of, unless
it clearly appears from the will that he
intended to convey a less interest
§ General Rule: A testamentary disposition
confers upon the beneficiary the totality
of the testator’s interest in the property
subject matter thereof. However, testator
may convey less
§ Explicit grant of a greater interest may be
construed as the testator’s directive that
the third party interest in the thing be
acquired so that it may be given in its
entirety
Governing Law
§ The validity of a will as to its form depends
upon the observance of the law in force at
the time it is made.
§ Formal validity of a will governed by the
law in effect at the time of execution
§ Substantive validity governed by law in
force at the time of the death of testator
§ As to place: form and solemnities of
contracts, wills and other public instruments
shall be governed by the law of the country in
which they are executed
§ National law of the decedent applicable with
respect to order of succession, amount of
successional rights, intrinsic validity of the
provisions of the will and the capacity to
succeed
Testamentary Capacity (Art. 796 – 803)
§ Capacity to Act: Power of a person to perform
an act with legal effect; not an element of
testamentary capacity
§ Elements of Testamentary Capacity
§ The testator is a natural person
§ The testator is at least 18 years of age at
time of execution
§ The testator must be of sound mind at
time of execution
§ The testator is not expressly prohibited
by law from making a will
Soundness of Mind
§ Elements
§ Should know nature of estate to be
disposed: Knowledge of composition of
his properties, transferable rights and
obligations
§ Should know proper object of bounty:
Appreciation of his personal relationships
§ Should be conscious of nature of
testamentary act: Awareness that by
making a will, he realizes that he makes
provisions for the distribution of his
estate, and that such distribution shall
take effect upon his demise
§ The law presumes that every person is of
sound mind, in the absence of proof to the
contrary.
§ The burden of proof that the testator was
not of sound mind at the time of making
his dispositions is on the person who
opposes the probate of the will
§ Presumption of sanity except:
§ One month or less before execution,
testator was publicly known to be
insane
§ Prior judicial declaration of the
testator’s insanity, unless such
declaration has been set aside
prior to execution of the will
§ Prior judicial appointment of a
guardian by reason of having been
found to be insane
Form of Wills same paper to identify such paper as will
executed.
(Art. 804 – 809) § Balonan v Abellana
If third person signs on behalf of the testator,
Requisites
testator’s name must be affixed thereto by
§ A will must be in writing.
some other person in his presence and by his
§ A will must be written in a language or
express direction.
dialect known to the testator.
§ The testator must sign at the end of the will.
Must Be Attested and Subscribed b y
§ The will must be attested and subscribed by
Three Credible W itnesses
three credible witnesses.
§ Icasiano v Icasiano
§ The testator and witness must sign in the
Failure of one witness to affix his signature to
presence of one another
one page of a testament, due to the
§ The testator and witnesses must sign on the
simultaneous lifting of two pages in the
left margin of each page
course of signing, is not per se sufficient to
§ Each page of the will must be numbered
justify a denial of probate.
correlatively
§ The will must contain an attestation clause
Must Sign on the Left Margin of Each
§ The will must be acknowledged before a
Page
notary public
§ Subscribing signature to identify each page;
purpose is to prevent the substitution of
Must Be in W riting
pages
§ To evidence compliance with formalities
prescribed
Each Page of the W ill Must Be
§ To serve as exclusive proof of its contents,
Numbered Correlatively
avoiding reliance on memory
§ The location of the page is not material for as
long as there is pagination
Must Be W ritten in a Language or
§ Lopez v Liboro
Dialect Known to the Testator
If the first page is not numbered, the
§ Suroza v Honrado
omission shall not necessarily invalidate the
Opening paragraph of the will stated English
will. Purpose of the law is to guard against
was a language understood and known to
fraud and to afford means of preventing
the testatrix; but concluding paragraph
substitution or of detecting loss of any of its
stated will was read and translated into
pages.
Filipino. Void because will must be executed
in language known to testator.
The W ill Must Contain an Attestation
§ Reyes v vda. de Vidal
Clause
Nothing in testimony of witnesses indicated
§ Requisites
testatrix knew and spoke the Spanish
§ Must contain the number of pages upon
language as used in preparing the will; but
which the will was written
enough evidence supplies the technical
§ That testator signed the will or caused
omission such as the letters written in
another to write his name
Spanish by the deceased and being a
§ That the testator and the witnesses
mestizo espanola married to a Spaniard.
signed the will in the presence of one
another
Must Sign at the End of the W ill
§ Tabaoda v Rosal
§ Taboada v Rosal
Failure of attestation clause to state the
No requirement for all three instrumental
number of pages used upon which the will
and attesting witnesses to sign at the end of
was written is not necessarily a fatal defect,
the will; attestation consists in witnessing
may yet be admitted to probate if the actual
testator’s execution of the will, subscription is
number of pages is readily discernible and
the signing of the witnesses’ names upon the
one need not adduce extrinsic evidence.
§ Samaniego-Celada v Abena
Error in attestation clause relating to number
of pages used is not necessarily a fatal error.
§ Lopez v Lopez
Substantial compliance for defects in the
form of the attestation clause may be
allowed, but the rule must be limited to
disregarding those defects that can be
supplied by an examination of the will itself.
§ Estate of Abada v Abaja
Failure to state the number of attesting
witnesses is not a fatal error. Substantial
compliance rule may apply.
§ Garcia v Lacuesta
Attestation clause that fails to state that the
testator’s name was written by a third person
may result in denial of probate.
§ Cagro v Cagro
Attesting signature of the witnesses must be
affixed at the bottom of the attestation
clause, If signed elsewhere, the attestation
and the will are void.
