CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION

Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

DONATION

1|Page
 CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

1. Ganuelas v. Hon. Cawed, G.R. No. 123968, 24 April 2003

 Donations inter vivos differs from donation mortis causa in that in the former,
the act is immediately operative even if the actual execution may be deferred
until the death of the donor, while in the latter, nothing is conveyed to or
acquired by the donee until the death of the donor-testator.
 The distinction between a transfer inter vivos and mortis causa is important as
the validity or revocation of the donation depends upon its nature. If the
donation is inter vivos, it must be executed and accepted with the formalities
prescribed by Articles 748 and 749 of the Civil Code, except when it is
onerous in which case the rules on contracts will apply. If it is mortis causa,
the donation must be in the form of a will, with all the formalities for the
validity of wills, otherwise it is void and cannot transfer ownership.

2. Pacio v. Billon, G.R. No. L-15088, 31 January 1961

 Pursuant to Art. 83 of the Family Code, in relation to Art. 749 & 1403 of the
NCC, Donations propter nuptias (by reason of marriage) of real property
must be made in a public instrument specifying therein the property donated
and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.

2|Page
CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

PRINCIPLES OF
SUCCESSION

3|Page
 CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

3. Reganon v. Imperial, G.R. No. L-24434, 17 January 1968

 The interest of the heir in the estate of a decedent may be subject for
attachment for the purpose of execution of a court judgment, notwithstanding
the pendency of the estate settlement proceedings before the courts.
 Where a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate is executed by and among
the heirs, the estate of the decedent has been practically settled, and the shares
granted to the heir may now be subject to attachment.
 Purely personal rights of the decedent (i.e., pensions, annuity, or gratuity
granted by the government to its officers or employees in connection to past
services rendered, primordially aimed at tiding them over during their old age
and/or disability) may be the subject for attachment, provided those rights
have been judicially or extrajudicially settled.

4. Bonilla v. Barcena, G.R. No. L-41715, 18 June 1976

 The moment of death is the determining factor when the heirs acquire a
definite right to the inheritance whether such right is pure or contingent. The
right of the heirs to the property of the decedent vests in them even before any
judicial declaration of heirship in the testate and intestate proceedings.
 A person’s death does not extinguish his/ her claim or right to a property in
litigation, but only transmitted to his/ her heirs upon her death.
 Where the decedent, during his lifetime, filed an action before the court, his
death during the pendency of the proceedings shall NOT necessarily divest
the court of its jurisdiction. The decedent shall be substituted by his heirs in
pursuing the action until completion.

5. Litonjua v. Montilla, G.R. No. L-4170, 31 January 1952

 The creditors of the heirs of the decedent is entitled to collect his claim out of
the property which pertains to the inheritance of said heirs, only after all debts
of the testate or intestate succession have been paid and when the net assets
are divisible among the known heirs. In other words, the debts of the decedent
must first be paid before his heirs can inherit.

4|Page
 CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

6. Reyes v. Barretto-Datu, G.R. No. L-17818, 25 January 1967

 Article 1081 of the New Civil Code does not speak of children, or
descendants, but of heirs, without distinction between compulsory, voluntary,
or intestate ones.
 The fact that an heir is not a son/ daughter of the testator does not preclude
him/ her being one of the heirs expressly named in the Last Will and
Testament.

7. Parish Priest of Victoria, Tarlac v. Rigor, et. al.,

G.R. No. L-22036, 30 April 1979
 In testamentary succession, the will of the testator is the first and principal
law. When his intention is clearly and precisely expressed, any interpretation
must be in accord when it may certainly appear that his intention was
different from that literally expressed. In other words, the testator’s intention
is to be ascertained from the words of the will, taking into consideration the
circumstances surrounding his intention.

8. Reyes v. Court of Appeals & Dimagiba,

G.R. Nos. L-5618 & L-5620, 31 July 1954
 General Rule: Pursuant to Art. 777 of the NCC, the heirs cannot validly claim
ownership over properties that were alienated by the testator during his
lifetime, except
 Exception: When alienation is declared void (i.e., Simulation of Contract).

9. Celada v. Abena, G.R. No. 145545, 30 June 2008

 Physical weakness of the testator at the time the will was made should not be
construed as mental incapacity; Hence, the presumption of mental capacity
under Art. 800 of the NCC stands.
 Applying the “doctrine of liberal interpretation” under Art. 809, an error in
the number of pages of the will, as stated in the attestation clause, is not a
ground to invalidate a will, such as where the error must have been brought
about by the honest belief that the will is the whole instrument consisting of
(i.e., three pages) inclusive of the attestation clause and the acknowledgment.
 No pressure or undue influence is present where the evidence shows that the
testator “was in a good mood and smiling with the other witnesses while
executing the subject will”.

