Succession Case Digests

The Fraternal Order of St.
Thomas More Wills and Succession (2012-2013)

Atty. Leilanie Yangyang Espejo, CPA
TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU
TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU
WILLS & SUCCESSION Case Digests
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Leilanie Yangyang Espejo, FACTS: Celestina Ganuelas executed a deed of
CPA donation of real property in favor of her niece Ursulina
which provides that it would take effect upon her death.
Succession in General However, the deed was revoked.
Thereafter, Celestina died without issue and any
RAMIREZ vs. RAMIREZ surviving ascendants and siblings. After Celestina’s
111 SCRA 82 death, Ursulina had been sharing the produce of the
property with private respondents, other nieces.
FACTS: Jose Ramirez a Filipino, died in Spain leaving only his After 24 years from the execution of the deed, Ursulina
widow Marcelle Ramirez, a French. secured a tax declaration in her name and refused to
In the project partition, the property was divided into 2 share the produce to respondents. Thus, they filed an
parts: 1st part to the widow, and 2nd part to the action to return the possession and ownership of the
grandnephews the naked ownership. Furthermore, as to property contending that the instrument was void
the usufruct of the 2nd part, 1/3 was given to the widow and because
2/3 to Wanda de Wrobleski, an Austrian.
The grandnephews opposed on the ground that usufruct it was a donation mortis causa and it failed to comply
to Wanda is void because it violates the constitutional with the formalities of a will.
prohibition against the acquisition of lands by aliens.
ISSUE: WON the donation is mortis causa.
ISSUE: WON the ground for the opposition is correct.
HELD: Yes, it is a donation mortis causa
HELD: No, it is not correct. There is nothing in the subject deed which indicates
The SC held that the Constitutional provision which that any right, title or interest in the donated properties
enables aliens to acquire private lands does not extend to was to be transferred to Ursulina prior to the death of
testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will Celestina. In fact, it was stipulated that it would take
be for naught and meaningless. effect after her death.
The SC upheld the usufruct in favor of Wanda because As the subject deed was in the nature of a mortis
although it is a real right, it does not vest title to the land in causa disposition, the formalities of a will should have
the usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to land in favor been complied with, failing which the donation is void
of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution. and without effect.
ARTICLE 728. Donations which are to take effect upon MAGLASANG vs. CABATINGAN
the death of the donor partake of the nature of June 5, 2002
testamentary provisions, and shall be governed by the rules
established in the Title on Succession. (620) FACTS: Conchita Cabatingan executed deed of
donation over a house and lot in favor of his brother.
JUTIC vs. CA Also, she executed 4 other deeds of donation in favor of
August 27, 1987 the petitioners. The deeds provided that it shall take
effect upon the donor’s death.
FACTS: Arsenio Seville executed an affidavit in favor of his Conchita died. Respondents filed an action to annul
brother Melquiades. It was stipulated therein that in case the 4 deeds on the ground that it is void for failure to
the former dies, he would assign all his rights, interest and comply with the formalities of a will.
participation over all his property to Melquiades.
Arsenio died intestate and survived by Melquiades, 2 ISSUE: WON the deed is a donation mortis causa.
brothers and 2 sisters.
Petitioners, children of Arsenio, are now claiming exclusive HELD: Yes, it is.
ownership of the properties of Arsenio on the basis of the The nature of the donations as mortis causa is
affidavit. Private respondents filed a complaint for partition confirmed by the fact that the donations do not contain
and accounting as relatives also of Arsenio. any clear provision that intends to pass proprietary rights
to petitioners prior to Conchita’s death.
ISSUE: WON the affidavit was a deed of donation inter vivos Donations mortis causa must be executed in
in order to validly convey the property to Melquiades. accordance with the requisites on solemnities of wills
and testaments.
HELD: No, it is not an instrument of donation inter vivos. Though the deeds were acknowledge before a notary
There was no intention to transfer ownership from Arsenio public, they were not executed in the manner provided
to Melquiades at the time of the execution of the affidavit. for under Article 805-806 of the Civil Code, thus it is void.
But it is the intention to assign it in case Arsenio would die.
Thus, Article 728 of the Civil Code is applicable. TITLE IV
Succession
GANUELAS vs. CAWED
April 24, 2003 CHAPTER 1
Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 1 of 73

The Fraternal Order of St. Thomas More Wills and Succession (2012-2013)
General Provisions
ROBLES vs. BATACAN
ARTICLE 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by 154 SCRA 644
virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the
extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are FACTS: Severino Geronimo worked for 20 years in
transmitted through his death to another or others either by petitioner’s land. After his death an ejectment suit was
his will or by operation of law. (n) filed against his 2 sons.
Atanacio, one of the 2 sons averred that he was
entitled to succeed his father as agricultural tenant.
ARTICLE 775. In this Title, "decedent" is the general term
applied to the person whose property is transmitted
ISSUE: WON a son has the right to succeed agricultural
through succession, whether or not he left a will. If he left a
tenency of his deceased father.
will, he is also called the testator. (n)
HELD: Atanacio had the right to take over as agricultural
ARTICLE 776. The inheritance includes all the property, tenant in the petitioner’s land in accordance with RA
rights and obligations of a person which are not 1199 and RA 3844.
extinguished by his death. (659)
SAN AGUSTIN vs. CA
CONDE vs. ABAYA December 4, 2001
13 PHIL 240
FACTS: GSIS sold to Macaria Caiquep, parcel of
FACTS: Casiano Abaya, unmarried, died intestate. Paula residential land. A TCT was issued and a provision was
Conde alleged that she is the mother of Jose and Teopista, provided that the vendee is prohibited to transfer or sell
who are natural children of Casiano and she moved for the the land within 5 years from the final date of absolute
settlement of Casiano’s estate. ownership.
Roman Abaya on the other hand moved that he be A day after the issuance of the TCT, Macaria sold the
declared as the sole heir of Casiano. land to Maximo Menez, Jr. Thereafter the petitioner,
Trial court ruled that Roman should recognized Jose and nephew of Macaria, received a copy of the decision
Teopista as being natural children of Casiano, and Paula granting the issuance of owner’s duplicate copy which
should succeed as the mother of the deceased natural Menez filed.
children. Petitioner contends that the sale in favor of Menez is
void as it is violative of the 5-year prohibitory period
ISSUE: WON Paula may bring an action for under the Public Land Act.
acknowledgment of the natural filiation of the children.
ISSUE: WON the sale is valid as to bind petitioner as
HELD: No, she cannot. Macaria’s heir.
Article 776 of the Civil Code applies. The right of action
that devolves upon the child to claim his legitimacy lasts HELD: As far as the 5-year restrictive condition imposed
during his whole life, while the right to claim by GSIS, it is the latter and not the petitioner who had a
acknowledgment of a natural child lasts only during the life cause of action against private respondent.
of his presumed parents. The right of action which the law The contract of sale is valid between the parties, unless
concedes to this natural child is not transmitted to his annulled. Thus, it is binding upon the heirs of Macaria,
descendants or ascendants. including petitioner who alleges to be one of her heirs, in
Since the presumed parents as well as the natural line with the rule that heirs are bound by contracts
children are already dead, the mother of that natural entered into by their predecessors-in-interest.
children can no longer bring an action for
acknowledgment.
LA HU NIU vs. COLLECTOR

36 PHIL 433
HELD: The right of children of resident foreigner to gain

entrance is a purely personal right. Thus, it is extinguished by
death and cannot be transferred.
GREPALIFE vs. CA
October 13, 1999
HELD: Property right in an insurance policy is not

extinguished by death only when the designation is
irrevocable. The beneficiary has a vested right to the life
insurance unless otherwise provided in the policy.

RABADILLA vs. CA transmitted by operation of law to the petitioners
June 29, 2000 without violation of law and due process.
FACTS: In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and RULING: The doctrine obtaining in this jurisdiction is on
Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, the general transmissibility of the rights and obligations
predecessor-in-interest of the herein petitioner, Johnny S. of the deceased to his legitimate children and heirs.
Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of parcel of land. The The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the
Codicil provides that Jorge Rabadilla shall have the deceased party is not altered by the provision of our
obligation until he dies, every year to give Maria Marlina Rules of Court that money debts of a deceased must be
Coscolluela y Belleza, (75) (sic) piculs of Export sugar and liquidated and paid from his estate before the residue is
(25) piculs of Domestic sugar, until the said Maria Marlina distributed among said heirs (Rule 89). The reason is that
Coscolluela y Belleza dies. whatever payment is thus made from the estate is
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died. Private respondent brought a ultimately a payment by the heirs or distributees, since
complaint, to enforce the provisions of subject Codicil. the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or
reduces the shares that the heirs would have been
ISSUE: WON the obligations of Jorge Rabadilla under the entitled to receive.
Codicil are inherited by his heirs. "Under our law, therefore, the general rule is that a
party's contractual rights and obligations are
HELD: Under Article 776 of the NCC, inheritance includes transmissible to the successors. The rule is a
all the property, rights and obligations of a person, not consequence of the progressive 'depersonalization' of
extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr. patrimonial rights and duties. From the Roman concept
Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue of subject Codicil were of a relation from person to person, the obligation has
transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his death. And evolved into a relation from patrimony to patrimony,
since obligations not extinguished by death also form part with the persons occupying only a representative
of the estate of the decedent; corollarily, the obligations position, barring those rare cases where the obligation is
imposed by the Codicil on the deceased Dr. Jorge strictly personal, in consideration of its performance by a
Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs specific person and by no other. . . ."
upon his death. Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez,
they cannot escape the legal consequences of their
ALVAREZ vs. IAC father's transaction, which gave rise to the present claim
May 7, 1990 for damages.
FACTS: Aniceto Yanes owned 2 parcels of land Lot 773-A PAMPLONA vs. MORETO
and Lot 773-B. 96 SCRA 775
Aniceto Yanes was survived by his children, Rufino, Felipe
and Teodora. Herein private respondents, Estelita, FACTS: Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega were
Iluminado and Jesus, are the children of Rufino who died in husband and wife with 6 children. During their marriage,
1962 while the other private respondents, Antonio and they acquired adjacent lots Nos. 1495, 4545, and 1496.
Rosario Yanes, are children of Felipe. Teodora was survived Monica Maniega died intestate. more than (6) years
by her child, Jovita (Jovito) Albib. after, Flaviano Moreto, without the consent of the heirs
It is established that Rufino and his children left the of his said deceased wife, and before any liquidation of
province to settle in other places as a result of the outbreak the conjugal partnership, executed in favor of
of World War II. According to Estelita, from the "Japanese Geminiano Pamplona, the deed of absolute sale
time up to peace time", they did not visit the parcels of covering lot No. 1495 for P900.00.
land in question but "after liberation", when her brother The spouses Geminiano Pamplona and Apolonia Onte
went there to get their share of the sugar produced therein, constructed their house on the eastern part of lot 1496
he was informed that Fortunato Santiago, Fuentebella as Flaviano Moreto, at the time of the sale, pointed to it
(Puentevella) and Alvarez were in possession of Lot 773. as the land which he sold to Geminiano Pamplona.
After Fuentebella's death, Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella Flaviano Moreto died intestate. In 1961, the plaintiffs
sold said lots for P6,000.00 to Rosendo Alvarez. demanded on the defendants to vacate the premises
On May 26, 1960, Teodora Yanes and the children of her on the ground that Flaviano Moreto had no right to sell
brother Rufino filed a complaint against Fortunato the lot which he sold to Geminiano Pamplona as the
Santiago, Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella, Alvarez and the same belongs to the conjugal partnership of Flaviano
Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental for the "return" of and his deceased wife.
the ownership and possession of Lots 773 and 823. The spouses Pamplona refused to vacate hence, this
During the pendency of said case, Alvarez sold the Lots suit was instituted seeking for the declaration of the
for P25,000.00 to Dr. Rodolfo Siason. nullity of the deed of sale as regards one-half of the
CFI rendered judgment ordering defendant Rosendo property subject matter of said deed.
Alvarez to reconvey to plaintiffs the lots.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners are entitled to the full
ISSUE: W/N the liability of Rosendo Alvarez arising from the ownership of the property in litigation, or only one-half of
sale of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B could be legally passed or the same.