§ Vda. de Ramos v Court of Appeals
Two of the attesting witnesses in a last
testament testified against their due
execution, strengthened by photographic
evidence of the two only being there in the
act of signing but no picture of testatrix
signing the will. In the attestation clause,
witnesses attest to the signatures of testatrix
but also to the proper execution of the will;
by signing the will, the witness impliedly
certified to the truth the facts which admit to
probate. If subscribing witnesses testify
against due execution of the will, the will may
be allowed if the court is satisfied the will was
executed and attested in manner required by
law. Testimonies of the witnesses were
rejected.
The W ill Must Be Acknowledged Before
a Notary W ill
§ Acknowledgement is the act of one who has
executed a deed in going before some
competent officer and declaring it to be his
act or deed.
§ Garcia v Gatchalian
Gatchalian had no forced heirs; probate of
alleged will opposed because allegedly
procured by fraud. Document was
acknowledged before notary public but not
by instrumental witnesses. Compliance to
the effect that a will must be acknowledged
before a notary public by the testator and
also by the witnesses is indispensable for
validity.
§ Guerrero v Bihis
Will was opposed because acknowledged by
testatrix and witnesses at her residence in
Quezon City before Atty. Directo, who was a
commissioned notary public for and in
Caloocan City. Outside place of commission,
notary public is bereft of power to perform
any notarial act and is not a notary public.
§ Cruz v Villasor
Of three instrumental witnesses to the will,
one of them was at the same time the notary
public. Cannot be considered as third
instrumental witness since he cannot
acknowledge before himself his having
signed the will
Special Formalities
§ If the testator is deaf or a deaf mute:
§ He must personally read the will if able to
do so;
§ Otherwise, designate two persons to read
it and communicate to him, in some
practicable manner, the contents
§ If the testator is blind,
§ The will shall be read to him twice;
once by one of the subscribing witnesses,
and again by the notary public before
whom the will is acknowledged
§ Garcia v Vasquez
Opthalmologist testified that
testatrix by 1960 had cataract and
possible glaucoma; vision was only
counting fingers, not for reading
print. Deceased was hence not unlike
a blind testator. Requirements of Art
808 must be complied.
§ Alvarado v Gaviola
Alvarado, the testatrix, was then
suffering from glaucoma, did not
personally read the final draft and
instead private respondent (lawyer
but not notary public) read it aloud
once in his presence and with
witnesses. Alvarado was held to have
been blind, but Court held that spirit
behind the law was served given the
facts (substantial compliance)
Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation
§ In the absence of bad faith, forgery or fraud,
or undue and improper pressure and
influence, defects and imperfections in the
form of attestation or in the language used
therein shall not render the will invalid if it is
proved that the will was in fact executed and
attested in substantial compliance with all
the requirements of Article 805
§ Cannot be used to address
defects/imperfections in the body of the
will or the notarial acknowledgement.
Applies solely to form or language of the
attestation clause if proven that will was
in fact executed and attested in
substantial compliance with Art. 805
§ Bad faith, forgery, fraud, undue and
improper pressure and influence must be
ruled out
§ Cannot be invoked in a holographic will
because this will does not have an
attestation clause
§ Vda de Gil v Vda de Murciano
Attestation clause of the will lacks the phrase
“han sido firmadas por el testator” between
the words “del mismo” and “en nuestra
presencia” to be complete. Court agrees but
decided that it can and should correct the
error to effectuate the testator’s intention as
expressed in the will.
§ Caneda v Court of Appeals
Attestation clause failed to specifically state
that the instrumental witnesses saw the
testator sign the will in their presence and
that they also signed the will and all the
pages in the presence of the testator and of
one another. Will invalid because absence of
that statement required by law is a fatal
defect. Defects must be remedied by intrinsic
evidence, but here proof can only be supplied
by extrinsic evidence.
Form of Holographic Wills
(ART. 810 – 814)
Requisites (Art. 810)
§ Art. 810: A person may execute a holographic
will which must be entirely written, dated and
signed by the hand of the testator himself.
§ Subject to no other form
§ May be made in or out of the Philippines
§ Need not be witnessed
§ Consists of date, testamentary dispositions
and signature of testator, all of which should
be in handwriting of testator. Need not be a
complete date but should be sufficient as
reference
§ Labrador v Court of Appeals
Date located in first paragraph of second
page remains valid; the law does not
specify a particular location.
Probate of a Holographic Will (Art. 811)
§ Necessary that at least one witness who
knows the handwriting and signature of the
testator explicitly declare that the will and
the signature are in the handwriting of the
testator
§ If the will is contested, at least three such
witnesses are required
§ In the absence of any competent witness,
expert testimony may be resorted to
§ Azaola v Singson
Authenticity of will not contested; hence not
required to produce more than one witness,
but even if contested, three witnesses not
compulsory
§ Codoy v Calugay
Opposition alleges will was a forgery; six
witnesses presented but only two can testify
they were familiar. Article 811 ruled to be
mandatory since uses “shall”.
Disposition Rules for Holographic Wills
(Art. 812 – 814)
§ In holographic wills, the dispositions of the
testator written below his signature must be
dated and signed by him in order to make
them valid as testamentary dispositions.