10. De Enriquez v. Abadia,

G.R. No. L-7188, 09 August 1954, 50 O.G. 4185
 Pursuant to Art. 795 of the NCC, a holographic will executed during the
effectivity of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act. 190), which prohibits

5|Page
 CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

holographic wills, cannot be validated by the new civil code provisions on

succession.

11. Uson v. Del Rosario, et. al., G.R. No. L-4693, 29 January, 1953
 Where the decedent dies prior to the effectivity of the NCC, the rights of
illegitimate children to the succession under new code shall not prejudice the
rights of heirs to the succession vested to them under the (Old) Civil Code.

12. Fluemer v. Hix, G.R. No. L-32636, 17 March 1930

 Special administrators of estate are authorized to appeal before an appellate
court from the disallowance of a will.
 The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in Philippine
courts for such laws must be proven as facts.
 Consequently, where the foreign will fails to observe the formalities provided
under the laws of the country where it was made (i.e., publication and
attestation under the laws of West Virginia), the will cannot be probated in the
Philippines.

13. Dela Cerna v. Potot, G.R. No. L-20234, 23 December 1964

 While it is true that the NCC prohibits the making of joint wills, a final decree
of probate of the joint will becomes conclusive and binding upon the whole
world.
 The validity of the joint will, insofar as the estate of the co-testatrix was
concerned, must be, upon her death, reexamined and adjudicated from the
beginning, since a joint will is considered a separate will of each testator.
 Thus, the courts shall not subsequently probate a joint will as to the
participation of the co-testatrix in the properties in question; and that the
latter’s undivided interest should pass upon her death to heir heirs intestate,
and not exclusively to the testamentary heir.

6|Page
 CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

14. In Re: Estate of Amos Belis, G.R. No. L-23678, 6 June 1967
 In testamentary and intestate successions, Art. 16 (2), in relation to Art. 1039
of the NCC, renders application of the national law of the decedent with
regard to the following:
1. The order of succession;
2. The amount of successional rights;
3. The intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and
4. The capacity to succeed.
 Consequently, where a will was executed by a foreigner in the Philippines and
the laws of the country of the foreigner do not recognize compulsory heirs
and their legitimes, such will remains valid in the Philippines
notwithstanding.

15. Nazareno, et. al. v. Court of Appeals & Estate of Nazareno

G.R. No. 138842, 18 October 2000
 Where the property of the decedent, during his lifetime, was held in trust to
his descendant pursuant to Art. 1449 of the NCC, such property shall be made
subject of collation under Art. 1061 of the same code, without prejudice of the
rights of an innocent purchaser for value.
16. De Borja v. De Borja, G.R. No. L-28040, 18 August 1972
 As the hereditary share in the decedent’s estate is transmitted or vested
immediately from the moment of his death, there is no legal bar for the
successor, with requisite contracting capacity, in disposing his or her
hereditary share immediately after such death, even if the actual extent of
such share is not determined until the subsequent liquidation of the estate.

17. Ramirez v. Baltazar, G.R. No. L-25049, 30 August 1968

 While, as a rule, the formal declaration or recognition to the successional
rights requires judicial confirmation, the Court admits special exceptions as
where:
1. The administrator fails refuses to act in which event the heirs may act
in his place (Pascual v. Pascual); and
2. The names of the heirs were alleged in the petition for intestate
proceedings as the heirs of the decedent, thereby estopping the
petitioner from questioning the legal standing of the heirs.

7|Page
 CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

18. Julita Go Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-75884, 24 September 1987
 Where the wife, as administratrix of the estate of the decedent husband,
executed a mortgage agreement over the husband’s properties, The Court
ruled that the mortgage was constituted in her personal capacity and not as
administratrix of the estate; Therefore, the requirement of judicial approval
under the Rules of Court does not apply.

19. Lee, et. al. v. Quezon City RTC Branch 85,

G.R. No. 146006, 23 February 2004
 An heir can only alienate such portion of the estate that may be allotted to him
in the division of the estate by the probate or intestate court after final
adjudication. In other words, the heir may only sell his ideal or undivided
share in the estate, not any specific property therein.
 Consequently, where the heirs sold specific properties (i.e., the shares of stock
in Philinterlife in this case) during the pendency of the final adjudication in
the intestate proceedings, this cannot be lawfully done as it would cause
undue prejudice to the other claimants of the estate.