Respondent Alfonso filed a Petition for Letters of
RULING: The three lots have a total area of 2,346 sq. Administration. Respondents filed a Complaint for the
meters. It is therefore, clear that the three lots constitute Annulment/Rescission of Extra Judicial Settlement of
one big land. They are not separate properties located in Estate.
different places but they abut each other. And since Petitioners raised the affirmative defense that
Flaviano Moreto was entitled to one-half pro-indiviso of the respondents are not the real parties-in-interest but rather
entire land area or 1,173 sq. meters as his share, he had a the Estate of Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in view of the
perfect legal and lawful right to dispose of 781 sq. meters of pendency of the administration proceedings.
his share to the Pamplona spouses.
Moreover, private respondents, as heirs are duty-bound ISSUE: Whether or not the heirs may bring suit to recover
to comply with the provisions of Articles 1458 and 1495, Civil property of the estate pending the appointment of an
Code, which is the obligation of the vendor of the property administrator.
of delivering and transferring the ownership of the whole
property sold, which is transmitted on his death to his heirs, HELD: Pending the filing of administration proceedings,
the herein private respondents. the heirs without doubt have legal personality to bring
Under Article 776, New Civil Code, the inheritance which suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in
private respondents received from their deceased parents accordance with the provision of Article 777 of the New
and/or predecessors-in-interest included all the property Civil Code "that (t)he rights to succession are transmitted
rights and obligations which were not extinguished by their from the moment of the death of the decedent." The
parents' death. provision in turn is the foundation of the principle that
the property, rights and obligations to the extent and
LEDESMA vs. MCLACHLIN value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted
66 PHIL 547 through his death to another or others by his will or by
operation of law.
FACTS: Lorenzo Mclachlin is indebted to 3rd person. But Even if administration proceedings have already been
Lorenzo before he was able to pay the debt, he died. But commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an
when he died, he had no property. Theoretically, there administrator has not yet been appointed. This is the
should have been succession between Lorenzo and Anna. proper modality despite the total lack of advertence to
So Anna should have inherited from Lorenzo. But because the heirs in the rules on party representation.
Lorenzo had no properties, Anna did not inherit anything
from Lorenzo. HEIRS OF CALPATURA, SR vs. PRADO
January 20, 2004
ISSUE: Can the 3rd person claim from Anna?
FACTS: Spouses Patricio Prado Sr. and Narcisa Prado
RULING: No. He cannot because Lorenzo did not transmit owned a residential land. Subsequently, Patricio died.
anything to Anna and the inheritance is only to the extent Narcisa subsequently married Bonifacio Calpatura. In
of the value. So, for example, Lorenzo had debts. The order to support her minor children with her first
value of the inheritance should only be to the value of the husband, Narcisa sold to her brother-in-law, Tomas
debts. But there was no property left. So the value of the Calpatura, Sr., the northern half portion of the said
inheritance is zero. The debts cannot be enforced against property.
Anna because Anna inherited nothing. On April 8, 1991, respondents, Prado, et al, filed a
complaint for declaration of nullity of sale and delivery
ARTICLE 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted of possession of the northern half portion of the subject
from the moment of the death of the decedent. (657a) property against petitioners Calpatura, et al.
Respondents alleged among others that Narcisa, as
RIOFERIO vs. CA natural guardian of her children, had no authority to sell
January 13, 2004 the northern half portion of the property which she and
her children co-owned.
FACTS: Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will leaving
several personal and real properties. ISSUE: WON the sale of Narcisa’s conjugal share is valid.
He also left a widow, respondent Esperanza P.
Orfinada, whom he had seven children who are the herein RULING: YES. The property being conjugal, upon the
respondents. death of Patricio Prado, Sr., one-half of the subject
Also, the decedent also left his paramour and their property was automatically reserved to the surviving
children. They are petitioner Teodora Riofero and co- spouse, Narcisa, as her share in the conjugal
petitioners Veronica, Alberto and Rowena. partnership. Patricio’s rights to the other half, in turn,
Respondents Alfonso James and Lourdes (legitimate were transmitted upon his death to his heirs, which
children of the deceased) discovered that petitioner includes his widow Narcisa, who is entitled to the same
Teodora and her children executed an Extrajudicial share as that of each of the legitimate children.
Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person with Quitclaim Inasmuch as Narcisa inherited one-seventh (1/7) of her
involving the properties of the estate of the decedent husband's conjugal share in the said property and is the
located in Dagupan City. owner of one-half (1/2) thereof as her conjugal share,

she owns a total of 9/14 of the subject property. Hence, respondent Josephine Lucero, who refused to accept
Narcisa could validly convey her total undivided share in the same.
the entire property to Tomas. Narcisa and her children are Mrs. Lucero filed a complaint with the National
deemed co-owners of the subject property. Seamen Board, for payment of her accrued monthly
While Narcisa could validly sell one half of the subject allotment since March 1980 and for continued payment
property, her share being 9/14 of the same, she could not of said allotments until the M/V Minicon shall have
have particularly conveyed the northern portion thereof returned to the port of Manila.
before the partition, the terms of which was still to be The Board ruled in favor of Mrs. Josephine Lucero and
determined by the parties before the trial court. against petitioner Company. That the presumption of
death could not be applied
FELIPE vs. HEIRS OF ALDON
February 16, 1983 ISSUE: WON Article 39(1) of the CC is applicable in the
case at bar.
FACTS: Maximo Aldon married Gimena Almosara in 1936.
The spouses bought several of pieces of land sometime HELD: We are unable to agree with the reasoning and
between 1948 and 1950. conclusion of the respondent NLRC.
In 1951, Gimena Almosara sold the lots to the spouses There is thus enough evidence to show the
Eduardo Felipe and Hermogena Felipe. The sale was circumstances attending the loss and disappearance of
without the consent of her husband, Maximo. the M/V Eastern Minicon and its crew. The foregoing
On 1976, the heirs of Maximo Aldon filed a complaint facts, quite logically, are sufficient to lead us to a moral
against the Felipes. certainty that the vessel had sunk and that the persons
The defendants asserted that they had acquired the lots aboard had perished with it. Upon this premise, the rule
from the plaintiffs by purchase and subsequent delivery to on presumption of death under Article 391(1) of the Civil
them. Code must yield to the rule of preponderance of
evidence.
ISSUES: WON the wife who sold conjugal lands without her
husband’s consent can bring an action for annulment of EMNACE vs. CA
the sale even after her husband’s death. November 23, 2001
WON the children-heirs can bring an action for
annulment of the sale of the lots in question even after their FACTS: Emilio Emnace, Vicente Tabanao and Jacinto
father’s death. Divinagracia were partners in a business concern known
as Ma. Nelma Fishing Industry. Sometime in January of
HELD: Anent the first issue, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1986, they decided to dissolve their partnership and
negative. The termination of the marriage and the executed an agreement of partition and distribution of
dissolution of the conjugal partnership by the death of the partnership properties among them.
Maximo Aldon did not improve the situation of Gimena. Petitioner failed to submit to Tabanao's heirs any
What she could not do during the marriage, she cannot do statement of assets and liabilities of the partnership, and
thereafter. The case of Sofia and Salvador Aldon is to render an accounting of the partnership's finances.
different. After the death of Maximo they acquired the right Petitioner also reneged on his promise to turn over to
to question the defective contract insofar as it deprived Tabanao's heirs the deceased's 1/3 share in the total
them of their hereditary rights in their Father’s share in the assets of the partnership.
lands. The father’s share is one-half of the lands and their Tabanao's filed against petitioner an action for
share is two-thirds thereof, one-third pertaining to the accounting, payment of shares, division of assets and
widow. damages.
EASTERN vs. LUCERO ISSUE: WON the heirs of Vicente Tabanao Lacks the
124 SCRA 326 capacity to sue the petitioner.
FACTS: Capt. Julio J. Lucero, Jr. was appointed by HELD: No. The surviving spouse does not need to be
petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines as master/captain to its appointed as executrix or administratrix of the estate
vessel M/V Eastern Minicon. Under the contract, his before she can file the action. She and her children are
employment was good for (1) round trip only, the contract complainants in their own right as successors of Vicente
would automatically terminate upon arrival of the vessel at Tabanao. From the very moment of Vicente Tabanao's
the Port of Manila, unless renewed. It was further agreed death, his rights insofar as the partnership was
that part of the captain's salary, while abroad, should be concerned were transmitted to his heirs, for rights to the
paid to Mrs. Josephine Lucero, his wife, in Manila. succession are transmitted from the moment of death of
Thereafter, while the vessel was enroute from Hongkong the decedent.
to Manila, the vessels encountered situation which has Whatever claims and rights Vicente Tabanao had
difficulty to further continue its voyage. against the partnership and petitioner were transmitted
Thereafter, the Company paid the corresponding death to respondents by operation of law, more particularly by
benefits to the heirs of the crew members, except succession, which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of
which the property, rights and obligations to the extent

of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted. Barcena, and asked for substitution by her minor
Moreover, respondents became owners of their respective children and her husband, the petitioners herein; but the
hereditary shares from the moment Vicente Tabanao died. court after the hearing immediately dismissed the case
on the ground that a dead person cannot be a real
IN THE MATTER OF GUARDIANSHIP OF THE LAVIDES vs. CITY party in interest and has no legal personality to sue.
COURT OF LUCENA
May 31, 1982 ISSUE: Whether or not a dead person can be a real
party in interest and has legal personality to sue
FACTS: Upon the death of his wife, petitioner Alberto
Lavides instituted a guardianship proceeding with respect RULING: While it is true that a person who is dead
to the person and property of their 7 minor children. Said cannot sue in court, yet he can be substituted by his
petition alleged that the estate left by the deceased wife heirs in pursuing the case up to its completion. The
and mother of the minors has a total value of P35,000.00 or records of this case show that the death of Fortunata
an amount of P5,000.00 pertaining to each minor wherein Barcena took place on July 9, 1975 while the complaint
petitioner was appointed and qualified as judicial was filed on March 31, 1975. This means that when the
guardian. complaint was filed on March 31, 1975, Fortunata
The City Court authorized petitioner to settle the estate Barcena was still alive, and therefore, the court had
extrajudicially and to sell a portion thereof consisting of acquired jurisdiction over her person.
shares of stocks. Article 777 of the Civil Code provides "that the rights to
Petitioner filed a motion for confirmation and approval of' the succession are transmitted from the moment of the
a Deed of Exchange Agreement. While this latter motion death of the decedent." From the moment of the death
was still pending consideration, the respondent court, of the decedent, the heirs become the absolute owners
reviewed the records of the case and finding that the of his property, subject to the rights and obligations of
undivided estate left by the deceased was worth at least the decedent, and they cannot be deprived of their
P35,000.00, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, rights thereto except by the methods provided for by
revoked the appointment of petitioner as guardian and law.
annulled all proceedings taken prior to the issuance of the When Fortunata Barcena died, her claim or right to the
said order. Hence petitioner filed a motion for parcels of land in litigation in the civil case was not
reconsideration. extinguished by her death but was transmitted to her
heirs upon her death. Her heirs have thus acquired
ISSUE: WON respondent city court's jurisdiction over a interest in the properties in litigation and became parties
petition for general guardianship is based on the total value in interest in the case.
of the estate or on the value of the individual share of the
minors in the estate of their deceased mother?
HELD: Respondent city court has jurisdiction over the case.

Each of the 7 minor children became owner of a 1/7
share or an amount of P5,000 from the estate left by the
deceased mother valued at P35,000.00 upon the death of
the latter for Article 777 of the New Civil Code expressly
provides that "the rights to the succession are transmitted
from the moment of death of the decedent," and from then
on, the heir becomes the absolute owner of the decedent's
property, subject to the rights and obligations of the
decedent and he cannot be deprived of such right except
by methods provided for by law.
For what is decisive is not the total value of the estate of
the decedent, but the value of the individual share of each
of the minor heirs for whom a guardian is sought to be
appointed individually not collectively.
BONILLA vs. BARCENA
FACTS: On March 31, 1975 Fortunata Barcena, mother of

minors Rosalio and Salvacion and wife of Ponciano Bonilla,
instituted a civil action, to quiet title over certain parcels of
land located in Abra.
On August 4, 1975, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that Fortunata Barcena is dead and,
therefore, has no legal capacity to sue. Said motion to
dismiss was heard on August 14, 1975. In said hearing,
counsel for the plaintiff confirmed the death of Fortunata

BORROMEO-HERRERA vs. BORROMEO
152 SCRA 172 ISSUE: WON Joselito as an illegitimate child is barred from
inheriting from Evarista’s estate.
FACTS: Vito Borromeo, a widower died without forced heirs
but leaving extensive properties in the province of Cebu. HELD: No. Article 992 of the NCC is not applicable
Jose Junquera filed a petition for the probate of a one because involved here is not a situation where an
page document as the last will and testament left by the illegitimate child would inherit ab intestato from a
said deceased. The probate court held that the document legitimate sister of his father, which is prohibited by the
presented as the will was a forgery. aforesaid provision of law. Rather, it is a scenario where
The testate proceeding was converted into an intestate an illegitimate child inherits from his father, the latter's
proceeding. Several parties came before the court filing share in or portion of, what the latter already inherited
claims . from the deceased sister, Evarista.
Fortunato Borromeo, filed a motion before the trial court As opined by the Court of Appeals, the law in point
praying that he be declared as one of the heirs. He in the present case is Article 777 of the NCC, which
asserted and incorporated a Waiver of Hereditary Rights. In provides that the rights to succession are transmitted
the waiver, five of the nine heirs relinquished to Fortunato from the moment of death of the decedent.
their shares in the disputed estate. Since Evarista died ahead of her brother Francisco, the
The petitioner seeks to annul and set aside the trial court's latter inherited a portion of the estate of the former as
order declaring respondent Fortunato Borromeo entitled to one of her heirs. Subsequently, when Francisco died, his
5/9 of the estate of Vito Borromeo. heirs inherited his (Francisco's) share in the estate of
Evarista.
ISSUE: Whether or not the waiver of hereditary right is valid.
GAYON vs. GAYON
HELD: No. The prevailing jurisprudence on waiver of November 26, 1970
hereditary rights is that "the properties included in an
existing inheritance cannot be considered as belonging to FACTS: Pedro Gayon filed said complaint against the
third persons with respect to the heirs, who by fiction of law spouses Silvestre and Genoveva de Gayon, alleging
continue the personality of the former. Nor do such that said spouses executed a deed— whereby they sold
properties have the character of future property, because to Pedro Gelera, for the sum of P500.00, a parcel of
the heirs acquire a right to succession from the moment of unregistered land.
the death of the deceased. The heirs, therefore, could That, said right of redemption had not been exercised
waive their hereditary rights in 1967 even if the order to by the spouses or any of their heirs or successors despite
partition the estate was issued only in 1969. the expiration of the period.
In this case, however, the purported "Waiver of Hereditary That, said Pedro Gelera and his wife Estelita Damaso
Rights" cannot be considered to be effective. For a waiver had, by virtue of a deed of sale sold the
to exist, three elements are essential: (1) the existence of a aforementioned land to plaintiff Pedro Gayon.
right; (2) the knowledge of the existence thereof; and (3) Pedro prays that an order be issued in plaintiff's favor
an intention to relinquish such right. for the consolidation of ownership in and to the
The circumstances of this case show that the signatories aforementioned property.
to the waiver document did not have the clear and
convincing intention to relinquish their rights. Thus Fortunato, ISSUE: WON The heirs cannot represent the defendant
Tomas, and Amelia Borromeo filed a pleading entitled unless there is a declaration of heirship.
"Compliance" wherein they submitted a proposal for the
amicable settlement of the case. This shows that the HELD: NO. Mrs. Gayon as the widow of Silvestre Gayon,
"Waiver of Hereditary Rights" was never meant to be what she is one of his compulsory heirs and has, accordingly,
the respondent now purports it to be. an interest in the property in question.
Succession takes place, by operation of law, "from the
DELA MERCED vs. DELA MERCED moment of the death of the decedent" and "(t)he
February 25, 1999 inheritance includes all the property, rights and
obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his
FACTS: Evarista M. dela Merced died intestate, without death." Hence, they may be sued without a previous
issue and left (5) parcels of land. At the time of her death, declaration of heirship, provided there is no pending
Evarista was survived by three sets of heirs. special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of
On April 20, 1989, the three sets of heirs of the decedent, the decedent.
executed an extrajudicial settlement, adjudicating the
properties of Evarista to them, each set with a share of (1/3) PALICTE vs. RAMOLETE
pro-indiviso. September 21, 1987
Joselito P. Dela Merced, illegitimate son of the late
Francisco, filed a "Petition for Annulment of the Extrajudicial FACTS: Palicte is among the declared heirs on Spl. Proc.
and prayed that he be included to share in the (1/3) pro- No. 2706-R. However, the lower court ruled that she does
indiviso share in the estate of corresponding to the heirs of not qualify as a successor-in-interest who may redeem
Francisco. the real properties sold at public auction on July 5, 1979