§ Testator must affix his signature at the
end of the last testamentary disposition;
if an additional disposition is found after
the signature of the testator, not
considered unless entirely written, dated
and signed by testator
§ Compare with notarial will where any
additional disposition makes the entire
will void
§ When a number of dispositions appearing in
a holographic will are signed without being
dated, and the last disposition has a
signature and a date, such date validates the
dispositions preceding it
§ In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure
or alteration in a holographic will, testator
must authenticate the same by his signature
§ Kalaw v Relova
Will opposed alleging that the
holographic will contained alterations
without proper authentication by the full
signature of testatrix. Ordinarily, not
thereby invalidated as a whole but only
particular words altered; but entire will
voided in this case because only one
substantial provision altered by
substituting one heir with another.
§ Ajero v Court of Appeals
Will opposed because neither
testament’s body nor signature was in
decedent’s handwriting, contained
alterations and corrections not duly
signed. Holographic will can still be
admitted notwithstanding compliance
with Art. 813 and 814; if testator fails to
sign and date some of the dispositions,
dispositions cannot be effectuated but
failure does not render testament void.
Joint W ills (Art. 818)
§ Two or more persons cannot make a will
jointly, or in the same instrument, either for
their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a
third person
§ Distinctive feature is testamentary
dispositions of two or more testators
contained in a single instrument
§ Prohibited because of the opportunity they
create for one of the joint testators to
unduly influence the other
Witnesses to Wills
Qualifications (Art. 820)
§ Any person of sound mind
§ Of the age of 18 years or more
§ Not blind, dead or dumb
§ Able to read or write
Disqualifications (Art. 821)
§ Any person not domiciled in the Philippines
§ Convicted of falsification of a document,
perjury or false testimony
§ Cannot be the notary public who
acknowledged the will
Rules on W itnesses (Art. 822 – 824)
§ If the witnesses attesting the execution of a
will are competent at the time of attesting,
their becoming subsequently incompetent
shall not prevent allowance of the will.
§ Economic benefit given to a testator in his
notarial will to an attesting witness, his or her
spouse, his or her parents, his or her children
and/or anyone claiming under such witness,
spouse, parent or child is void
§ Note Art. 1027, holding the same parties
incapable of succeeding
§ While Art. 823 nullified the legacies and
devisees, Art. 1027 declares the recipient
thereof incapacitated to inherit
§ While nullity of Art. 823 is qualified by an
exception, Art. 1027 is absolute
§ Nullification of legacies and devises may
extend to compulsory heir; but many
commentators believe the same should
not and cannot extend to the legitime of
such compulsory heir but should be
limited to such dispositions in his favor
that may exceed the legitime
§ Law does not specifically define claimant
but reasonable to assume that claimant
is a creditor
§ A mere charge on the estate of the testator
for the payment of debts due at the time of
the testator's death does not prevent his
creditors from being competent witnesses to
his will.
Codicils and Incorporation by
Reference
Codicils (Art. 826)
§ A supplement or addition to a will, made
after its execution and annexed as a part
thereof, by which disposition made in the
original will is explained, added or altered
§ Theory of Dependent Relative
Revocation: Effectivity of revocation is
dependent on admission to probate of
subsequent revoking codicil
§ Not absolute necessary if antecedent will
is holographic
Incorporation by Reference (Art. 827)
§ Requisites
§ The document or paper referred to in the
will must be in existence at the time of
the execution of the will
§ The will must clearly describe and
identify the same, stating among other
things the number of pages thereof;
§ It must be identified by clear and
satisfactory proof as the document or
paper referred to therein; and
§ It must be signed by the testator and the
witnesses on each and every page, except
in case of voluminous books of account or
inventories.
§ Since holographic will need not be witnessed,
Art. 827 could not have intended to include
incorporation to a holographic will
§ If incorporated element is not in the
handwriting of the testator, Art. 810 is
breached causing nullity of the holographic
will.
Revocation (Art. 828 – 834)
Characteristics (Art. 828)
§ May be revoked by the testator at any time
before death; any waiver or restriction is void
§ Essentiality ambulatory; does not become
final until death provided the testator
possesses testamentary capacity at the time
of revocation
§ May be partial without necessarily revoking
the entire will
§ Personal act of the testator, but may cause
another person to write his name in the
revoking codicil provided it is done by express
direction, in his presence and in the presence
of three instrumental witnesses as provided
in Article 805
§ Delegation of authority does not apply if
the will is holographic
Conflict Rules on Revocation of W ills
Place of Revocation Applicable Law
Within Philippines Philippine law
Outside Philippines by a Domiciliary law of
non-domiciliary testator, or law of place
where the will was
executed
Outside Philippines by a Philippine law or law of
domiciliary place of revocation
Modes of Revocation (Art. 830)
§ By implication of law
§ By subsequent will or codicil
§ By burning, tearing, canceling or obliterating
the will with the intention of revoking it
Revocation by Im plication of Law
§ Mere occurrence of specified event gives rise
to automatic revocation
§ Example: Legal separation (Art. 63 FC)
Revocation by the Execution of Another
Will or Codicil
§ Requisites
§ Testator must possess testamentary
capacity at the time
