JN,XSADNNNNSNS

RIVALRY OF PATRIMONY THEORY

DISCUSSION

Rivalry is the act of competing for the same thing against another
person. Often, a rivalry starts when people want the same reward. It also
refers to a person or group that tries to defeat or be more successful than
another person or group. The word patrimony comes from Middle English
patrimoine, patrimonie, from Anglo-French patremoine, and from the Latin
origin of the word patrimony is pater, or "father," and mōnium means "state
or condition." So, patrimony refers to the things that a person inherits from
their father or other ancestors. This can include money, property, or other
valuable possessions.

Rivalry of Patrimony Theory: This theory states that individuals or

members of the family tend to commit crimes due to rivalry over family legacy.
A member of a noble family has a conflict when it comes to heritage; one may
want all the share, one has a small share compared to the other descendants,
which leads to resentment, and one may want the share even if he is not
included in the compulsory heir. Compulsory heirs are "compulsory"
because they are considered automatically included in the estate distribution.
They don't need to do anything. Just by the fact that they exist, they are
automatically considered participants in the estate (Atty. Erwin Zagala, 2019).
One of the reasons why members of a family tend to commit crimes when it
comes to heritage is that another relative wants to have a share of the
patrimony even though they are not including the compulsory heir, so they
think that committing a crime against the heir will be given to them the share,
when in fact, they weren't entitled to it in the first place. For example, there is
only one son named Anton who comes from a noble family where his parents
have a lot of property, a company, and a business, and it is expected that he
will be the heir of his parents. His parents also told him that no other relative
would have a share of the heritage except him. When Anton's parents died,
there was one of their relatives, specifically his uncle, who had no contribution
to his parents company or property, claiming that he must have a share in
Anton's patrimony. His uncle wants to have a share of his parent's legacy, but
Anton did not give a little share to his uncle, as he was told by his parents that
he was the only one who had the right to claim it. As a result, his uncle
inflicted injury on him.

When it comes to adopted and legitimate children, there is also a

rivalry of patrimony. The legitimate child becomes greedy when it comes to
patrimony. The legitimate child wants that all heritage only be given to him
and not to the adopted child since he believes that the adopted child has no
right to claim patrimony from his adopted parents. According to the
"Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975," if an individual
is formally adopted prior to the death of their biological parents, by virtue of
Section 39(2) of the of the Adoption Act 1976, they are treated as the lawful
child of their adopted parents for inheritance purposes. Adopted children have
the same rights as biological children when it comes to inheritance from their
adopted parents. Whether the deceased died intestate or executed a will, the
position of an adopted child remains the same as that of a biological child. In
this case, the legitimate child will cause injury to the adopted child in order to
get the full share of the patrimony. There's also instances where the legitimate
child will envy the adopted child because the adopted child received more
affection from their parents than the legitimate child. For example, Juliana and
Manuel are a married couple; they have a biological son named Joshua, and
later on, they adopt a child named John. It is expected that Joshua will be the
only one to inherit his parent's legacy since he is the legitimate one. Their
father Manuel left a will before he died stating that his two sons would share
his patrimony, but Joshua was not happy with the decision of his father, so he
killed John because he thought that's the only reason for him to get all of his
father's legacy.

Another reason is the distribution of shares in heritage between

legitimate and illegitimate children. According to the law, the general rule is
that an illegitimate child is entitled to one-half (1/2) of the share of a legitimate
child [Articles 895 and 983, Civil Code]. Thus, the law does not treat legitimate
and illegitimate children similarly insofar as inheritance is concerned. Between
legitimate and illegitimate children, the one with a big share will be the
legitimate compared to the illegitimate child. With that, the illegitimate child is
likely to commit crime due to the small share of heritage that he has. The
offender is not satisfied with the share he gets in his parents patrimony, that's
why he believes that committing a crime against his competitor with the
heritage will get him what he wants. The crime that is committed in this
situation is perhaps theft or deception. Due to the unequal distribution of
shares in heritage, the offender would deceive the victim, even if it was a
legitimate child. For example, there is a married couple with two children:
Raoul is the legitimate child, and Vince is the illegitimate child. The father
died, and his patrimony will now be given to the spouse, to Raoul, and to
Vince, but in accordance with the law, the illegitimate child will be given only
one-half (1/2) of the share of a legitimate child. Aftermath, the illegitimate child
Vince was not happy with it, so he planned to deceive Raoul to get the share.
Vince told Raoul that their share would be invested in a big company for it to
expand, but little did Raoul know that it was a scam. Raoul was scammed by
Vince.

In those different situations, it is evident that there is a possibility that

each member of the family may end up committing a crime in order to get the
patrimony. Thus, in this theory, it is important for each individual or member of
the family to know what their rights are when it comes to heritage. Since they
have different roles, they may also differ in their rights. If the individual or
member of the family doesn't understand these differences, they may end up
rivaling in patrimony, which will lead them to commit a crime against their
family.
BASIS

GMA Integrated News: A heinous crime was committed by the brother-in-law

of the victim for the reason of rivalry over land. The suspect voluntarily
surrenders, and he admits the crime he committed. According to him, he only
committed the crime because the victim wanted to possess the land.