for the satisfaction of the judgment in the amount of P725, If later on in the probate proceeding, the will is found
279.00. not to have validly executed, then you go to intestate
proceeding. But first you go to testate.
ISSUE: Whether or not Palicte is a successor-in-interest who
may be able to redeem the said properties sold at pubic BALANAY, JR. vs. MARTINEZ
auction? 64 SCRA 452
RULING: YES. The term successor-in-interest includes one FACTS: Leodegaria Julian died. She was survived by
who succeeds to the interest of the debtor by operation of her husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., and six legitimate
law. children.
In this case, Palicte is the daughter of the late Don Felix Balanay, Jr. filed a petition for the probate of his
Filemon Sotto whose estate was levied upon on execution mother’s notarial will, which was written in English. In
to satisfy the money judgment. As a legitimate heir, she that will, Leodegaria declared that it was her desire her
qualifies as a successor-in-interest. Thus the law provides, properties should not be divided among her heirs during
Art. 777 of the New Civil Code, “The rights to the succession her husband's lifetime and that their legitimes should be
are transmitted from the moment of the death of the satisfied out of the fruits of her properties. She devised
decedent.” and partitioned the conjugal lands as if they were all
In the case of Director of Lands vs. Lagniton, the Court owned by her. She disposed of in the will her husband's
has ruled that: “the right of a son, with respect to the one-half share of the conjugal assets.
property of a father or mother, is also an inchoate or Felix Balanay, Sr. and Avelina B. Antonio opposed the
contingent interest, because, upon the death of the father probate of the will.
or the mother or both, he will have a right to inherit said Thereafter, Felix Balanay, Sr. signed an instrument
conjugal property. If any holder of an inchoate interest is a waiving and renouncing his right in Leodegaria’s estate
successor-in-interest with right to redeem a property sold on in favor of their 6 children.
execution, then such son is such a successor-in-interest, as
he has an inchoate right to the property of his father.” ISSUE: Whether or not the probate court erred in passing
upon the intrinsic validity of the will, before ruling on its
allowance or formal validity, and in declaring it void.
ARTICLE 778. Succession may be:
(1) Testamentary; RULING: The trial court acted correctly in passing upon
(2) Legal or intestate; or the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity
(3) Mixed. (n) had been established. The probate of a will might
become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be
intrinsically void.
ARTICLE 779. Testamentary succession is that which
But the probate court erred in declaring that the will
results from the designation of an heir, made in a will
was void and in converting the testate proceeding into
executed in the form prescribed by law. (n)
an intestate proceeding.
The will is intrinsically valid and the partition therein
RODRIGUEZ vs. BORJA
may be given effect if it does not prejudice the creditors
17 SCRA 41
and impair the legitimes. The distribution and partition
would become effective upon the death of Felix
FACTS: In this case, there were 2 proceedings. First was an
Balanay, Sr. In the meantime, the net income should be
intestate proceeding instituted meaning, a proceeding to
equitably divided among the children and the surviving
settle the estate of a deceased person who died without a
spouse.
will. But subsequently, a will was found and again another
proceeding was instituted, this time, testate proceeding
(Relate to Articles 779 and 780 : In this case, there is
wherein the estate of the deceased person is settled if that
testamentary succession because it resulted from the
person has left a will. We are confronted here of 2
designation of heirs by the testatrix, made in a will
proceedings, one was instituted ahead of the other.
executed in the form prescribed by law. It can be
ISSUE: Which proceeding should be preferred?
considered as a mixed succession because there is
RULING: As long as there is a will, even if that will is found
partly by will (execution of the will and execution of the
later and even if the proceeding for the settlement of the
waiver) and by operation of law (as to the share of the
estate of a person with a will is filed later, that should be
husband of the conjugal party of which he eventually
preferred. The will should be probated. The will should be
waived – buot buot ni na answer ha  )
given effect as much as possible in order to give effect to
the wishes of the testator. The wishes of the testator must
be given such preference first. Probate of the will is needed ARTICLE 780. Mixed succession is that effected partly
in order to determine whether or not the will was indeed by will and partly by operation of law. (n)
valid, whether or not the will was executed in observance
with the formalities required by law and whether or not the ARTICLE 781. The inheritance of a person includes not
testator executed it with a sound mind. 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 FACTS: This case illustrates an indirect disposition of
the succession. (n) properties. So there was only a disinheritance.
ARTICLE 782. An heir is a person called to the succession ISSUE: Is a will containing only disinheritance, a valid will?
either by the provision of a will or by operation of law.
Devisees and legatees are persons to whom gifts of real RULING: Yes. When you disinherit a person you actually
and personal property are respectively given by virtue of a disposed of your property by not letting that person
will. (n) participate in your property. Still, it you who will
determine who will get your property and who will not
get your property by the act of disinheritance.
CHAPTER 2
Testamentary Succession
VITUG vs. CA
SECTION 1 183 SCRA 755
Wills
FACTS: Dolores Vitug, deceased, during her lifetime
SUBSECTION 1 together with her husband Romarico Vitug, executed a
Wills in General survivorship agreement with the bank. It provides that
after the death of either of them, the fund shall belong
exclusively to the survivor.
ARTICLE 783. A will is an act whereby a person is
permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control
ISSUES: WON the survivorship agreement is a will.
to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take
WON it is valid.
effect after his death. (667a)
RULING: Because the account was a joint account and
RABADILLA vs. CA they made a will while they were married, so naturally
June 29, 2000 the cash would be their absolute community or conjugal
property. The cash is owned in-common by them. When
HELD: A will is a personal, solemn, revocable and free act the spouses opened savings account, they merely put
by which a person disposes of his property, to take effect what rightly belonged to them in a money-making
after his death. venture. They did not dispose of it in favor of the other.
Since the will expresses the manner in which a person Since the wife predeceased her husband, the latter
intends how his properties be disposed, the wishes and acquired upon her death a vested right over the amount
desires of the testator must be strictly followed. Thus, a will under the savings account.
cannot be the subject of a compromise agreement which
would thereby defeat the very purpose of making a will.
ARTICLE 784. The making of a will is a strictly personal
act; it cannot be left in whole or in part to the discretion
HERREROS vs. GIL
of a third person, or accomplished through the
88 PHIL 260
instrumentality of an agent or attorney. (670a)
RULING: Will-making is not an inherent act, not an inherent
right. It is merely a privilege as evident by the clause CASTANEDA vs. ALEMANY
“Permitted xxx to control to certain degree the disposition 3 PHIL 426
of his estate.”
FACTS: The appellant contends that the court erred in
MONTINOLA vs. HERBOSA holding that all legal formalities had been complied with
in the execution of the will of Dona Juana as the proof
ISSUE: Is the poem “Mi Ultimo Adios” a will? shows that the said will was not written by the testatrix.
ISSUE: WON the will is valid.

RULING: The poem by Rizal is not a will. Because when he
made that poem, he did not think of making a will. There
HELD: The mechanical act of drafting the will can be left
was no animus testandi. It was merely an expression of
to a third person. What is important is the testator signs
parting. Actually, he was not giving anything to anybody
the will or he let another person to sign but under his
because at the time when he was executed he has no
direction.
properties. So what was there to give? Another thing, there
was an erroneous translation. It was not actually “To give.”
“I give all my parents, my relatives.” Can you give your ARTICLE 785. The duration or efficacy of the
parents, your relatives? Are they properties? No. So the designation of heirs, devisees or legatees, or the
poem is not a will. determination of the portions which they are to take,
when referred to by name, cannot be left to the
MERZA vs. PORRAS discretion of a third person. (670a)
93 PHIL 142

ARTICLE 786. The testator may entrust to a third person ownership should belong to Doňa Fausta without
the distribution of specific property or sums of money that mentioning any condition.
he may leave in general to specified classes or causes, and
also the designation of the persons, institutions or ARTICLE 789. When there is an imperfect description,
establishments to which such property or sums are to be or when no person or property exactly answers the
given or applied. (671a) description, mistakes and omissions must be corrected, if
the error appears from the context of the will or from
ARTICLE 787. The testator may not make a testamentary extrinsic evidence, excluding the oral declarations of the
disposition in such manner that another person has to testator as to his intention; and when an uncertainty
determine whether or not it is to be operative. (n) arises upon the face of the will, as to the application of
any of its provisions, the testator's intention is to be
ascertained from the words of the will, taking into
ARTICLE 788. If a testamentary disposition admits of
consideration the circumstances under which it was
different interpretations, in case of doubt, that
made, excluding such oral declarations. (n)
interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative
shall be preferred. (n)
ESTATE OF RIGOR vs. RIGOR
89 SCRA 493
DIZON-RIVERA vs. DIZON
33 SCRA 554
FACTS: Father Pascual Rigor died. In his will he devised
44-hectares of Riceland to his nearest male relative who
FACTS: The testatrix distributed her properties to her heirs. It
would study for the priesthood. Inasmuch as no nearest
turns out that some of the heirs were prejudiced of their
male relative of the testator claimed the devise, the
legitime because the property actually given to them were
parish priest of Victoria claimed the Riceland.
not approximate to their correct legitime. So these heirs
wanted that to complete their rightful share certain other
ISSUE: How should you interpret the statement in the will,
properties should be given to them.
should it refer only to the nearest male relative at the
time when the testator died or should it be construed to
RULING: But it is very clear in the will of the testatrix that she
mean all nearest male relative who would study for
wanted to give certain properties to certain persons and
priesthood and you have to wait forever until that male
those dispositions or those persons should be respected. If
relative occurs?
the legitime or the rightful shares of the other heirs are
prejudiced, then that should be completed by the delivery
RULING: It should be construed to refer to the nearest
of cash in accordance with the wishes of the testator.
male relative living at the moment of death of the
decedent because that is the time when transmission
VDA. DE VILLANUEVA vs. JUICO
occurs. You cannot wait until the nearest male relative
4 SCRA 550
who would study for the priesthood occurs long after the
priest died. The most reasonable construction is the
FACTS: Don Nicolas Villaflor executed a will in Spanish in his
nearest male relative living at the time of the death of
own handwriting, devising and bequeathing in favor of his
the testator.
wife, Dona Faustina ½ of all his real and personal properties
giving the other half to his brother Don Fausto.
DEL ROSARIO v. DEL ROSARIO
Petitioner filed an action against the administrator
2 PHIL 321
contending that upon the widow’s death, she became
vested with the ownership of the properties bequeathed
RULING: The child even if he is not a natural child would
under clause 7 pursuant to its 8th clause of the will.
still get the property. The fact that he is designated as
the natural child is not a condition but merely a
ISSUE: WON the petitioner is entitled to the ownership of the
description.
properties upon the death of Dona Faustina.
HELD: The intention of the testator here was to merely give ARTICLE 790. The words of a will are to be taken in
usufructuary right to his wife Doňa Fausta because in his will their ordinary and grammatical sense, unless a clear
he provided that Doňa Fausta shall forfeit the properties if intention to use them in another sense can be gathered,
she fails to bear a child and because she died without and that other can be ascertained.
having begotten any children with the deceased then it Technical words in a will are to be taken in their
means that Doňa Fausta never acquired ownership over technical sense, unless the context clearly indicates a
the property. Upon her death, because she never acquired contrary intention, or unless it satisfactorily appears that
ownership over the property, the said properties are not the will was drawn solely by the testator, and that he
included in her estate. Those properties actually belong to was unacquainted with such technical sense. (675a)
Villaflor. That was the intention of the testator. Otherwise, if
the testator wanted to give the properties to Doňa Fausta ARTICLE 791. The words of a will are to receive an
then he should have specifically stated in his will that interpretation which will give to every expression some
effect, rather than one which will render any of the

expressions inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting a ENRIQUEZ vs. ABADIA
will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy. (n) August 9, 1954
YAMBAO vs. GONZALES FACTS: In 1923, when holographic wills were not allowed,
1 SCRA 1157 Abadia executed a holographic will. It was presented in
1946. In 1952, the trial court allowed the will on the
FACTS: Maria Gonzales executed a will bequeathing to ground that under the new Civil Code, holographic wills
appellees all her properties. are now allowed.
Yambao went to appellees to request that he be placed
as tenant of the Riceland under the express provision of the HELD: The will should not be allowed because under
said will. The appellees refused as the will merely imposes a Article 795, the extrinsic validity of a will should be
moral and not a legal obligation. judged not by the law existing at the time of the
testator’s death nor the law at the time of probate, but
ISSUE: WON Yambao is entitled to be employed as tenant by the law existing at the time of the execution of the
pursuant to the will. instrument. Although the will becomes operative only
after the testator’s death, still his wishes are given
HELD: Analyzing the will, it contains a clear directive to expression at the time of the execution.
employ Yambao as tenant.
The words “tungkulin o gampanan” mean to do or to IBARLE vs. PO
carry out as a mandate or directive and imposes a duty February 27, 1953
upon appellees. (not related under this provision)
FACTS: Leonard died in June 1946 leaving his surviving