§ Must be definite, either through a
revocatory clause (express) or
dispositions which are irreconcilably
inconsistent with those of the prior will
(implied)
§ Formally valid and admitted to probate
§ Formal validity of both revoked and revoking
will are essential
§ Dependent Relative Revocation: Instrument
intended to be a will, but failing of its effect
as such on account of some imperfection in
its structure or for want of due execution,
cannot be set up for the purpose of revoking
a former will
§ May be conditional
Revocation by Overt Act
§ May be described as deliberate destruction of
will which indicates the testator’s intention to
get rid of the same; hence non-exclusive
§ Requisites
§ Must possess testamentary capacity at
the time of revocation
§ Must be specified by the law, or otherwise
consistent with the notion of revoking
§ Must complete the subject phase of the
overt act; must reach a stage where in
the mind of the testator he has
completed the act
§ Must have animus revocandi, or the
intent to revoke the will
§ Must be executed by the testator
personally, or through a third person
under the express direction and in the
presence of the testator
Rules on Revocation
§ Does not require proof of revocation, nor is
proof of revocation required to be preserved
§ Where a will which cannot be found is shown
to have been in the possession of the testator
when last seen, the presumption is, in the
absence of other competent evidence, that
the testator canceled or destroyed the same
§ Subsequent wills which do not revoke the
previous ones in an express manner annul
only such dispositions in the prior wills as are
inconsistent with or contrary to those
contained in the later wills
§ Revocation made in a subsequent will shall
take effect even if the new will becomes
inoperative
§ Revocation based on false cause or an illegal
cause is null and void
§ Cause of the contract is liberality; “cause”
for revocation of will is the reason which
impels the testator to revoke a will
§ Revocation for false cause is vitiated by
mistake if the intervening event is false
§ Due to the parol evidence rule, revoking
will must contain the false cause for the
rule to apply
§ Recognition of an illegitimate child does not
lose legal effect even if the will wherein it was
made should be revoked
§ Recognition of an illegitimate child is not
in the nature of a property disposition
Republication and Revival of
Wills (Art. 835 – 837)
Revocation (Art. 835 – 836)
§ If will is void as to form: The testator cannot
republish, without reproducing in a
subsequent will, the dispositions contained in
a previous one which is void as to form
§ If will is formally valid but revoked: The
execution of a codicil referring to a previous
will has the effect of republishing the will as
modified by the codicil
Revival (Art. 837)
§ Requisites
§ First formally valid will
§ Second formally valid will irreconcilably
consistent with the first will
§ Because of inconsistencies, second will
implicitly revokes first will
§ Testator revoked the second will
Allowance and Disallowance of
Wills (Art. 838 – 839)
Nature and Necessity of Probate
§ Has two phases: probate proper and partition
of the estate
§ In probate proper, the court determines:
§ Testamentary capacity of the testator
§ Compliance with the formal requisites
§ That it is indeed the will of the testator
§ That the testator freely and voluntarily
executed the will
§ In the second phase, the probate court
examines intrinsic validity, including
evaluation of capacity
§ Necessary before a will can pass property
§ Rodriguez v Rodriguez
Dispute between stepmother and
children over alleged sale of inherited
property. Will and partition agreement
have no legal effect since the will has not
been probated
Jurisdiction of the Probate Court; Effect
of Judgment
§ Probate proceedings deal generally with
extrinsic validity; intrinsic validity is another
matter and questions regarding the same
may still be raised even after the will has
been authenticated
§ A probate court has no jurisdiction to rule
with finality on ownership; may provisionally
pass upon such questions, but without
prejudice to a separate action
§ General Rule: Scope of inquiry of a probate
court Is limited to testamentary capacity of
the testator and extrinsic validity of the will
§ Exception: Can pass upon matters of
intrinsic validity before passing upon
extrinsic validity if separate or later
proceedings would be superfluous
Types of Probate
§ Ante-Mortem: During the lifetime
§ Post-Mortem: Initiated after death
§ Reprobate: Reprobate of a will admitted in a
probate court in a foreign jurisdiction
Probate of a Lost Will
§ Possible though a difficult process: must
prove compliance with formalities and prove
contents
§ Lost Notarial Will: Quality of evidence to
prove formalities were observed must be of
such kind that leaves no doubt; contents ma
be proven by secondary evidence
§ Lost Holographic Will: Proof of due execution
totally dependent on testimonial evidence,
because primary evidence (handwriting) is
not available
§ Gan v Yap
Execution and contents may not be
proven by the bare testimony of
witnesses who have read/seen the will
§ Rodelas v Aranza
Photostatic copy of lost will may be used
as secondary evidence of existence
Grounds for Disallowance
§ Formalities required by law have not been
complied with
§ Insane or otherwise mentally incapable of
making a will at time of execution
§ Force or under duress, or influence of fear or
threats
§ Undue and improper pressure and influence
§ Signature procured by fraud
§ Acted by mistake or did not intend that the
instrument he signed should be his will at the
time of affixing signature
Mistake
§ Testator did not know that the instrument he
signed is a testament that will govern the
disposition of his estate
Force
§ Physical force is irresistible or of such degree
that the victim has no other recourse
§ The force is the determining cause in giving
consent
Intimidation
§ Reason for testator to execute the will
§ Threat is unjust or unlawful
§ Threat is real or serious, there being a