News 5: Frontline: A live-in partner died inside the Victory Liner bus in
Nueva Ecija; they were shot by gun for hire men. According to the report, the
main reason for the shooting was heritage. It is said that before the crime
happened, the mother (the victim) and her son had a conflict that led to a
lawsuit. The son of the victim became the person of interest, but he denied
the accusation against him. Later on, one of the gunmen was arrested and
stated that they were only ordered by an unknown person who called them on
the phone.

Tadhana: "Hating Kapatid": The documentary is all about three siblings who
duel about patrimony. The patrimony was given to the youngest child who
was adopted, so the two real children maltreated the heir because they were
jealous and angry. The oldest child deceived the heir so they could get a
share of the patrimony.
RECOMMENDATIONS

At a young age, it is very important to have a good relationship with our

family, especially to our siblings, to better understand how important it is to
value a family even when they go through bad or good times in their lives, so
they can continue this until they become old enough and not cause them to
envy each other. However, sibling rivalry is normal and even inevitable. This
notion is especially pertinent in the context of child inheritance, wherein they
are in rivalry with their parents heritage. So, in order to avoid this rivalry over
patrimony between family members, this recommendation might be helpful.

For the parents that will give heritage to their descendants, they should give
their heritage equally to their compulsory heir and not be biased on who
should receive either a big or small share. Also, it's better to hold a family
meeting to discuss your final desires and arrangements. You do not
absolutely need to negotiate what and how much each individual will receive
because this is always open to modification by you. However, you can
describe how you are splitting the property. The parents should treat them
fairly, because that's when the conflict starts. Withal, they should make a will
before they die describing the estate planning aims and intentions to avoid
conflict between compulsory heirs and other relatives that were intending to
vie for or claim the legacy. When it comes to patrimony, all the members of
the family will become greedy.

For the compulsory heirs, they should ask a lawyer to know what their rights
are and the exact share that they will receive of their parents heritage. They
should know how to divide their properties, what exactly they will receive, and
how much of each property will only be given to them. With that, it can avoid
disputes and make settlements with each compulsory heir.

For those victims who were deprived and deceived of their patrimony,
they should ask for help from a lawyer and not be afraid to complain. When
they start to feel that their competitor will harm them or that there's a menace
to them, they should report it immediately to the law enforcers. This victim
should also complain if there is an unequal distribution of their patrimony.

To the professional lawyers, they should provide free legal assistance about
the rights of each member of the family when it comes to sharing the family's
legacy. This free legal assistance will inform or assist the client's concerns
about the patrimony, about his rights to the heritage, and about any other
concerns that the compulsory heir may have.

To the government, they should collaborate with different professional

lawyers to conduct a program wherein their agenda would be discussion
about the rights of heirs, compulsory heirs, relatives, and spouses when it
comes to the heritage that will be given to them. This program will help to be
aware of each of the family members and also be a way to stop controversies
among the family.
CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Rivalry of Patrimony Theory highlights the importance of

understanding the rights and responsibilities of family members in relation to
inheritance and heritage. By doing so, individuals and families can work
towards a more harmonious and respectful society. If all the members of the
family understand each other's rights in terms of claiming patrimony, they can
refrain from committing a crime. Although some of the members of the family
are already aware of their rights to claim patrimony, they still commit a crime
in order to get all the patrimony, and it's because of their greed. In noble
families, sibling rivalry over patrimony is normal and inevitable, and
committing a crime against their family, especially against their siblings, is
prevalent. There are factors why family members commit crimes due to rivalry
of patrimony: their roles, responsibilities, and standing in the family. In cases
between legitimate and illegitimate children, the illegitimate child is not happy
with what he got as a as a share of heritage, but the law generally states that
an illegitimate child is entitled to one-half of the share of a legitimate child, but
the illegitimate child thinks that the law does not treat them similarly in
inheritance, which is why they commit crime. And between a legitimate and
adopted child, the legitimate child becomes greedy and seeks to claim all their
heritage, believing the adopted child has no right to claim it.

The "Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975"

treats adopted children as lawful children for inheritance purposes. In such
cases, the legitimate child may cause injury to the adopted child to get the full
share of the inheritance. Another case is the eldest son, felt entitled to a larger
share of the inheritance due to his years of dedication to the family business.
However, the younger daughter, argued that she had contributed in her own
ways and deserved an equal share. This disagreement led to heated
arguments, accusations of favoritism, and a breakdown in communication
within the family.The Rivalry of Patrimony Theory was evident in this case, as
the competition for inheritance escalated tensions and ultimately fractured the
family dynamics. In these various circumstances, it is distinct that each
member of the family may end up committing a crime in order to obtain the
patrimony. Thus, according to this argument, it is vital for each individual or
family member to understand their rights regarding their legacy. Given that
their roles alter, so may their rights. If an individual or member of a family fails
to understand these distinctions, they might end up competing over
patrimony, which will lead to committing a crime against the members of their
family. With this theory, it is suggested that for every family, it is essential from
an early age to have positive relationships, especially with siblings. This helps
children learn the value of a family, no matter how fine or wicked things will
happen in their lives. When they get older, they are able to carry on the habit
without making each other feel envious of them particularly in terms of rivaling
over patrimony.