ARTICLE 792. The invalidity of one of several dispositions spouse, Catalina, and some minor children as his heirs.
contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the Catalina sold an entire parcel of land, which is a
other dispositions, unless it is to be presumed that the conjugal property, to spouses Canoy. It was then sold to
testator would not have made such other dispositions if the Ibarle. The Deeds of Sale were not registered.
first invalid disposition had not been made. (n) In 1948, Catalina sold ½ of the said land to Po, which
portion belongs to the children.
ARTICLE 793. Property acquired after the making of a
HELD: The moment of death is the determining factor
will shall only pass thereby, as if the testator had possessed
when the heirs acquire a definite right to the
it at the time of making the will, should it expressly appear
inheritance, whether such right be pure or contingent. It
by the will that such was his intention. (n)
is immaterial whether a short or long period of time
lapses between the death of the predecessor and the
ARTICLE 794. Every devise or legacy shall convey all the entry into possession of the property of the inheritance
interest which the testator could devise or bequeath in the because the right is always deemed to be retroactive
property disposed of, unless it clearly appears from the will from the moment of death.
that he intended to convey a less interest. (n) When Catalina sold the entire parcel of land to the
Canoy spouses, ½ of it already belongs to the children.
ARTICLE 795. The validity of a will as to its form depends Thus, the first sale was null and void in so far as it
upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is included the children’s share.
made. (n) On the other hand, the sale to the Po having been
made by authority of the competent court was
IN RE: WILL OF RIOSA undeniably legal and effective.
39 PHIL 23
TESTATE ESTATE OF ABADA vs. ABAJA
FACTS: The testator executed a will in 1908 in accordance January 31, 2005
with the laws enforced at that time wherein there was no
requirement of signing and attestation of the will. In 1917 FACTS: Abada executed his will in 1932. Abada died in
the testator died wherein the laws enforced at that time 1940. It was asserted that the will of Abada does not
already required that the will must be signed by the indicate that it was written in a language or dialect
testator and attested. known to the testator and that the will was not
acknowledged before a notary public, citing Articles
HELD: It does not matter that when he died, the laws 804 and 806 of the New Civil Code.
required signing and attestation because the extrinsic
validity of his will should be measured by the laws enforced HELD: The law that governs the validity of the will of
at the time of the execution of the will not at the time of the Abada is the Code of Civil Procedure. Although the
death of the testator. So the legislature by providing laws in force at that time are the Civil Code of 1889 and
certain formalities CANNOT INVALIDATE A WILL VALIDLY Act No. 190 or the Code of Civil Procedure (which
MADE at the time when the testator executed his will. governed the execution of wills before the enactment
of the New Civil Code), the Code of Civil Procedure

repealed Article 685 of the Old Civil Code. Under the Code FACTS: Christensen is a US citizen and a citizen of
of Civil Procedure, the intervention of a notary is not California but was domiciled in the Philippines. In his will,
necessary in the execution of any will. Abada’s will does he gave to Helen P3,600 who was adopted by him. The
not require acknowledgement before a notary public. rest of his estate was to be given to his daughter Lucy.
Under Article 795, the validity of a will as to its form Helen contended that she is deprived of her legitime as
depends upon the observance of the law in force at the an acknowledged natural child as decreed by the US
time it is made. Court. The California Civil Code requires that the
domicile of the decedent should apply.
ARTICLE 16. Real property as well as personal HELD: Philippine law should govern. The national law
property is subject to the law of the country where mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on
it is situated. iatdc2005 conflict of laws in the California Civil Code, which
However, intestate and testamentary authorizes the reference of the question to the law of
successions, both with respect to the order of the testator’s domicile. The conflict of law rule in
succession and to the amount of successional California refers back the case when a decedent is not
rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary domiciled in California to the law of his domicile, the
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law Philippine law in this case.
of the person whose succession is under This is the proper application of the doctrine of
consideration, whatever may be the nature of the renvoi (referring back).
property and regardless of the country wherein
said property may be found. (10a)
MICIANO vs. BRIMO

50 PHIL 867 CAYETANO vs. LEONIDAS
May 30, 1984
FACTS: A will of an American testator provided that his
estate should be disposed of in accordance with the FACTS: Adoracion was a citizen and resident of US but
Philippine law. The testator further provided that whoever died in the Manila. A reprobate of her will was allowed.
would oppose his wishes that his estate should be Hermogenes, her father, contended that he was
distributed in accordance with Philippine laws would forfeit deprived of his legitime as a result of the reprobate of
their inheritance the will.
HELD: Even if the testator’s wishes must be given HELD: The law which governs Adoracion’s will is the law
paramount importance, if the wishes of the testator of Pennsylvania, USA, which is the national law of the
contravene a specific provision of law, then that provision in decedent. While it would seem that Philippine laws
a will should not be given effect. A person’s will is merely an would make the will invalid because there seems to be
instrument which is PERMITTED, so his right is not absolute. It an omission of a compulsory heir, still, the will was
should be subject to the provisions of the Philippine laws. considered to be valid because it was measured in
The estate of a decedent shall be distributed in accordance with law of the US wherein no legitimes are
accordance with his national law. He cannot provide recognized. If there are no legitmes, there could be no
otherwise. case of preterition. The will in this case is valid.
The SC held that those who opposed would not forfeit
their inheritance because that provision is not legal. PCIB vs. ESCOLIN
56 SCRA 266
BELLIS vs. BELLIS
June 6, 1967 FACTS: Linnie, a citizen of Texas, died and left a will
leaving her estate to her husband Charles.
FACTS: A Texan provided in his will that his properties in the HELD: The distribution of her estate should be governed
Philippines should be distributed in accordance with the by the laws of Texas. Foreign laws may not be taken
Philippine law on succession. judicial notice and have to be proven like any other fact
in dispute between the parties in any proceeding with
HELD: The provision is to be regarded as void because it the rare exception in instances when said laws are
contravenes Article 16, paragraph 2 provides that with already within the actual knowledge of the court.
respect to the intrinsic validity of testamentary and intestate If you allege that this certain provision is what is
succession, the national law of the decedent shall prevail. provided in the national law of the decedent, then you
If the Texan, under the Texan law, has no compulsory must prove that law as a fact like you prove any other
heirs, the Philippines law on the legitimes of compulsory fact in dispute. Exception:
heirs cannot be applied. 1. If the foreign laws are within the actual
knowledge of the court; or
TESTATE ESTATE OF CHRISTENSEN 2. When these laws have been considered before
January 31, 1963 by the court in a previous case and the parties

do not oppose as to the consideration of the court marriage ceremony will depend upon the law in force at
as to the existence of the foreign law. the time of the performance of the marriage rite. If the
PCIB’s representation in regards to the law of Texas Muslim marriage took place during the effectivity of the
virtually constitutes admissions of fact which other parties Civil Code and before the effectivity of the Muslim
and the court are being made to rely and act upon. PCIB Code, he cannot marry again because under the Civil
is not permitted to contradict them or subsequently take Code, only one marriage is valid. But when the
position contradictory to or inconsistent with them. marriage took place when the Muslim Code has taken
effect, subsequent marriages are allowed and valid.
IN RE: ESTATE OF JOHNSON The right of the spouses to inherit will depend on whether
November 16, 1918 or not they have been validly married. If they are not
validly married, then they do not have successional
FACTS: Johnson was a native of Sweden and naturalized rights over their partner.
US citizen. He died in Manila. He executed a will in the The status and capacity to succeed of the children
Philippines but with the formalities prescribed by the laws of will depend upon the law in force at the time of
Illinois, in which 2 witnesses are allowed. The Philippine laws conception or birth of the child.
require 3 witnesses. Petitioner also asserted that she is a As to property relations, it is the Civil Code that
legitimate heir of the testator and thus, she cannot be determines and governs the property relations of the
deprived of the legitime to which she is entitled under the marriages in this case, for the reason that at the time of
law governing testamentary successions here in the the celebration of the marriages in question, the Civil
Philippines. Code was the only on marriage relations, including
property relations between spouses, whether Muslim or
HELD: This case is an example of an alien testator who non-Muslim.
executed his will in the Philippines. Under Article 817, he
may observe the laws enforced in his country of nationality. LLORENTE vs. CA
Or, under Article 17, the laws of the place where he November 23, 2000
executes his will, which in this case is the Philippines. The will
of Johnson was admitted to probate because even if it did FACTS: Llorente, enlisted as a serviceman of the US
not conform with the laws of the Philippines, it still conforms navy, was married to a Filipina. He was later on
with the laws of his nationality. admitted as a US citizen. When he went to back to the
As to the alleged deprivation of legitime, it is sufficient Philippines, he filed for divorce since he found out that
to say that the probate of the will does not affect the his wife was having an adulterous relationship with his
intrinsic validity of its provisions, the decree of probate brother. Thereafter, he married his 2nd wife. In 1981,
being conclusive only as regards the due execution of the Lorenzo executed a will and bequeathed all his property
will. to Alicia and their 3 children.
Nevertheless, the intrinsic validity of the provisions of
this will must be determined by the law of Illinois and not by HELD: Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall
the general provisions here applicable in such matters. The inherit from Lorenzo are issued best proved by foreign
intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will of a US citizen is law which must be pleaded and proved. Whether the
governed by the laws of the state of which he is a citizen. will was executed in accordance with the formalities
MALANG vs. MOSON required is answered by referring to Philippine law. The
August 22, 2000 will was duly probated.
The clear intent of Lorenzo to bequeath his property
FACTS: Abdula contracted marriage with Aida and had 3 to his second wife and children is glaringly shown in the
sons with her. Adbula then married for a second time with will he executed. The SC does not wish to frustrate his
Jubaida and no child was born out of that marriage. wishes, since he was a foreigner, not covered by our
Abdula divorced Aida. Abdula then married Nayo and laws on family rights and duties, status, condition and
they also had no child. Thereafter, he contracted another legal capacity.
marriage with Mabay and had a daughter with her. Not
long after, Abdula married 3 other Muslim women but NB: In this case, it must be noted that Llorente was
eventually divorced them. Abdula then married his 4 th wife already an American citizen ***
Neng, excluding the wives he divorced. They were
childless. Abdula died without leaving a will. SUBSECTION 2
Testamentary Capacity and Intent
HELD: Abdula died intestate on December 1993. It is the
Muslim Code which should determine the identification of ARTICLE 796. All persons who are not expressly
the heirs in the order of intestate succession and the prohibited by law may make a will.
respective shares of the heirs. The Muslim Code took effect
on February 4, 1977. If a Muslim died before the effectivity
ARTICLE 797. Persons of either sex under eighteen
of the Muslim Code, the order of succession shall be
years of age cannot make a will. (n)
governed by the Civil Code.
The status and capacity to succeed on the part of the
individual parties who entered into each and every