disproportion between the threatened evil
and the resistance
§ The intimidation produced a reasonable and
well-grounded fear on the testator
Undue Influence
§ Form of moral coercion
§ Any means employed upon a person which
under the circumstances he could not resist
and which controlled his volition
Fraud
§ Employed by a party upon a counter-party
§ It is serious
§ Induced the other to give consent
§ Resulted in damage or injury
Jurisprudence on the Vices of Consent
§ In order to invalidate a will, the vice of
consent must be proven
§ Pascual v de la Cruz
That the testatrix lived with the heir does not
per se indicate that the latter had unduly
influenced the former in making the will
§ Ozaeta v Cuartero
The allegation that a testator was unduly
influenced by the person with whom he
temporarily lived is negated by the fact that
the testator did not revoke the will when he
stepped out of the house of the influencer
§ Coso v Fernandez – Deza
The oppositor has the burden of proving
undue influence. The testator’s strong
affection for a particular person does not
prove that the latter had exerted undue
influence on the former
Institution of Heirs
(Art. 840 – 856)
Concept of Institution (Art. 840)
§ An act by virtue of which a testator
designates in his will the person/s to succeed
him in his property, transmissible rights and
obligations
§ Inaccurate as legatees/devises not heirs due
to receiving specific property vs fractional
Requisites for Institution First Approach Example
§ Will must be extrinsically valid § Facts:
§ Must be compliant with relevant provisions of § Net hereditary estate of Php 90,000
substantive law, i.e. no preterition, must not § Sons A and B, and nephew C as heirs;
impair legitime, etc. § Procedure:
§ Free from vices of consent § Segregate legitime of A and B
§ Must personally institute the heir (1/2: Php 45,000)
§ Instituted heir must be clearly identified § Divide equally between A and B
(Php 22,500 each)
Rules on Institution (Art. 841 – 842) § Balance is 45,000; distribute between A,
§ Will shall be valid even though it should not B and C giving each 1/3 or Php 15,000
contain an institution of an heir, or such
institution should not comprise the entire Heir Legitime Institution Total
estate, and even though the person so A 22, 500 15,000 37,500
instituted should not accept the inheritance B 22,500 15,000 37,500
or incapacitated to succeed C 0 15,000 15,000
§ Testator without compulsory heirs may 90,000
dispose by will of all or part of his estate in
favor of any person having capacity to Second Approach Example
succeed § Facts (Same as in First Approach):
§ Testator with compulsory heirs may dispose § Net hereditary estate of Php 90,000
of estate provided he does not contravene § Sons A and B, and nephew C as heirs;
provisions of the Code with regard to legitime § Procedure:
§ Distribute net hereditary estate in
Identification of Heir (Art. 843 – 845) accordance with institutions, giving each
§ If two or more instituted heirs have the same 1/3 or Php 30,000
name and surname, the testator should § In this case, no adjustment
indicate some circumstance by which the true
heir can be identified Second Approach with Adjustment
§ If despite the circumstances, intent of Example
testator may be determined; otherwise, § Facts:
disposition is void unless identity § Net hereditary estate of Php 90,000
becomes certain § Son A, and nephews B and C in equal
§ Identification of heir is not absolutely shares as heirs
necessary if the testator describes the heir in § Dividing equally into 1/3 or Php 30,000
such manner that there is no confusion as to will impair A’s legitime of Php 45,000 as
the identity of the heir the testator’s son; deficit of Php 15,000
§ Error in name or circumstances of heir does § Procedure:
not vitiate institution if possible to know with § Complete A’s legitime, sourced from
certainty the heir shares of the voluntary heirs
§ Disposition in favor of unknown person is
Original
void unless identity becomes certain Heir Adjustment Total
Institution
§ Disposition in favor of a definite class or A 30,000 15,000 45,000
group of persons is valid B 30,000 (7,500) 22,500
C 30,000 (7,500) 22,500
Equality of Shares (Art. 846) 90,000
§ Heirs instituted without designation of shares
shall inherit in equal parts § Second approach is preferred to preserve Art
§ Assumption is heirs are of the same class, i.e. 854 on preterition and Art 906 on
all voluntary or all compulsory completion of legitime
§ Necessary to ascertain that shares at least
equal to legitime
Collective and Individual Institution § Total is only 660,000. Hence,
(Art. 847 -849) undisposed balance of Php 60,000
§ “I designate as my heirs A and B and the
children of C” – Those collectively designated § Adjustment Formula:
considered as individually instituted unless it § (A x B) / C
clearly appears the intention was otherwise § A = Net hereditary estate
§ If testator institutes siblings, some of full § B = Aliquot part assigned
blood and others of half blood, inheritance § C = Total amount distributed
distributed equally unless a different
intention appears Adjusted
Heir A B C
§ When the testator calls to the succession a Share
person and his children, they are deemed X 720,000 180,000 660,000 196,364
instituted simultaneously, not successively Y 720,000 240,000 660,000 261,818
Z 720,000 240,000 660,000 261,818
720,000
Institution Based on a False Cause
(Art. 850)
All Compulsory Heirs Example
§ Statement of false cause considered not
§ Facts:
written unless it appears would not have
§ Net hereditary estate is Php 720,000
made such institution if he had known the
§ Sons X, Y and Z as sole heirs
falsity of the cause
§ X has 1/2, Y has 1/4 and Z has 1/6 share
§ Cause must be understood in colloquial
§ Undisposed balance of Php 60,000
sense, i.e. incidental reason
given legitime and second approach
§ Requisites
§ Must expressly state the incidental cause Free
§ Cause must shown to be false Heir Legitime Total
Portion
§ Must appear on the face of the will that A 120,000 240,000 360,000
