Report

in
SUCCESSION
by:
MERLIN A. GONZAGA
ARTICLE 842

One who has NO COMPULSORY HEIRS may

dispose by will of his estate or any part of it in
favor of any person having capacity to succeed.
One who has COMPULSORY HEIRS may dispose
of his estate PROVIDED he does not contravene
the provisions of this code with regard to the
legitime of said heirs.
 MONTINOLA – SANSON VS. CA
G.R. No. 76648 February 26,1988

FREEDOM OF DISPOSITION
TESTATE SUCCESSION PREFERRED
OVER INTESTACY
FACTS:

This case arose from a petition filed by private

respondent Atty. Eduardo F. Hernandez with the
CFI of Manila (now RTC) seeking the probate of
the holographic will of the late Herminia
Montinola. The testatrix, who died single,
parentless and childless at the age of 70 years,
devised in this will several of her real properties to
specified persons.
Private Respondent who was named executor in
the will filed an urgent motion for appointment of
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, with the conformity
of all the relatives and heirs of the testatrix except
oppositor, the court appointed private respondent
as Special Administrator of the testate estate of
deceased.
Petitioner Matilde Montinola-Sanson, the only
surviving sister of the deceased but who was not
named in the said will, filed her opposition to
probate of will, alleging inter alia:
1. That, the testatrix was not in full possession of
her mental faculties to make testamentary
dispositions.
2. That, undue influence was exerted upon the
person and mind of the testatrix in the will.
3. That, the will failed to institute a residual heir to
the remainder of the estate.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the exclusion by the testatrix of her

only surviving sister (petitioner) from the
holographic will and her failure to dispose all of
her estate demonstrates her lack of testamentary
capacity and an indication of the unsoundness of
her mind.
HOW DID THE LOWER COURT RULE:

After hearing on the merits, the probate court,

finding the evidence presented in support of the
petition to be conclusive and overwhelming,
rendered its decision allowing the probate of the
disputed will.
HOW DID THE COURT OF APPEALS RULE:

Petitioner thus appealed the decision of the probate

court to the Court of Appeals which affirmed in
toto the decision.
HOW DID THE SUPREME COURT RULE:

Article 942 of the Civil Code provides that one

who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will
of all his estate or any part of it in favor of any
person having capacity to succeed.
It is within the right of the testatrix not to include
her only sister who is not a compulsory heir in her
will. Nevertheless, per testimony of Asuncion
Gemperle, the latter had reserved two boxes of
jewelries worth ₱850,000.00 for the petitioner.
Furthermore, petitioner’s son Francis was instituted
as an heir in the contested will.
ARTICLE 843

The TESTATOR shall designate the heir by his

name and surname, and when there are two persons
having the same names, he shall indicate some
circumstance by which the instituted heir may be
known.
Even though the testator may have omitted the
name of the heir, should he designate him in such
manner that there can be no doubt as to who has
been instituted, the institution shall be valid.
ARTICLE 844

An ERROR in the NAME, SURNAME, or

CIRCUMSTANCES of the HEIR shall not vitiate
the institution when it is possible, in any other
manner, to know with certainty the person
instituted.
If among persons having the same NAMES and
SURNAMES, there is a SIMILARITY of
CIRCUMSTANCE in such a way that, even with
the use of other proofs, the person instituted cannot
be identified, none of them shall be an heir.
ARTICLE 845

Every disposition in favor of an unknown person

shall be VOID, unless by some event or
circumstance his identity becomes certain.
However, a disposition in favor of a definite class
or group or persons shall be VALID.
 HACBANG VS. ALO
G.R. No. 191031 October 5, 2015

DESIGNATION OF HEIR BY NAME

OR OTHER IDENTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES
FACTS:

Bishop Sofronio died on April 3, 1937. He left

several properties behid as well as left a will
denominated as “Ultima Voluntad y Testamento.
He was survived by his parents, Basilio and Maria
Hacbana and his siblings: Perfector Hacbang, and
Dolores Hacbang.
Petitioner Dolores Hacbang is the grandchild of
Perfecto while petitioner Bernardo Hacbang is a
son of Joaquin. On the other hand, respondend
Basilio Alo is the son of Dolores Alo (sister of the
deceased).
Under Bishop Sofronio’s will, he left one-half of his
properties to his parents and devised the other half
to his sister Dolores Alo. The properties devised to
Dolores were specifically named in the will.
Furthermore, the RTC (CFI) admitted Bishop
Sofronio’s will to probate. It ordered the
proceedings to be archived.
RTC (CFI) RULING:
The Court noted that Bishop Sofronio’s will had
already been admitted into probate in 1937, thus, the
intrinsic validity of the will is no longer in question.
Though the settlement proceedings were archived,
Bishop Sofronio’s parents already designated his heirs;
Bishop Sofronio’s parents were compulsory heirs of ½
of his estate, while respondent’s mother, Dolores
Hacbang Alo, was devised with the remaining half,
which was the free portion.
The petitioners filed MFR but it was denied by the
RTC. As they appealed to the CA, they argued the
following:
1. Bishop Sofronio’s will did not validly transfer the
subject property to Dolores Alo.
2. Only a final decree of distribution of the estate
vests title on the properties from the estate on the
distributees.
3. The estate should be governed by intestate
succession.
WHAT IS THE RULING OF THE CA?
CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.
- The admission of Bishop Sofronio’s will to
probate precluded intestate succession.
- Denied the petitioners’ claim to a right of
inheritance by representation.
- The petitioners cannot represent those who are not
entitled to succeed. Petitioners have no legal interest
in the subject property.
- The MRF was also denied by the CA.
ISSUE:

Whether or not, the CA erred when it used Bishop

Sofronio’s will as basis to declare that they are not
legal parties in interest to dismiss the present
petition.
WHAT IS THE DECISION OF THE SC?

NO. The petitioners were wronged in contending

that only a final decree of distribution of the estate
vests title to the land of the estate in the distributes.
Again, ownership over the inheritance vests upon
the heirs, legatees, and devisees immediately upon
the death of the decedent.
At the precise moment of death, the heirs become
owners of the estate pro indiviso. They become
absolute owners of their undivided aliquot share but
with respect to the individual properties of the
estate, they become co-owners. This co-ownership
remains until partition and distribution.
Moreover, the heirs, legatees, and devisees bequeathed
specific properties do not require court adjudication
to identify which particular properties become
theirs. The testator had already identified these.
From the very moment of the testator’s death, title
over these particular properties’ vests on the heir,
legatee or devisee.