ARTICLE 798. In order to make a will it is essential that the It is not necessary that a person must be in full
testator be of sound mind at the time of its execution. possession of his mental and reasoning faculties to be
able to be considered of sound mind. It is not necessary
that his mind be unbroken, unshattered by disease,
DOROTHEO vs. CA injury or other cause.
320 SCRA 12
BUGNAO vs. UBAG
FACTS: Private respondents were the legitimate children of September 18, 1909
Alejandro and Aniceta. Aniceta died in 1969 without her
estate being settled. Alejandro died thereafter. Lourdes, HELD: The following requisite must be present for one to
claiming to have taken care of Alejandro before he died, be able to be considered as having soundness of mind or
filed a petition for probate of Alejandro’s will. In1981, the having testamentary capacity:
will was admitted to probate but private respondents did 1. Know the nature of the estate to be disposed of
not appeal from the said order. In 1983, upon motion of the 2. The proper objects of his bounty
private respondents, the trial court ruled that the will was 3. He must know the character of the testamentary act.
intrinsically void and declared private respondents as the It is true that the testimony discloses the fact that the
only heirs of the late spouses. testator at that time of execution of the will was extremely
ill, in an advanced stage of tuberculosis complicated with
HELD: Probate proceedings deal generally with the severe attacks of asthma. But all the evidence of physical
extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated weakness in no wise establishes his mental incapacity or
particularly on these aspects: a lack of testamentary capacity. Mere weakness of mind
 Whether the will submitted is indeed the or partial imbecility from disease of body, or from age, will
decedent’s last will and testament not render a person incapable of making a will, a weak or
 Compliance with the prescribed formalities for the feeble minded person may make a valid will, provided he
execution of wills has understanding and memory sufficient to enable him
 The testamentary capacity of the testator to know what it is about and how or to whom he is
 And the due execution of the last will and disposing of his property.
testament
Under the Civil Code, due execution includes a TORRES, LOPEZ DE BUENO vs. LOPEZ
determination of whether the testator was of sound and February 26, 1926
disposing mind at the time of its execution.
The intrinsic validity is another matter and questions FACTS: It was contended that the testator lacked mental
regarding the same may still be raised even after the will capacity because at the time of the execution of the will,
has been authenticated. It does not necessarily follow that he had senile dementia and was under guardianship.
an extrinsically valid last will and testaments is always
intrinsically valid. HELD: The testator may have been of advanced years,
may have been physically decrepit, may have been
weak in intellect, may have suffered a loss of memory,
ARTICLE 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary
that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning may have had a guardian, and may have been
faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, extremely eccentric, but he still possessed the spark of
or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause. reason and of life, that strength of mind to form a fixed
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time intention and to summon his enfeebled thoughts to
of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be enforce that intention, which the law terms “testamentary
disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the capacity.” Only compete senile dementia will result to
testamentary incapacity.
character of the testamentary act. (n)
SANCHO vs. ABELLA
BAGTAS vs. PAGUIO
November 13, 1933
March 14, 1912
FACTS: The opponent claims that, inasmuch as the
FACTS: Paguio suffered from paralysis of the left side of his
testatrix was 88 years of age when she made her will, she
body until his death. In the probation of his will, it was
was already suffering from senile debility and therefore
contended that he was not in full enjoyment and use of his
her mental faculties were not functioning normally
mental faculties and was without the mental capacity
anymore and that she was not fully aware of her acts. As
necessary to execute a will
an indication of her senile debility, she attempted to
prove that the testatrix had very poor eyesight and sense
HELD: In this jurisdiction, there is a presumption in favor of
of hearing; that she urinated without being aware of it;
mental capacity of the testator and the burden is upon the
that she had a very poor memory in connection with her
contestants of the will to prove the lack of the testamentary
properties and interests; that she could not go downstairs
capacity at the time of the execution of the will. In this
without assistance, and that she could not recall her
case, the testator has never been adjudged insane.
recent acts.
Paralysis is not equivalent to mental incapacity.

HELD: Neither senile debility, nor deafness, nor blindness, nor advanced age and the gravity of her illness, she was
poor memory, is by itself sufficient to establish the unable to do anything for herself. (2) As the doctor and
presumption that the person suffering therefrom is not in the the nurse were leaving, Cuyugan (the appointed
full enjoyment of his mental faculties, when there is sufficient executor of the will), an attorney and 3 witnesses, entered
evidence of his mental sanity at the time of the execution of the house and prepared to obtain the will of Silvestra.
the will and that neither the fact of her being given Neither the doctor and the nurse were presented as
accommodations in a convent, nor the presence of the witnesses by the proponent.
parish priest, nor a priest acting as a witness, constitutes
undue influence sufficient to justify the annulment of a HELD: Silvestra was not of sound mind at the time of the
legacy in favor of the bishop of a diocese made in her will by execution of the will. The oppositor was able to present
a testatrix 88 years of age, suffering from defective eyesight evidence showing that the deceased was of unsound at
and hearing, while she is stopping at a convent within the the times of the execution of the will. Since Cuyugan
aforestated diocese. failed in affirmatively establishing the testamentary
capacity of the deceased, then, the latter was not of
ALSUA-BETTS, et al vs. CA sound mind at the time of the execution of the will as
July 30, 1979 approved by the oppositor.
FACTS: After executing a holographic will which was later CAGUIOA vs. CALDERON
probated during his lifetime, the deceased executed 20 PHIL 400
another will, but this second will he did not submit to the
court for probate while still alive. HELD: Insomnia by itself if not indicative that the testator
was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the
HELD: The fact of non-submission to probate during his will.
lifetime of the second will does not indicate any defect in the
requisite testamentary capacity. Besides, a will is revocable YAP TUA vs. YAP CA KUAN
at any time by the testator was still alive. September 1, 1914
AVELINO vs. DELA CRUZ FACTS: A witness testified that that the testator was sick
February 21, 1912 with tuberculosis and was lying in her bed but sat up to
sign the will. It was also mentioned that the testator
FACTS: It was contended that the will should not have been signed the will with great difficulty.
validated because at the time of the making of the will, the
decedent was blind for a number of years beforehand and HELD: Tuberculosis by itself if not indicative that the
thus was incompetent to make the will in question. testator was of unsound mind at the time of the execution
of the will. The testimony of the doctor as to the mental
HELD: A blind testator may be competent to make a will. condition of the deceased was 24 hours before the
Mere fact of blindness does not render him incompetent. No execution of the will. Several witnesses testified that at the
presumption of incapacity can arise from the mere fact that time the will was presented to her for her signature, she
he was blind. The only requirement of the law as to the was of sound mind and memory and asked for a pen and
capacity to make a will is that the person shall be of age and ink and kept the will in her possession for ten or fifteen
of sound mind and memory. Blind persons are prohibited minutes and finally signed it. The testator was of sound
from acting as witnesses in the execution of wills, but no mind and memory and in the possession of her faculties at
limitation is placed upon testamentary capacity, except age the time she signed this will.
and soundness of mind.
SAMSON vs. CORRALES TAN QUINTIN
JOCSON vs. JOCSON 44 PHIL 573
June 8, 1922
FACTS: It was alleged by the attending physician, as a
HELD: Failure of memory is not sufficient unless it be total or witness for the opposition, that the deceased was
extends to the immediate family or property. suffering from diabetes and that he had been in
comatose for several days prior to his death. It was
CUYUGAN vs. BARON argued that comatose implies a complete
January 16, 1936 unconsciousness and that the testator therefore could not
at that time, have executed a will. However, all the
FACTS: The probate of the will of Silvestra Baron was witnesses presented by petitioner testified that the
opposed on the ground that at the time of the execution of deceased was conscious, could hear and understand
the alleged will, Silvestra was mentally and physically what was said to him and he was able to indicate his
incapacitated for the execution of the will. desires.
The evidence shows that (1) the same morning when
Silvestra signed the alleged will, she suffered a physical HELD: The professional speculations of a physician as to
collapse of such a serious nature that a physician and a mental capacity of the testator cannot prevail over the
nurse were immediately called in. By reason of her positive statements of 5 apparently credible witnesses

whose testimony does not in itself seem unreasonable. Tan  Albornoz VS. Albornoz  Torres VS. Lopez de Bueno
was of sound mind, which renders the will and testament (71 Phil 414) - Lack of (48 Phil 772) - Senility,
valid. memory and Senile Dementia when
There are varying degrees of comatose. In its lighter understanding and pre- not complete
forms, the patient may be aroused and have lucid intervals. senile dementia  Sancho VS. Abella (58 Phil
Such seems to have been in this case.  Neyra VS. Neyra (76 Phil 728) -Senile debility,
The testimony of the doctor was not given credit because 333) - Delirium when it deafness, poor memory.
he was not present when the will was executed. beclouds the mind so  Alsua-Betts VS. CA (July
as not to understand 30, 1979) - Weakness of
GALVEZ vs. GALVEZ the nature of act, mind or partial imbecility
26 PHIL 243 extent of property, from disease of body or
objects of bounty from age
HELD: Although the testator was ill with CHOLERA, since he  Torres VS. Lopez de  Avelino VS. Dela Cruz (21
demonstrated that he had sufficient energy and clear Bueno (48 Phil 772) - Phil 521) – Blindness
intelligence to execute his last will in accordance with the complete senile  Bagtas VS. Paguio,
requirements of the law, his case must be an exception to the dementia will result to Jocson VS. Jocson (46 Phil
general rule that cholera patients in majority of cases testamentary 701), Cuyugan vs. Baron -
become incapacitated. incapacity Failure of memory
 Samson VS. Corrales Tan  Caguioa VS. Calderon (20
CARRILLO v. JAOCOCO (44 Phil 573) - the Phil 400) – Insomnia
March 24, 1924 positive testimony of  Yap Tua VS. Yap Ca Kuan
attesting witnesses (27 Phil 579) –
HELD: The fact that the vendor, having been declared which does not in itself Tuberculosis
mentally incapacitated after the execution of the document seem unreasonable as  Samson VS. Corrales Tan
of sale, does not prove conclusively that she was to the mental condition Quintin (44 Phil 573) –
incapacitated when the contract was executed. of the testator must Diabetes
prevail over the  Galvez VS. Galvez (26 Phil
HERNAEZ vs. HERNAEZ professional 243) – Cholera
1 PHIL 718 speculations of a non-  Bagtas VS. Paguio -
attending physician Paralysis and loss of
HELD: OLD AGE is not sufficient to establish lack of speech
testamentary capacity.  Carilio VS. Jaojoco (46
Phil 957) - Cerebral
NEYRA vs. NEYRA Hemorrhage with
76 PHIL 333 hemiplegia
 Hernaez VS. Hernaez (1
HELD: The mental faculties of persons suffering from Phil 683) - Old age
ADDISON’S DISEASE remain unimpaired, partly due to the  Neyra VS. Neyra (76 Phil
fact that on account of the sleep they enjoy, they 333) - Delirium; Sleeping
necessarily receive the benefit of physical and mental rest. Sickness (Addison's
Like patients suffering from TUBERCULOSIS, INSOMNIA or disease)
DIABETES, they preserve their mental faculties until the  Bugnao VS. Ubag (14 Phil
moment of their death. 163) - Asthma
Even if the testator is ill and his hand is guided in
signing will, lying down and unable to move or stand up
unassisted, the testator is not considered to of unsound
ARTICLE 800. The law presumes that every person is of
mind.
sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Delirium when it beclouds the mind so as not to
The burden of proof that the testator was not of
understand the nature of act, extent of property, and
sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on
objects of bounty is an indication of an unsound mind.
the person who opposes the probate of the will; but if
the testator, one month, or less, before making his will
ALBORNOZ vs. ALBORNOZ
was publicly known to be insane, the person who
71 PHIL 414
maintains the validity of the will must prove that the
testator made it during a lucid interval. (n)
HELD: Lack of memory and understanding and pre-senile
dementia is an instance where a testator is considered as
TORRES, LOPEZ DE BUENO vs. LOPEZ
of unsound mind.
February 26, 1926
Summary of cases with regard to soundness of mind:
INDICATIONS OF AN NOT INDICATIVE OF AN

UNSOUND MIND UNSOUND MIND

HELD: If the testator made the will after he had been But the burden of evidence passes to the proponent
judicially declared insane, and before such judicial order when the oppositors submit credible evidence tending
had been set aside, the testator is presumed insane. to show that the supposed testator did not possess
testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of
the will or that the document was not the free and
The law requires that proponents of the will shall have voluntary expression of the alleged testator of the will,
the burden of proof to show that the testator had for any other reason, is void law.
soundness of mind if the testator made the will after a In this case, the oppositor was able to present
judicial determination of his insanity. evidence showing that the deceased was of unsound
mind at the time of the execution of the will. Hence, the
RAMIREZ vs. RAMIREZ burden of proof passes to the proponent Cuyugan.
39 SCRA 147 Since Cuyugan failed in affirmatively establishing the
testamentary capacity of the deceased, then, the latter
HELD: Where the statements of the notary public were far was not of unsound mind at the time of the execution of
from satisfactory, vague, evasive and tend to beg the very the will as proved by the oppositor.
issue, as where he could not say, but merely supposed that
the testatrix had a recollection of her properties, or of the GONZALES vs. GONZALES
relatives who would logically inherit from her and when November 29, 1951
asked to explain his answer to the question concerning her
mental state, he simply referred to the certification in the FACTS: Two separate petitions for probate of the will
will on that point, and so declined to fully commit himself, were filed. One will was executed in 1942. The other
such testimony fails to establish testamentary capacity. was executed in 1945. The latter was the basis of the
The evidence showed the definite conclusion that the petition of Manolita. Manuel moved for the revocation
testatrix was indeed mentally incapacitated to make a will. presented by Manolita alleging that the testatrix lacked
As early as 1955, she was already suffering from pre-senile testamentary capacity when she allegedly executed
dementia, a degenerative mental infirmity that was the instrument of revocation.
described as a progressive and irreversible process. Attesting witnesses of the execution of the will
testified that the testatrix was of sound mind at the time
JUNQUERA vs. BORROMEO the alleged instrument of revocation was executed.
March 30, 1987 But said testimony was contradicted by the
attending physician saying that for more than 10 years
FACTS: There were witnesses who testified that the prior to her death, the testatrix was suffering from
signatures purporting to be that of the testator were hypertension and later on, had aphasia.
forgeries, that they were too good and too perfect Private respondent contended that the testimony of
signatures and quite impossible for the deceased, an ailing the attesting witnesses should be given more credence
man already 82 years old, to write and the he was found than the opinion of an expert witness.
positive for bacillus leprosy.
HELD: The doctor’s testimony shall prevail.
HELD: In this jurisdiction, the subscribing witnesses to a Where the family physician attended the testatrix
contested will are regarded as best witnesses in connection during her last illness and saw her on the day when the
with its due execution. To deserve full credit, their testimony alleged document of revocation was executed, the
must be reasonable and unbiased and that their testimony testimony of the attesting witnesses tending to imply that
may be overcome by any competent evidence – direct or the testatrix was of sound mind at the time said
circumstantial. document was executed, cannot prevail over the
Subscribing witnesses may forget or exaggerate what contrary testimony of the attending physician.
they really know, saw, heard or did; they may be biased, The physician’s testimony should be believed
and therefore, tell only half-truths to mislead the court or because he was constantly near the testator and he
favor one party to the prejudice of the court. This can not actually saw the latter on the date of execution.
be said of the condition and physical appearance of the
questioned document itself. The SC has carefully examined ARTICLE 801. Supervening incapacity does not
and considered the physical appearance and condition of invalidate an effective will, nor is the will of an incapable
the original and 2 copies of the questioned will, particularly validated by the supervening of capacity. (n)
the signatures attributed to the testator, and the SC has
come to the conclusion that the latter could not have
ARTICLE 802. A married woman may make a will
been written by the testator.
without the consent of her husband, and without the
authority of the court. (n)
CUYUGAN vs. BARON
January 16, 1936
ARTICLE 803. A married woman may dispose by will
HELD: An instrument purporting to be a will executed and of all her separate property as well as her share of the
witnessed in accordance with the formalities required by conjugal partnership or absolute community property.
the statute is entitled to presumption of regularity. (n)