the testator would not have made such B 120,000 60,000 180,000
institution if he had known the falsity C 120,000 0 120,000
§ Austria v Reyes Total 660,000
§ Nephews and nieces vs allegedly Balance 60,000
adopted; no evidence testator would not
have instituted latter had she known she § Adjustment Formula (Free Portion):
was not bound to leave them inheritance § (A x B) / C
§ A = Total disposable free portion
Adjustment of Shares (Art. 851 – 853) § B = Original share in disposable free
§ If all parts/shares of the instituted heirs do portion pursuant to institution
not cover the whole inheritance, legal § C = Total amount of disposable free
succession takes place with the remainder of portion distributed pursuant to
the estate institution
§ If the intention of testator is for instituted
heirs to be sole heirs and the parts do not Adjusted
Heir A B C
cover the whole inheritance, each part shall Share
be increased proportionately X 360,000 240,000 300,000 288,000
§ If parts exceed the whole, each part shall be Y 360,000 60,000 300,000 72,000
reduced proportionately Total 360,000

Heir Legitime Adjusted Total

All Voluntary Heirs Example
X 120,000 288,000 408,000
§ Facts: Y 120,000 72,000 192,000
§ Net hereditary estate of Php 720,000 Z 120,000 120,000
§ Brothers X, Y and Z as sole heirs Total 720,000
§ X has 1/4 share, Y has 1/3, Z has 1/3
Compulsory + Voluntary Heirs Example § Add 30,000 taken from A and B to
§ Facts: add to D’s legitime
§ Net hereditary estate of Php 300,000 § After completion of legitime,
§ Sons A and B, brothers C and D as heirs combined shares of A and B of Php
§ A and B collectively have 3/4 share; C 195,000 still exceeds actual
and D collectively have 1/8 share disposable free portion of 15,000;
apply second reduction
Free
Heir Legitime Total
Portion After First
A 75,000 37,500 112,500 Reduction
B 75,000 37,500 112,500 A 39,000 15,000 195,000 3,000
C 18,750 18,750 B 156,000 15,000 195,000 12,000
D 18,750 18,750
Total 262,500 § Final distribution of estate:
Balance 37,500 § A – 36,000
§ B – 144,000
Adjusted § C – 90,000
Heir A B C
Share § D – 90,000
A 150,000 37,500 112,500 50,000
B 150,000 37,500 112,500 50,000
Preterition (Art. 854)
C 150,000 18,750 112,500 25,000
§ Omission of compulsory heir(s) in the direct
D 150,000 18,750 112,500 25,000
Total 150,000
line, whether living at the time of the
execution of the will or born after the death
Heir Legitime Adjusted Total of the testator
A 75,000 50,000 125,000 § Effect: Annuls the institution of heirs, but
B 75,000 50,000 125,000 devisees and legacies shall be valid in so
C 25,000 25,000 far as not inofficious
D 25,000 25,000 § In contrast to when heir is given less than
Total 300,000 legitime (remedy is completion) or when
deprived through donations (collation)
Compulsory + Voluntary Heirs: Reduction § Requisites
§ Facts: § Heir omitted is a forced heir in the direct
§ Net hereditary estate of Php 360,000 line
§ Brothers A and B; sons C and D § Omission is by mistake or oversight
§ A has 1/8, B 1/2, C 1/4 and D 1/6; hence: § Omission is complete so that the forced
§ A – 45,000 heir received nothing in the will
§ B – 180,000 • Total omission means receiving nothing from
§ C – 90,000 testator by donations inter vivos, received
§ D – 60,000 nothing by will and will receive nothing by
§ Total – 375, 000 intestate succession
§ Procedure: • Even if a compulsory heir is omitted in
§ Correct impairment of D’s legitime by the will, cannot claim preterition if there
30,000 by reducing shares of A and B in remains a free portion
disposable free portion by 30,000; use • Omitted heir must be a compulsory heir in
aggregate disposition of A and B the direct line
(225,000) as basis § Acain v IAC
§ No preterition of a surviving spouse
even if she is omitted; but a legally
A 45,000 30,000 225,000 6,000 adopted child can be preterited
B 180,000 30,000 225,000 24,000 § Omitted compulsory heir must survive the
Total 30,000 testator; but descendants may exercise right
of representation
Effects of Preterition
§ Annulment of institution of heirs resulting in
total intestacy, though without prejudice to a
legacy. However, legacy may be reduced
§ However, share of omitted heir may be taken
from part of estate not disposed by will, if
any; and if not sufficient, shares of other heirs
may be reduced proportionally (Art. 855)
Recovery from Undisposed Portion of the
Estate Example
§ Facts:
§ Legitimate children A, B, C and D
§ A received 1/3, B 1/3 and C 1/6
§ D was omitted
§ Net hereditary estate: Php 90,000

Annulment of Institution Example A 1/3 30,000

§ Facts: B 1/3 30,000
§ Two of three legitimate sons (A, B) as C 1/6 15,000
sole heirs, after legacy to X D 30,000
§ C was omitted Total 75,000
§ Net hereditary estate: Php 180,000 Balance 15,000
§ Value of Legacy: Php 30,000
§ In this case, no reduction needed because
Intestacy Legacy Total legitime of each child is only Php 11, 250 per
A 50,000 50,000 child
B 50,000 50,000 § Php 90,000/2 = Php 45,000
C 50,000 50,000 § Php 45,000/4 =Php 11,250
X 30,000 30,000
Total 150,000 30,000 180,000
Recovery from Undisposed Portion of the
Estate with Reduction of Legacies
Annulment of Institution with Reduction (1 st Approach)
of Legacies Example § Facts:
§ Facts: § Legitimate children A, B, C and D
§ Two of three legitimate sons (A, B) as § Php 50,000 legacy to A and Php 40,000
sole heir, after legacy to X and Y, worth each to B and C
more than disposable free portion § Net hereditary estate is Php 140,000;
§ C was omitted undistributed balance of Php 10,000
§ Net hereditary estate: Php 210,000 § D omitted, but balance insufficient for
§ Legacy to X: Php 80,000 legitime
§ Legacy to Y: Php 40,000 § Php 140,000/2 = Php 70,000
§ Procedure: § Php 70,000/4 = Php 17,500
§ Reduce the legacies of X and Y pro-rata
Total Charged to Charged to
Legacy DFP Total Legacy Total Legacy Legitime DFP
X 80,000 105,000 120,000 70,000 A 50,000 17,500 32,500
Y 40,000 105,000 120,000 35,000 B 40,000 17,500 22,500
C 40,000 17,500 22,500
§ Distribute estate after reductions
Total