20. Puno v. Puno Enterprises, G.R. No. 177066, 11 September 2009

 Where the decedent is a shareholder of a corporation, his death does not
automatically make the heir the new shareholder neither shall he acquire the
rights and privileges of a shareholder. The stocks must first be distributed to
the heirs in estate proceedings, and the transfer of stocks must be recorded in
the books of the corporation pursuant to Section 63 of the (Old) Corporation
Code.
 During the pendency of estate proceedings, the heirs stand as the equitable
owners of the stocks, the executor or administrator duly appointed by the
court being vested with the legal title to the stock. Until a settlement and
division of the estate is effected, the stocks of the decedent are held by the
administrator or executor. Consequently, during such time, it is the
administrator or executor who is entitled to exercise the rights of the deceased
as stockholder.

8|Page
 CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

21. Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon v. Ponteras,

G.R. No.198680, 08 July 2013
 The determination of who are the legal heirs of the decedent must be made in
a proper special proceeding before the court, and not in an ordinary suit for
recovery of ownership and possession of property.
 An intestate heir, in order to reconvey in his favor, the properties of the
decedent, shall file a special proceeding for Declaration of Heirship pursuant
to Rule 1, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Court (now Revised Rules of Court),
instead of a civil action for Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance.

22. UnionBank of the Philippines v. Santibañez,

G.R. No. 149926, 23 February 2005
 A probate court has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine all the properties
of the decedent, determining whether they should or should not be included in
the inventory or list of properties to be administered. In other words, all
concerns of administration, liquidation, and distribution of the estate rest with
the probate court.
 The Court held that an execution of an extrajudicial partition of estate during
the pendency of the probate proceedings is void.

23. Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety Co., Inc.,

G.R. No. L-8437, 28 November 1956
 Pursuant to Art. 774 in relation to Art. 776 of the NCC, the heirs succeed to
not only the rights of the decedent but also his obligations.
 Pursuant to Art. 1257 of the NCC (transmission of rights and obligations to
heirs and assigns), the obligations under a suretyship agreement, NOT being a
strict personal act, are transmissible via succession.
 The binding effect of a contract upon the heirs is not altered by the
requirements under Rule 89 of the Rules of Court, providing for money
claims against the estate to be first settled before distribution of the same to
the heirs. Rationale: Payment for claims made against the estate are ultimately
payments made by the heirs, as the amounts so paid constitutes a diminution/
reduction in the eventual share of the heirs in the estate.

9|Page
 CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

24. National Housing Authority v. Almieda,

G.R. No. 162784, 22 June 2007
 Where an Affidavit (or Sinumpaang Salaysay) provides “… sakaling ako’y
bawian na ng Dios ng aking buhay…”, the Court ruled that the same should
be considered as a disposition of property which shall effect after the affiant’s
death, and not a mere assignment of rights.

25. Butte v. Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc.,

G.R. No. L-15499, 18 February 1962
 By the rules of succession, the heirs shall acquire an interest in the property
co-owned by the decedent. In other words, from the moment of the decedent’s
death, the heirs shall become co-owners over the said property.
 Consequently, the right of a co-owner to exercise his legal redemption over
the property sold to a third person are transmissible to his heirs after his death.

10 | P a g e
CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

TESTAMENTARY
SUCCESSION

11 | P a g e
 CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

26. Vitug v. Court of Appeals & Corona,

G.R. No. 82027, 29 March 1990
 Aside from the definition of a will provided under the Art. 783 of the NCC, a
will is also defined as “a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which a
capacitated person disposes of his property and rights and declares or
complies with the duties to take effect after his death.”
 Where the survivorship agreement executed by the spouses, providing for the
sole entitlement of the surviving spouse to the conjugal properties from the
moment of death of decedent spouse, the Court ruled that agreement is not a
conveyance mortis causa; Hence, should not be indicated in a will.

27. Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon, et. al., 33 SCRA 554 (1970)

 The intentions and wishes of the testator, when CLEARLY expressed in his
will, constitute a fixed law of interpretation, and all questions raised during
trial, relative to its execution and fulfillment, must be settled in accordance
therewith, following the plain and literal meaning of the testator’s words,
unless it CLEARLY appears that his intention was otherwise.
 Where the nature of the testamentary disposition of the decedent was a
partition of property (i.e., it is my wish and I command that my property be
divided), specifying each real property in her estate and designating a
particular heir among several compulsory heirs and grandchildren, The Court
held that such partition shall be respected pursuant to Art. 1080 of the NCC,
insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime.