effect that the testator is presumed to know the dialect
ARTICLE 804. Every will must be in writing and executed of the locality where he resides, unless there is proof to
in a language or dialect known to the testator. (n) the contrary.
First, it was not proven that English is the language of
TESTATE ESTATE OF ABADA vs. ABAJA Baguio where the deceased lived and where the will
January 31, 2005 was drawn.
The record contains positive proof that the testator
FACTS: The probate of the will was opposed on the ground knew no other language other than the Igorrote dialect,
that nowhere in the will can one discern that Abada, the with a smattering of Ilocano. He did not know the
testator, knew the Spanish language. English language in which the will was written.
HELD: There is no statutory requirement to state in the will REYES vs. VIDAL
itself that the testator knew the language or dialect used in April 21, 1952
the will. This is a matter that a party may establish by proof
aliunde. FACTS: There was nothing in the testimony of the
witnesses presented by Juan which indicated that the
LOPEZ vs. LIBORO testatrix knew and spoke the Spanish language used in
August 27, 1948 the preparation of the will in question. The oppositors
submitted as evidence letters written in Spanish by the
FACTS: Lopez executed a will in Spanish. The probate of his deceased in her own handwriting.
will was opposed on the ground that the will is silent on the
testator’s understanding of the language used in the HELD: The will can be admitted.
testament. The failure of the petitioner’s witnesses to testify that
the testatrix knew and spoke Spanish does not itself
HELD: There is no statutory requirement that the testator’s alone suffice to conclude that this requirement of law
understanding of the language used in the will be has not been complied with when there is enough
expressed therein. It is a matter that may be established by evidence of record which supplies this technical
proof aliunde. omission.
Where the evidence of the oppositor to the probate
of a will shows that the testatrix possessed the Spanish
ABANGAN vs. ABANGAN language, the oppositor cannot later on be allowed to
November 12, 1919 allege the contrary.
The fact that the testatrix was a mestiza española,
FACTS: It is alleged that the records do not show that the was married to a Spaniard, made several trip to Spain
testatrix knew the dialect in which the will is written. She and some of her letters submitted as evidence by the
executed her will in Cebu. oppositor were written in Spanish by the testatrix in her
HELD: The circumstances appearing in the will itself that the own writing give rise to the presumption that the testatrix
same was executed in Cebu and in the dialect of this knew the language in which the testament has been
locality where the testatrix was a neighbor is enough, in the written, which presumption should stand unless the
absence of any proof to the contrary, to presume that she contrary is proven.
knew this dialect in which her will was written. Where the attestation clause of the will states that
the testatrix knew and possessed the Spanish language
ACOP vs. PIRASO though this matter is not required to be stated in the
January 16, 1929 attestation clause, its inclusion can only mean that the
instrumental witnesses wanted to make it of record that
FACTS: Sixto alleged on appeal that the lower court erred the deceased knew the language in which the will was
in saying that in order to be valid, the will in question should written.
have been drawn up in the Ilocano dialect.
The evidence shows that Piraso knew how to speak the
Ilocano dialect, although imperfectly, and could make
himself understood in that dialect.
It has been proved that the deceased Piraso did not TESTATE ESTATE OF JAVELLANA vs. JAVELLANA
know English. January 30, 1960
HELD: The will is not valid. FACTS: The testator was a Visayan who lived in San
The decedent’s alleged will, being written in English, a Juan, Rizal. He executed his will in Manila in the Spanish
language unknown to the decedent, cannot be probated language.
because it is prohibited by the law, which clearly requires It was contended that the language requirement of
that the will be written in the language or dialect known the the law on wills ahs not been complied with in this case.
testator. There was no expression in the body of the will itself or in
Nor can the presumption in favor of a will established its attestation clause that the testator knew Spanish, the
by the SC in the case of Abangan vs. Abangan to the language in which it is written.

1. The first contains all of the disposition of the
HELD: Where there is want of expression in the body of the testatrix, duly signed at the bottom by Martin, in
will itself or in the attestation clause that the testator knew the name and under the direction of the
the language in which the will was written, proof thereof testatrix, and by 3 other witnesses.
may be established by evidence aliunde. Although the 2. The second contains only the attestation clause
lack of such evidence may be cured by presumption of duly signed at the bottom by the 3 instrumental
knowledge of the language or dialect used in the will, no witnesses.
such presumption can arise where, as in the case at bar,
the will was executed in Spanish, while the testator was a
Visayan residing in San Juan, Rizal at the time of his death. Neither of these sheets is signed on the left margin
by the testatrix and 3 witnesses, nor numbered by letters;
SUROZA vs. HONRADO and these omissions, according to the oppositors’
December 19, 1981 contention, are defects whereby the probate of the will
should be denied.
FACTS: Marcelina’s will was written in English and
thumbmarked by her. She was illiterate. It was contended HELD: Such lack of signature and numbering do not
that the will was void because the testatrix was illiterate as make the will invalid.
shown by the fact that she affixed her thumbmark to the When the dispositions are wholly written on only 1
will and that she did not know English, the language in sheet signed at the bottom by the testator and 3
which the will was written. witnesses, their signatures on the left margin of said
In the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that sheet would be completely purposeless. The purpose of
English was a language “understood and known” to the such requirement is to avoid substitution of any of said
testatrix. But in its concluding paragraph, it was stated that sheets, thereby changing the testator’s disposition.
the will was read to the testatrix “and translated into Filipino As to the numbering of every page, the object is to
language. close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid
substitution of wills and to guaranty their truth and
HELD: Probate denied. The fact that the English-written will authenticity. But, when all the dispositive parts of a will
had to be translated to the testatrix could only mean that are written on 1 sheet only, the object of the statute
the will was written in a language not known to the illiterate disappears because the removal of this single sheet,
testatrix, and therefore, it is void because of the mandatory although unnumbered cannot be hidden.
provision of Article 804 of the Civil Code that every will must As to the signature of the testator on the attestation
be executed in a language or dialect known to the clause, such is not necessary because said clause
testator. appertains only to the witnesses and not to the testator
since the latter does not attest, but executes, the will.
ARTICLE 805. Every will, other than a holographic will,
must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator ICASIANO vs. ICASIANO
himself or by the testator's name written by some other June 30, 1964
person in his presence, and by his express direction, and
attested and subscribed by three or more credible FACTS: The will in this case consists of 5 pages. It had all
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one the formality requirements and was signed at the end of
another. every page, but it does not contain the signature of the
The testator or the person requested by him to write his one of the attesting witnesses on page 3. But the
name and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also duplicate copy is signed by the testatrix and her 3
sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except attesting witnesses in each and every page.
the last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be
numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part HELD: The will is not invalid. The inadvertent failure of
of each page. one witness to affix his signature to 1 page of a
The attestation shall state the number of pages used testament, due to the simultaneous lifting of 2 pages in
upon which the will is written, and the fact that the testator the course of signing, is not per se sufficient to justify
signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some denial of probate. Impossibility of substitution if this page
other person to write his name, under his express direction, is assured not only by the fact that the testatrix and the 2
in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the other witnesses signed the defective page, but also by
latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages its bearing the imprint of the seal of the notary public.
thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. The law should not be so strictly and literally
If the attestation clause is in a language not known to interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the
the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them. (n) inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct
she has no control, where the purpose of the law to
ABANGAN vs. ABANGAN guarantee the identity of the testament and its pages is
November 12, 1919 sufficiently attained, no intentional or deliberate
deviation existed, and the evidence on record attests to
FACTS: Abangan’s will was admitted to probate. The will the full observance of the statutory requisites.
consists of two sheets:

Otherwise, witnesses may sabotage the will by muddling or 3. The testator or the person acting in his stead, as
bungling it or the attestation clause. well as the 3 witnesses sign on the left margin of
each page or sheet, which must be numbered
BARUT vs. CAGACUNGAN correlatively in letters on the upper part of the
June 30, 1964 page.
The law does not say that said witnesses must be
FACTS: The signature of the testatrix was written by Severo different form those who signed the attestation clause.
at the request of the testatrix and in her presence and in It follows that the same witnesses who signed on the left
the presence of all the other witnesses to the will. margin of each page of the document presented by
The probate of the will was contended on the ground the testator to them as his will, must be the ones who
that the handwriting of Severo looked more like the should sign the attestation clause, inasmuch as they
handwriting of one of the 3 other attesting witnesses to the alone can certify the facts to be stated in said clause,
will. for having taken a direct part therein, as they saw the
testator sign the will, or the person requested by him to
HELD: Whether one person or another signed the name of sign all the sheets of the will.
the testatrix in this case is absolutely unimportant so far as
the validity of her will is concerned. It is because there were LEANO vs. LEANO
4 witnesses to the will of the decedent and the law requires March 31, 1915
only 3 attesting witnesses to the will.
It is unimportant whether the person who writes the FACTS: The testatrix placed a cross against her name in
name of the testatrix signs his own name or not. The the will in the presence of 3 witnesses.
important thing is that it clearly appears that the name of
the testatrix was signed at her express direction in the HELD: Will is valid.
presence of 3 witnesses and that they attested and The placing of the cross opposite her name at the
subscribed it in her presence and in the presence of each. construction of the instrument was sufficient compliance
That is all the law requires. with the requirements of the law.
It may be wise as a practical matter that the one who The right of a testator to sign his will by mark,
signs the testator’s name signs also his own; but that is not executed animus testandi, has been uniformly sustained
essential to the validity of the will by the courts of last resort of the US in construing
statutory provisions prescribing the mode of execution of
IN RE: WILL OF TAN DUICO wills.
March 19, 1924
GARCIA vs. LACUESTA
FACTS: There were 4 witnesses to the will. The decedent’s November 29, 1951
name was signed in his behalf upon his request by one of
the subscribing witnesses. The will was questioned on the FACTS: Antero died leaving behind a will, which
ground that it was not signed by 3 instrumental witnesses. appears to have been signed by Atty. Javier who wrote
the name of Antero, followed below by “A ruego del
HELD: Even if one of the subscribing witnesses signs in testador” and the name of Javier. Antero is alleged to
behalf of the testator when so requested, the requirement have written a cross immediately after his name.
of the law of at least 3 witnesses is still complied with. In this It was alleged that the attestation clause is fatally
case, there were 4 subscribing witnesses to the will. defective for failing to state that Antero caused Atty.
But if there were only 3 witnesses to the will, one of them Javier to write the testator’s name under his express
cannot sign to the will because it would fall short of the direction.
requirement of 3 witnesses. The proponent theorized that the cross is as much a
The 3 witnesses who signed the will are the ones who signature as a thumb mark.
must also sign the attestation clause.
An instrumental witness is one who takes part in the HELD: The will is invalid.
execution of an instrument or writing. A testator cannot sign a will by only marking a cross
The will thus have been prepared and before it is against his name if it is not his customary signature. It is
signed by the testator or the person acting in his stead, or not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will
the one directed by him to sign it in his name (in which case is the usual signature of Antero or even one of the ways
the name of the testator is written before that of the signer), by which he signed his name. The mere sign of a cross
in order that said document may have the character of a cannot be likened to a thumb mark. The cross cannot
valid will: and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumb mark.
1. The testator gathers 3 or more credible witnesses When the testator expressly caused another to sign
and tells them that the contents of said document the former’s name, this fact must be recited in the
is his will, without informing them of its contents, and attestation clause. Otherwise, the will is fatally defective
2. The testator or the person directed by him to do so and cannot be probated.
signs it in the presence of the testator and of each
other, and BALONAN vs. ABELLANA
August 31, 1960