Reduced Legacy
Intestacy Total Excess Legacy
Legacies Charge Reduction
Legacy Charged
A 35,000 35,000 to DFP
to DFP
B 35,000 35,000 A 32,500 7,500 77,500 3,145.16
C 35,000 35,000 B 22,500 7,500 77,500 2,177,42
X 70,000 70,000 C 22,500 7,500 77,500 2,177.42
Y 35,000 35,000
Total 105,000 105,000 210,000
§ Final Distribution Substitution of Heirs
Recovery Reduction (Art. 857 – 870)
Legacy of of Net Share
Legitime Legacies Concept and Definition (Art. 857)
A 50,000 (3,145.16) 46,854.84 § The appointment of another heir so that he
B 40,000 (2,177.42) 37,822.58 may enter into the inheritance in default of
C 40,000 (2,177.42) 37,822.58 the heir originally instituted
D 0 17,500 17,500 § Substitution takes place when the right
of the first heir to the inheritance expires
Recovery from Undisposed Portion of the § Grounds:
Estate with Reduction of Legacies § Repudiation
(2nd Approach) § Incapacity
§ Give D the balance of Php 10,000 § Predecease
representing the undisposed portion of the § Substitution can never burden the legitime;
hereditary estate vacancies in the legitime cannot be
§ Complete the legitime of D by reducing the substituted
legacies of A, B and C with respect only to the § Subject to same charges and conditions
portions of the legacies in excess of legitime upon instituted heir, except if provided to the
§ A = Php 32,500 contrary or personally applicable only to the
§ B = Php 22,500 heir instituted
§ C = Php 22,500
§ Reduce legitimes of A, B and C Types of Substitution (Art. 858 – 863)
§ Simple: Substitute takes the place of the
Legacy to
Total Net instituted heir who defaults
DFP be
Legacies Legacies § Brief: Two or more substitutes for one
Reduced
A 70,000 32,500 77,500 29,354.84 instituted heir
B 70,000 32,500 77,500 20,322.58 § Compendious: One substitute is appointed
C 70,000 32,500 77,500 20,322.58 for two or more instituted heirs
§ Reciprocal: Two or more heirs are substituted
Reduced and each of them is a substitute for others
Legitime Net Share
Legacies § Fideicommisary: First heir is entrusted with
A 17,500 29,354.84 46,854.84 obligation to preserve and transmit to a
B 17,500 20,322.58 37,822.58 second heir the inheritance
C 17,500 20,322.58 37,822.58
D 17,500 17,500 Reciprocal Substitution (Art. 861)
§ If heirs instituted in unequal shares are
Representation in Testam entary reciprocally substituted, the substitute shall
Succession (Art. 856) acquire the share unless testator clearly
§ A voluntary heir who dies before the testator intends otherwise
transmit nothing to his heirs § If there is more than one substitute, same
§ The share of a predeceased or share in substitution as in institution
incapacitated voluntary heir may pass by § What if there remains an undistributed
substitution, if provided, or by accretion, if balance? Ambiguous whether to divide
appropriate, and finally by intestate equally among substitutes or uses as
succession basis the proportion for institution
§ A compulsory heir who predeceased or is
incapacitated to inherit may be represented
by his own heirs, subject to limitations
§ Available only in the descending line
§ Limited to the legitime
§ Representatives must not be barred to
inherit, disqualified/incapacitated
Reciprocal Substitution Example § The substitution must be made in an
§ Facts: express manner by naming the
§ Net hereditary estate of Php 210,000 substitution as fideicommisary; or in the
§ A receives 2/7, B 2/7, C 3/7 alternative, the testator must explicitly
§ A is substitute for B and C, B and C are impose upon the fiduciary the duty to
substitutes for A preserve the inheritance and to transmit
§ A predeceased the testator but survived the same to the fideicommisary
by a legitimate son X
Rules on Fideicom m isary Substitution
§ Procedure: § A fideicommisary substitution can never
§ A’s legitime passes by right of burden the legitime
representation to legitimate son X § The nullity of the fideicommisary substitution
§ Balance corresponding to free portion is does not prejudice validity of institution of
burdened by the substitution heirs first designated
§ The fideicommisary clause is simply
Total Charged to Charged to considered not written
Legacy Legitime DFP § Second heir acquires a right to the succession
A 60,000 35,000 25,000 from the time of testator’s death, even
B 60,000 35,000 25,000 though he should die before the fiduciary
C 90,000 35,000 55,000 § The right of the second heir shall pass to
his heirs
§ (A x B)/C § Void as Circumventions of Limits on
§ A = Substitute’s share of free portion Fideicommisary Substitution
§ B = Vacant portion § Substitution not explicitly denominated
§ C = Combined shares of substitutes as fideicommisary
§ Substitution that does not impose a
Share
of Free
Charged Total Share by positive obligation to preserve and
to DFP Substitution transmit property to a second heir
Portion
B 25,000 25,000 80,000 7,812.50 § Perpetual prohibition against alienation
C 55,000 25,000 80,000 17,187.50 of property, to ensure same property
passes to a specific person(s) upon death
Fideicom m isary Substitution of the instituted heir
§ First heir is entrusted with obligation to § Obligation imposed on an instituted heir
preserve and transmit to a second heir the to pay sums of money to various persons
inheritance successively, although first payment may
§ Essentially a case of limited successive be valid
institutions, successive institutions meaning § Substitution that leaves some hereditary
that control of testator over inheritance will property to be applied or invested
not cease despite transfer of ownership according to secret instructions
§ Fiduciary neither a mere usufructuary nor a § A provision where the testator gives the
trustee of the property usufruct to various successively is subject to
§ Requisites the rules on fideicommisary substitutions
§ Testator institutes a first heir or § A provision where the testator leaves to a
bequeaths to a legatee or devisee a person the inheritance and to another the
specific property usufruct is valid
§ Imposes upon the duty to preserve the