28. Vda. De Villanueva v. Juico, G.R. No. L-15737, 28 February 1962

 Where a testamentary disposition in a will provides a condition that the
spouse shall forfeit the bequeathed properties if she fails to bear a child with
the testator, the Court ruled that it was the intention of the testator to merely
give his spouse a usufructuary right over the property, that when the spouse
died without having begotten a child, she never acquired ownership over the
property.

29. Solla v. Ascueta, G.R. No. 24955, 04 September 1926

 Where the testamentary provision in the testatrix’s will provide that the
universal heir shall “give or deliver to the parish priest of this town a
sufficient sum of money necessary for the yearly novena” and shall “insist
that his heirs shall comply the same”, the Court ruled that the same does not
pertain to the distribution of both the legacies and the pious bequests.

30. Torres v. Lopez, G.R. No. L-24569, 26 February 1926

12 | P a g e
 CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

 A testator is said to have possessed testamentary capacity where the evidence

shows that the attending physician three and other members of the medical
fraternity were physically witnessed the execution of the will and that they
testified favorably the mental capacity of the testator.

31. De Guzman v. Benitez, G.R. No. 61167-68, 20 January 1989

 The Court ruled that the testator lacked testamentary capacity where the
evidence showed that the oppositors presented six (6) witnesses to prove the
testator’s incapacity at the time the will was executed.

32. Baltazar v. Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, 11 April 2012

 The fact that the testatrix was forgetful does not make her of unsound mind as
would effectively stripped her of testamentary capacity. Therefore,
forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind.

33. Abangan v. Abangan, G.R. No. L-13431, 12 November 1919

 The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the
door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments,
and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. The laws on this subject should
be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. So, when an
interpretation that adds nothing but demands requisites entirely unnecessary,
useless and frustrative of the testator’s will, such interpretation must be
disregarded.
 The requirement that each sheet of the will shall be signed on the left margin
by the testator and three (3) witnesses in the presence of each other is to avoid
substitution of any of said sheets, thereby changing the testator’s dispositions.
 However, when the dispositions are wholly written in only one sheet and
signed at the bottom by the testator and 3 witnesses, the Court held that the
signatural requirement has been substantially complied with.
 The object of requiring that every page of a will must be numbered
correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of the sheet is to know
whether any sheet of the will has been removed.
 However, when all the dispositive parts of a will are written in one sheet only,
the page requirement disappears because the removal of a single sheet cannot
be hidden.
 The signature of the testatrix is not necessary in the attestation clause because
the same appertains only to the witnesses, and not to the testator since the
latter does not attest but executes the will.
 The fact that a will is executed in Cebu City and in written in the dialect of
the locality of the testatrix raises the presumption that she knew the dialect in
which the will was written.

13 | P a g e
 CASE DOCTRINES ON THE LAW ON DONATION & SUCCESSION
Prepared by: Gabrielle Romuluz S. De Vota

34. Lopez v. Liboro, G.R. No. L-1787, 27 August 1948

 Where the will is written in a foreign language (i.e., Spanish, Tagalog), the
Court held that there is no statutory requirement for the testator to be
knowledgeable of such language and that same be stated in the will. It is
presumed, at the time of the making of the will, that the testator knew the
language. To prove otherwise is a matter to be established by evidence
aliunde.
 Where the testator is suffering from partial paralysis, physically incapacitating
him to sign the will, the Court held that the placing of a thumbmark is
sufficient.
 Where the will was written in two (2) sheets, for which the first sheet was
logically and coherently a precedent of the second sheet and the two cannot
be interchanged, the will is valid notwithstanding the absence of a page
number on the first sheet.

35. Reyes v. Vda. De Vidal, G.R. No. L-2862, 21 April 1952

 Where the attestation clause in a will states that the testatrix knew and
possessed the Spanish language, it could only mean that the instrumental
witnesses wanted to make it of record that the deceased knew the language in
which the will was written.

36. Suzora v. Judge Honrado, A.M. No. 2026-CFI, 19 December 1981

 Where the opening paragraph of a will stated that English was the language
“understood and known” to the testatrix, but the concluding paragraph states
that the will was read to the testatrix and “translated into Filipino language”,
It could only mean that the will was written in a language not known to the
illiterate testatrix and, therefore, void.

37. Abada v. Abaja, G.R. No. 147145, 31 January 2005

 Where the attestation clause fails to state the number of pages but was written
in such a way that the testator signed the will in the presence of the witnesses
on the left margin of every page of the same, The Court held that pursuant to
the rule on substantial compliance, the will is valid and may be probated.
 Pursuant to the rule on substantial compliance, a will remains valid
notwithstanding the failure to state in the attestation clause the number of
instrumental witnesses, for as long as the attestation was signed at least three
(3) witnesses.

14 | P a g e