The fact that he was in the act of leaving, and that
FACTS: Anacleta died leaving a will signed in her behalf by his back was turned while a portion of the name of the
Dr. Abello and under his name appears typewritten “Por la witness was being written, is of no importance. At the
testadora” (for the testator) Anacleta. moment when the witness Javellana signed the
The oppositors questioned the will because it was not document, he was actually and physically present and
signed in the name of the testator but rather in the name of in such position with relation to Javellana that he could
Dr. Abello see everything which took place by merely casting his
eyes in the proper direction, and without any physical
HELD: The will may not be admitted to probate. obstruction to prevent his doing so.
The witness should not have signed in his own name but
rather that of the testator. NERA vs. RIMANDO
In this case, the name of the testatrix does not appear February 27, 1911
written under the will by herself or by Dr. Abello. There is
failure to comply with the express requirement in the law FACTS: There was a dispute as to the circumstances
that the testator must himself sign the will, or that his name attending the signing of the will on the day of its
be affixed thereto by some other person in his presence execution:
and by his express direction. 1. whether one of the subscribing witnesses was
present in the small room where it was executed
ABAYA vs. ZALAMERO at the time when the testator and the other
March 12, 1908 subscribing witnesses attached their signatures
2. whether at that time he was outside, some eight
FACTS: It was found out that Mariano, who was requested or ten feet away, in a large room connecting
by the testator to write his name and surname at the end of with the smaller room by a doorway, across
his will, did not affix his own signature below the name and which was hung a curtain which made it
surname of the testator and below the cross placed by the impossible for one in the outside room to see the
latter and did not write the words “by request of the testator and the other subscribing witnesses in
testator”. the act of attaching their signatures to the
instrument
HELD: The will should be admitted to probate. The said will
already clearly stated the reasons why it was not signed by HELD: The SC admitted the first one and the will was
the testator himself and the fact that he made a request to admitted for probate.
the witness to do the signing for him. A repetition thereof by If the 2nd circumstance had happened, had the
writing “by request of the testator” was not necessary. subscribing witness been proven to have been in the
outer room at the time when the testator and the other
JABONETA vs. GUSTILO subscribing witnesses attached their signatures to the
January 19, 1906 instrument in the inner room, it would have been invalid
as a will, the attaching of those signatures under
FACTS: There were 3 witnesses as to the execution of the circumstances not being done "in the presence" of the
will of Jaboneta. Jena signed first, followed by Jalbuena. witness in the outer room. This because the line of vision
At that moment, Jena, being in a hurry to leave, took his from this witness to the testator and the other subscribing
hat and left the room. As he was leaving the room, Jena witnesses would necessarily have been impeded by the
saw Javellana, the 3rd witness, took the pen in his hand and curtain separating the inner from the outer one "at the
put himself in position to sign the will as a witness, but did moment of inscription of each signature."
not sign in the presence of Jena. Nevertheless, after Jena The question whether the testator and the
had left the room, Javellana signed as a witness in the subscribing witnesses to an alleged will sign the
presence of the testator and of the witness Jalbuena. instrument in the presence of each other does not
(pansin ko lang puro “J” ang surname sa testator ug depend upon proof of the fact that their eyes were
witnesses .. hehe ) actually cast upon the paper at the moment of its
subscription by each of them, but that at that moment
HELD: The will should be admitted to probate. It is not existing conditions and their position with relation to
required that the witness must see the actual signing of the each other were such that by merely casting the eyes in
other witnesses. the proper direction they could have seen each other
The purpose of a statutory requirement that the witness sign.
sign in the presence of the testator is said to be that the
testator may have ocular evidence of the identity of the MARAVILLA vs. MARAVILLA
instrument subscribed by the witness and himself, and the February 27, 1971
generally accepted tests of presence are vision and mental
apprehension. FACTS: The probate of the will of Digna was opposed by
The true test of vision is not whether the testator actually the brother and sisters of the deceased on the ground
saw the witness sign, but whether he might have seen him that she and the instrumental witnesses did not sign the
sign, considering his mental and physical condition and alleged will, each and every page thereof, in the
position at the time of the subscription. presence of each other.

Only one of the witnesses is alive during the petition for before or after the testatrix, or whether or not they
probate. The trial court ruled that Mansueto did not signed with the same pen and ink, these are details of
actually see Digna sign the will in question because of the such trivial importance, considering that this will was
fact that while Mansueto positively identified his own signed two years before the date on which these
signature, he did not identify that of the testatrix, his witnesses gave their testimony, that it is not proper to set
answers being "this must be the signature of Mrs. Maravilla". aside the will for this reason alone.
HELD: It was but natural that witness Mansueto should be GONZALES vs. CA
positive about his own signature, since he was familiar with May 25, 1979
it. He had to be less positive about Digna Maravilla's
signature since he could not be closely acquainted with FACTS: The oppositor contends that there was no proof
the same. that the 3 instrumental witnesses were credible.
Records show that the signing of the will was the only
occasion that he saw her sign. He had no opportunity to HELD: Article 820 and 821 provide the qualifications and
study her signature before or after the execution of the will. disqualifications of persons from being witnesses to a will.
He witnessed Digna's signing not less than 14 years There is no mandatory requirement that the witness
previously. To demand that in identifying Digna's signature testify initially or at any time during the trial as to his
Mansueto should display a positiveness equal to the good standing in the community, his reputation for
certainty shown by him in recognizing his own, exceeds the trustworthiness and reliableness, his honesty and
bounds of the reasonable. The variation in the expressions uprightness in order that his testimony may be believed
used by the witness is the best evidence that he was being and accepted by the trial court.
candid and careful, and it is a clear badge of truthfulness It is not mandatory that evidence be first established
rather than the reverse. on record that the witnesses have a good standing in
A will may be allowed even if some witnesses not the community or that they are honest and upright or
remember having attested it, if other evidence satisfactorily reputed to be trustworthy and reliable, for a person is
show due execution, and that failure of witness to identify presumed to be such unless the contrary is established
his signature does not bar probate. otherwise. In other words, the instrumental witnesses
The tests is not whether a witness did see the signing of must be competent and their testimonies must be
the will but whether he was in a position to see if he chose credible before the court allows the probate of the will
to do so. they have attested.
A witnesses’ reputation for trustworthiness and
GABRIEL vs. MATEO reliableness, his honesty and uprightness are presumed
December 16, 1927 unless the contrary is proved otherwise by the opposing
party.
FACTS: According to the oppositors, the attesting witnesses Probate of the will must be allowed.
testified that the decedent signed before they did.
However, based on the will, the attesting witnesses signed NAYVE vs. MOJAL
before the testator since the latter’s signature tend to rise December 29, 1924
when it reaches a level with an attesting witnesses’
signature. The testator had to write her surname upwards in FACTS: The defects attributed to the will are:
order to avoid interfering with that Felicisimo, one of the (a) not having been signed by the testator and the
witnesses. It was also contended that there were witnesses on each and every sheet on the left
apparently different kinds of ink used by the testatrix in her margin;
signature and by the attesting witnesses. (b) the sheets of the document not being paged with
letters;
HELD: The will is valid. It may be inferred with equal, if not (c) the attestation clause does not state the number of
greater, logic that the testatrix signed before him, and sheets or pages actually used of the will; and
when it came to the witness Gabriel's turn, he, finding the (d) the testator does not appear to have signed all the
space below the testatrix's signature free, signed his name sheets in the presence of the 3 witnesses, and the
there. On the other hand, it may be noted that the latter to have attested and signed all the sheets in
testatrix's other signature at the bottom of the will also the presence of the testator and of each other.
shows a more or less marked tendency to rise,
notwithstanding the fact that there was no signature with HELD:
which she might interfere if she continued to write in a (a) As each and every page used of the will bears the
straight horizontal line. signatures of the testator and the witnesses, the fact
(According to Ma’am’s notes: The witnesses may sign that said signatures do not all appear on the left
ahead of the decedent and vice-versa as long as it is done margin of each page does not detract from the
in one single, contemporaneous or continuous act. The validity of the will.
order of the signing is of no material so long as the (b) Paging with Arabic numerals and not with letters is
execution of the will constitutes only one single transaction.) within the spirit of the law, and is just as valid as
At all events, even admitting that there is a certain paging with letters.
question as to whether the attesting witnesses signed

(c) The last paragraph of the will in question and the AVERA vs. GARCIA
attestation clause, coming next to it, are of the September 14, 1921
following tenor:
"In witness whereof, I set my hand unto this will here in FACTS: The admission for probate of the will of Esteban is
the town of Camalig, Albay, Philippine Islands, this 26th being appealed on the grounds that only one of the
day of November, nineteen hundred and eighteen, attesting witnesses was presented and by reason of the
composed of four sheets, including the next X X X" fact that the signature of the testator and of the 3
The number of sheets is stated in said last attesting witnesses are written on the right margin of
paragraph of the will. The attestation clause must state each page of the will instead of the left.
the number of sheets or pages composing the will; but
when, as in the case before us, such fact, while it is not HELD: All attesting witnesses must be examined, if alive
stated in the attestation clause, appears at the end of and within reach of the process of the court. However,
the will proper, so that no proof aliunde is necessary of this point was not raised by appellant in the lower court,
the number of the sheets of the will, then there can be hence deemed waived.
no doubt that it complies with the intention of the law So far as concerns the authentication of the will,
that the number of sheets of which the will is composed and of every part thereof, it can make no possible
be shown by the document itself, to prevent the difference whether the names appear on the left or no
number of the sheets of the will from being unduly the right margin, provided they are on one or the other.
increased or decreased. By the mode of signing here adopted every page
(d) The attestation clause above set out it is said that the and provision of the will is authenticated and guarded
testator signed the will "in the presence of each of the from possible alteration in exactly the same degree that
witnesses" and the latter signed "in the presence of it would have been protected by being signed in the left
each other and of the testator." So that, as to whether margin
the testator and the attesting witnesses saw each other
sign the will, such a requirement was clearly and ESTATE OF TAMPOY vs. ALBERASTINE
sufficiently complied with. What is not stated in this February 25, 1960
clause is whether the testator and the witnesses signed
all the sheets of the will. FACTS: The trial court denied the petition on the ground
The fact of the testator and the witnesses having that the left hand margin of the first page of the will
signed all the sheets of the will may be proven by the does not bear the thumbmark of the testatrix.
mere examination of the document, although it does Petitioner contends that although the 1st page of
not say anything about this, and if that is the fact, as it is the will does not bear the thumbmark of the testatrix, the
in the instant case, the danger of fraud in this respect, 2nd page however bears her thumbmark and both
which is what the law tries to avoid, does not exist. pages were signed by the 3 testimonial witnesses.
HELD: The will is not valid. The law requires that the
IN RE: ESTATE OF SAGUINSIN testator sign the will and each and every page thereof in
March 15, 1920 the presence of the witnesses, and that the latter sign the
will and each and every page thereof in the presence of
FACTS: The will constituted of 3 pages on 2 sheets. The the testator and of each other, which requirement should
signatures of the 3 attesting witnesses together with that of be expressed in the attestation clause. This requirement
the alleged testatrix were written on the left margin of the is mandatory, for failure to comply with it is fatal to the
1st page (front of 1st sheet), and the 3rd page (front of 2nd validity of the will.
sheet). However, said signatures are absent on the 2 nd Since the will in question suffers from the fatal defect
page (back of the 1st sheet), which was on the reverse side that it does not bear the thumbmark of the testatrix on
of the 1st page where, as is seen, the manuscript is its first page even if it bears the signature of the three
continued. instrumental witnesses, we cannot escape the
conclusion that the same fails to comply with the law
HELD: The will is invalid. The attestation did not state the and therefore, cannot be admitted to probate.
number of sheet or pages used upon which the will is
written. The 2nd page, which was written on the reverse side UNSON vs. ABELLA
of the first, engenders the doubt whether what is written December 29, 1924
thereon was ordered written by the alleged testatrix or was
subsequently added by the same hand that drew the first FACTS: The petition for probate of the will of Dona
page and the date that appears on the third. Josefa was opposed on the ground that the supposed
The English text of the law which require the signing of will of the deceased was not executed in conformity
pages (“paginas”), and not merely leaves or sheets with the provinces of the law, inasmuch as it was not
(“hojas”) under the Spanish text should prevail. The law paged correlatively in letters, nor was there any
requires that both pages of a sheet must be signed. This attestation clause in it, nor was it signed by the testatrix
failure to comply with the law vitiates the will and and the witnesses in the presence of each other. It was
invalidates it, as the second page is lacking in authenticity. also contested that the inventory attached thereto is
invalid as it has no attestation clause in it.