inheritance and to transmit the same in Prohibited Dispositions (Art. 870)
whole or in part to the second heir § The dispositions of the testator declaring
§ Must not go beyond one degree apart, as estate inalienable for more than twenty years
pertains to blood relationship is void
§ Fiduciary and fideicomissary both alive at § Rodriguez v CA
time of death of testator Clause void with respect to after the period
Conditional Testamentary § Condition that imposes marriage to a specific
person or to anyone in general is valid
Dispositions (Art. 871 – 885) § Testamentary gifts while remaining single or
in a state of widowhood is valid, as an
Conditional Institutions
institution subject to a resolutory condition
§ May be suspensive, or dependent on
happening of future and uncertain event
Dispocicion Captatoria
§ May be resolutory, or terminated upon a
§ Disposition upon the condition that the heir
future and uncertain event
shall make some provision in his will in favor
§ Requisites
of the testator or of any other person
§ Must be expressly stated in the will
§ Void in its entirety; not just condition
§ Must be clear and understandable; but
§ However, a separate agreement that the heir
rules of interpretation may be resorted to
will make some provision in his will in favor of
§ Cannot be imposed on legitimes; otherwise,
the testator or nominee is not a dispocicion
considered as not imposed
captatoria as it is not conditioned upon the
§ Generally, nullity of condition does not
testator making a testamentary disposition
include nullity of the institution
§ Compare to term, a future and certain event.
Purely Potestative Conditions
A suspensive term does not prevent the heirs
(Art. 876, 879)
from acquiring rights and transmitting to
§ Potestative: Purely dependent upon the will
heirs even before arrival of the term. Merely
of the heir, legatee or devisee
defers the demandability of the inheritance
§ If Positive: Must be fulfilled by the heir as
soon as he learns of the testator’s death
Impossible Conditions
§ Except if the condition, already complied
§ Considered as not imposed, along with those
with, cannot be fulfilled again
contrary to law or good customs
§ Condition must be potestative, positive
§ In no manner prejudices the heir
and suspensive for the rule to apply
§ Need not be universally impossible and may
§ Must be fulfilled after succession has
include conditions impossible particular to
opened; fulfillment during lifetime is not
the beneficiary
considered compliance
§ Deemed not imposed as a punishment to
§ If Negative: Must comply by giving a security
testator who makes a mockery of the
and that in case of contravention will return
testamentary act
what was received with fruits and interests
§ Must be reckoned at the time of the
§ The breach results in extinguished title
execution of the will, as at that time of the
§ Security (caucion muciana) may be any
execution the condition may well be possible
type but must name either substitute heir
and the condition was imposed in good faith
or intestate heirs as assured parties
§ If unable to post security, property will be
Conditions Related to Marriage
put under administration during lifetime
§ Conditions prohibiting marriage are generally
or until it becomes clear that the
considered void for violating right to choose
condition can no longer be breached
status and encouraging immorality
§ Exception is if imposed on the living spouse,
Casual or Mixed Conditions
or by the latter’s ascendants or descendants;
(Art. 877, 880, 881, 885)
no distinction between common or legitimate
§ Casual: Dependent upon chance, luck and/or
children of deceased spouse
upon the will of a third person
§ However, condition cannot be imposed on
§ Mixed: Partly dependent on will and on luck
the legitime of the surviving spouse
§ Deemed as complied with if it happens or Is
§ Relative prohibition to marry, i.e. from
fulfilled at any time before or after death of
marrying foreigners, is generally valid
the testator
because not a total deprivation
§ If Fulfilled at the Will was Executed: Deemed § Posting of security a condition to the modal
complied with if testator was unaware, must heir entering into the inheritance, although
be complied with again or must no longer be not necessary for transmission of the
able to be fulfilled if testator was aware property
§ The appropriate solution if the modal heir
Property Placed Under Adm inistration fails to deliver the security is to put the
§ Grounds: property under administration
§ If the condition is both negative and
potestative and security is unable to be
posted
§ If the disposition is subject to a
suspensive condition
§ If the heir fails to deliver the security
required under a modal institution
§ Dispositions may take effect only from a
certain day (ex die) or only up to a certain day
(in diem)
§ Appointment of substitute or interim heir to
address the vacuum in inheritance left by
institutions ex die or in diem, partaking of the
nature of a fideicommisary substitution
§ Legal heirs are called to the succession;
in the interim, acquire title to the
property subject to the resolutory term of
when the term arrives
§ But if ex die, legal heirs cannot enter into
possession of property until after giving
security. Intestate heirs nearest in degree
take over

Modal Institutions (Art. 882 – 883)

§ Testator specifically states:
§ The object of the institution; or
§ The application of the property; or
§ The charge on the recipient
§ Obliges the heir, devisee or legatee to comply
but does not actually defer or suspend the
efficacy of the institution
§ Not considered as a condition unless it
appears that such was the intention
§ May be claimed provided security for
compliance and for the return of
anything he received if the obligation is
disregarded
§ Breach results in the forfeiture of the gift
§ Must be premised on a categorical directive
expressed by the director
§ If doubt on whether modal or
institutional, considered modal
§ If doubt on whether mode or suggestion,
considered mere suggestion