specially because said attestation clause is not signed
HELD: The will is valid. In view of the fact that the inventory by the testator either at the margin or the bottom
is referred to in the will as an integral part of it, the thereof.
attestation clause is in compliance with law, which requires
this solemnity for the validity of a will, and makes
unnecessary any other attestation clause at the end of the
inventory. HELD: The will must be allowed to be probated.
In the case of Aldaba vs. Roque, the validity of the will The law does not require that the testator precisely
was upheld though it was paged with the letters A, B, C, be the person to request the witnesses to attest his will. It
etc. instead of with the numbers “one”, “two”, “three”, etc. was also sufficiently established in the record, besides
Since the principal object is to give the correlation of the being stated in the attestation clause, that the testator
pages, this object may be attained by writing “I, II, III, etc”, signed the will in the presence of the three witnesses
as in this case. and that the latter, in turn, signed it in the presence of
the testator and of each other, the testator knowing that
ALDABA vs. ROQUE the witnesses were signing his will; that the witnesses
May 22, 1922 signed the attestation clause before the death of the
testator.
FACTS: The probate of the will was opposed on the ground The will cannot be invalidated because the test of
that each every folio (sheet) of the said testament is not the attestation clause mentions the number of pages of
paged correlatively in letters, but only with the letter “A, B, the will.
C, etc.” As to the numbering of the sheet containing the
attestation clause, it is true that it does not appear on
HELD: Probate of the will is allowed. The pagination by the upper part of the sheet, but it does appear in its text,
using “A, B, C, etc.” is in compliance with the spirit of the with the words, having reference to the number of
law, since either “A, B, C, etc.” or “one, two, three, etc.” sheets of the will, including the page number of the
indicates the correlation of the pages and serves to prevent attestation.
the loss of any of them. If, as stated in this clause, the foregoing document
The object of the law in requiring the paging be made consists of three sheets, besides that of the clause itself,
in letters is to make falsification more difficult, but it should which is in singular, it is clear that such a sheet of the
be noted that since all the pages of the testament are attestation clause is the fourth and that the will,
signed at the margin by the testatrix and the witnesses, the including said sheet, has four sheets. This description
difficulty of forging the signatures in either case remains the contained in the clause in question constitutes
same. substantial compliance with the requirements prescribed
by the law regarding the paging.
IN RE: PILAPIL Furthermore, the law does not require that the sheet
June 27, 1941 containing nothing but the attestation clause, wholly or
in part, be numbered or paged. Consequently, this lack
FACTS: The probate of the will was opposed on the ground of paging on the attestation sheet does not take
that the will was not properly paged as it was numbered anything from the validity of the will.
with letters. At the foot of the 1st page appears “pase ala
2” (pass on to the 2nd page). The bottom of the 2nd page LOPEZ vs. LIBORO
also has the phrase “pase ala 3” (pass on the 3 rd page). February 25, 1924
The third page contains the will “is comprised of 2 articles,
containing 16 dispositions and written in 3 pages. FACTS: The will of Lopez comprises 2 pages, each of
which is written on one side of a separated sheet. The
HELD: The will must be admitted for probate. The paging in probate of the said will was opposed on the ground that
this case was a sufficient compliance with the law. It is the 1st page is not paged either in letters or in Arabic
sufficient that the number of pages can be identified. numerals.
Indeed, the will in this case, as stated in the 3 rd page,
contains no more, no less than 2 articles, containing 16 HELD: The will must be admitted for probate. The
dispositions and written in 3 pages. unnumbered page is clearly identified as the first page
by the internal sense of its contents considered in
FERNANDEZ vs. DE DIOS relation to the contents of the second page. By their
February 25, 1924 meaning and coherence, the first and second lines on
the second page are undeniably a continuation of the
FACTS: The probate of the will was opposed on the ground last sentence of the testament, before the attestation
that the sheet on which the attestation clause was written is clause, which starts at the bottom of the preceding
not numbered, and it is not stated there that the testator page.
signed on the margin of each sheet of the will in the Furthermore, the unnumbered page contains the
presence of the three witnesses, or that the latter signed it caption "TESTAMENTO," the invocation of the Almighty,
in the presence of the testator and of each other, and and a recital that the testator was in full use of his
testamentary faculty, — all of which, in the logical order

of sequence, precede the direction for the disposition of casualty, they may still be proved. A will, therefore,
the marker's property. should not be rejected where its attestation clause
As page 2 contains only the 2 lines above mentioned, serves the purpose of the law. The law-making body, in
the attestation clause, the mark of the testator and the recognition of the dangers to which testamentary
signatures of the witnesses, the other sheet can not by any dispositions are apt to be subject in the hands of
possibility be taken for other than page one. unscrupulous individuals, has surrounded the execution
of the wills with every solemnity deemed necessary to
TENAFRANCIA vs. ABAJA safeguard it. This purpose was indicated when our
November 12, 1919 legislature provided for the exclusion of evidence
aliunde to prove the execution of the will.
FACTS: Among the formalities prescribed by law to a valid If the surrounding circumstances point to a regular
will is the requirement that the attestation clause should execution of the will, and the instrument appears to
state the fact that the testator signed the will and every have been executed substantially in accordance with
page thereof, or caused some other person to write his requirements of the law, the inclination should, in the
name, under his express direction, in the presence of 3 absence of bad faith, forger or fraud, lean towards the
witnesses. According to the court, this requirement was not admission of the probate, although the documents may
complied with in the present case, for the attestation suffer from some imperfection of language, or other
clause fails to state that fact. It was contended that the non-essential defect.
absence of such statement was cured by oral evidence of
the witnesses in court that the testator signed the will in the TABOADA vs. ROSAL
presence of the 3 witnesses. November 5, 1982
FACTS: The 1st page of the will contains the entire

HELD: The will is invalid. By the attestation clause is meant testamentary dispositions and is signed at the end or
"that clause wherein the witnesses certify that the bottom of the page by the testatrix alone and at the left
instrument has been executed before them, and the hand margin by the 3 instrumental witnesses. The 2 nd
manner of the execution of the same." It is signed not by page which contains the attestation clause and the
the testator but by the witnesses, for it is a declaration acknowledgement is signed at the end of the
made by the witnesses and not by the testator. And the law attestation clause by the 3 attesting witnesses and at
is clear that it is the attestation clause that must contain a the left hand margin by the testatrix.
statement, among others, that the testator signed the will in The trial court denied the probate of the will
the presence of the witnesses. Without that statement, the because it is not enough that only the testatrix signs at
attestation clause is fatally defective. the “end” but all the 3 subscribing witnesses must also
This defect is not cured by proof aliunde or even by a sign at the same place or at the end, in the presence of
judicial finding based upon such proof that the testator did the testatrix.
in fact sign the will in the presence of the subscribing
witnesses. HELD: The will must be probated for there is not such
That is a fact required by law to be stated in the requirement. It is enough that only the testator signs in
attestation clause itself, and it is settled that where it is not the end.
so stated it cannot be established by evidence aliunde, It must be noted that the law uses the terms
and that where such evidence has been admitted, even attested and subscribed. Attestation consists in
without opposition, it should not be given the effect witnessing the testator's execution of the will in order to
intended. see and take note mentally that those things are, done
which the statute requires for the execution of a will and
LEYNEZ vs. LEYNEZ that the signature of the testator exists as a fact. On the
October 18, 1939 other hand, subscription is the signing of the witnesses'
names upon the same paper for the purpose of
FACTS: The probate of the will was opposed on the ground Identification of such paper as the will which was
that the attestation clause of the controverted will fails to executed by the testator. Insofar as the requirement of
state that the testator and the 3 witnesses signed each and subscription is concerned, it is our considered view that
every page of the will in the manner prescribed by law the will in this case was subscribed in a manner which
because it merely states that it was signed in the presence fully satisfies the purpose of identification.
of one and all and the testator himself. The objects of attestation and of subscription were
fully met and satisfied in the present case when the
HELD: Probate of the will must be allowed. The requirement instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin of the
is sufficiently complied with, it appearing that the testator sole page which contains all the testamentary
and the witnesses signed each and every page of the will dispositions, especially so when the will was properly
according to the stipulation of the parties. Identified by subscribing witness Vicente Timkang to be
An attestation clause is made for the purpose of the same will executed by the testatrix. There was no
preserving, in permanent form, a record of the facts question of fraud or substitution behind the questioned
attending the execution of the will, so that in case of failure order.
of the memory of the subscribing witnesses, or other

The SC noticed that the attestation clause failed to witnesses signed in the presence of each other. Neither
state the number of pages used in writing the will. Such is do these facts appear in any other part of the will.
not a fatal defect because the number of pages is easily
discernible for there are only 2 pages. HELD: Statutes prescribing the formalities to be observed
The acknowledgement itself states that “This Last Will in the execution of wills are very strictly construed.
and Testament consists of 2 pages including this page.” A will should not be probated unless in its execution
There is substantial compliance. here has been a strict compliance with all the requisites
prescribed by law. A statement in the attestation
GARCIA vs. LACUESTA clause will afford more satisfactory evidence of the fact
November 29, 1951 to be proven.
The 2 defects noted in the attestation clause of the
FACTS: It was alleged that the attestation clause is fatally alleged will renders it null and void and that it cannot be
defective for failing to state that Antero caused Atty. Javier admitted to probate.
to write the testator’s name under his express direction.
SAÑO vs. QUINTANA
HELD: Probate denied. When the testator expressly caused December 18, 1925
another to sign the former’s name, this fact must be recited
in the attestation clause. Otherwise, the will is fatally FACTS: In the attestation clause there is no statement
defective. that the witnesses to the will have signed on the left
margin of each page of the will in the presence of the
PAYAD vs. TOLENTINO testatrix.
January 15, 1936
HELD: Such absence nullifies the will. Probate is denied.
FACTS: The probate of the will was denied on the ground The requirement that the attestation clause must contain
that the attestation clause was not in conformity with the the statement that the witnesses signed in the presence
requirements of law in that it is not stated therein that the of each other is imperative and non-compliance with it
testatrix caused Atty. Almario to write her name at her annuls the will. In order to insure the authenticity of a
express direction. will, which is the object of the law, it is just as important, if
The evidence establishes the fact that Leoncia, the not the most important, that the witnesses should sign in
decedent, assisted by Atty. Almario placed her thumb the presence of the testator and of each other.
mark on each and every page of the questioned will and
that said attorney merely wrote her name to indicate the GUMBAN vs. GOROCHE
place where she placed said thumb mark. March 3, 1927
HELD: Probate of the will must be allowed. Atty. Almario FACTS: The will did not contain an attestation clause
did not sign for the testatrix. She signed for placing her stating that the testator and the witnesses signed all the
thumb mark on each and every page thereof. "A statute pages of the will. Saño vs. Quintana and Nayve vs.
requiring a will to be 'signed' is satisfied if the signature is Mojal were cited.
made by the testator's mark." It is clear, therefore, that it
was not necessary that the attestation clause in question HELD: Probate of the will is denied.
should state that the testatrix requested Attorney Almario to In the case of Saño vs. Quintana (citing Uy Coque
sign her name inasmuch as the testratrix signed the will in vs. Sioca), it was decided that an attestation clause
question in accordance with law. which does not recite that the witnesses signed the will
and each and every page thereof on the left margin in
JALLORES vs. ENTERINO the presence of the testator is defective, and such a
L- 42463 defect annuls the will.
In the case of Nayve vs. Mojal, it was held that the
HELD: It is not essential to state in the attestation clause that fact that the testator and the witnesses signed each
the person delegated by the testator to sign in his behalf and every page of the will can be proved also by the
did so in the presence of the testator. It is enough that it be mere examination of the signatures appearing on the
proved in court that this was what happened. document itself, and the omission to state such evident
fact does not invalidate the will.
SC adopted and reaffirmed the decision in the case
of Saño vs. Quintana, and to the extent necessary,
modified the decision in Nayve vs. Mojal for the
following reasons:
UY COQUE vs. SIOCA 1. Nayve was concurred yet Saño only had 1
May 31, 1922 formal dissent
2. Saño is subsequent in point of time since it was
FACTS: The attestation clause does not state the number of promulgated in 1925, while Nayve was in 1924
pages contained in the will nor does it state that the 3. The Saño decision is believed more nearly to
conform to the applicable provisions of the law.

Hence, following the case of Saño vs. Quintana, the page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one
absence of attestation clause stating that the testator and another.
the witnesses signed all the pages of the will nullifies the will. The absence of that statement required by law is a
fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result
QUINTO vs. MORATA in the disallowance of the will that is here sought to be
March 3, 1927 admitted to probate.
FACTS: The probate of the will was opposed on the CAGRO vs. CAGRO
following grounds that the attestation clause of said will April 29, 1953
does not state:
1. the number of pages of the will FACTS: In the attestation clause of the will, although the
2. that each and every page of the will was signed page containing the same is signed by the witnesses on
by the testators in the presence of the witnesses the left-hand margin, is not signed by the attesting
3. that the witnesses signed the same in the presence witnesses at the bottom.
of the testators and in the presence of each other
It was alleged that such defects have been cured by HELD: The will is not valid.
oral evidence. The attestation clause is "a memorandum of the
facts attending the execution of the will" required by law
HELD: The disallowance of the will must be affirmed. to be made by the attesting witnesses, and it must
An attestation clause which does not recite that the necessarily bear their signatures. An unsigned attestation
witnesses signed the will and each and every page thereof clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses,
on the left margin in the presence of the testator is since the omission of their signatures at the bottom
defective, and such defect annuls the will. thereof negatives their participation.
The defects in the attestation clause cannot be cured
by oral evidence. The doctrine of the court with reference
to statute of frauds is not applicable to wills. The statute of
frauds relates to contract and agreements. The subject of The signatures on the left margin of the will are only
wills and testaments and the formalities surrounding their in compliance with the legal mandate that the will be
execution are governed by separate and specific signed on the left-hand margin of all its pages. If an
provisions of the law. attestation clause not signed by the three witnesses at
the bottom thereof, be admitted as sufficient, it would
CANEDA vs. CA be easy to add such clause to a will on a subsequent
May 28, 1993 occasion and in the absence of the testator and any or
all of the witnesses.
FACTS: The oppositors of the probate of the will asserted
that the will in question is null and void for the reason that its ABANGAN CASE CAGRO CASE
attestation clause is fatally defective since it fails to Facts: A will consisted of 2 Facts: The signatures
specifically state that the witnesses subscribed their pages. The 1st page is the instead at the bottom,
respective signatures to the will in the presence of the disposition signed by the the signatures were on
testator and of each other. testator at the bottom. the margin.
Second page is the
HELD: Article 805 requires that the witness should both attest attestation signed by the
and subscribe to the will in the presence of the testator and witnesses.
of one another. Attestation is the act of senses, while Issue: There were no Issue: the signatures
subscription is the act of the hand. The former is mental, the signatures on the left should be at the bottom
latter mechanical, and to attest a will is to know that it was margin. According to the so that there were
published as such, and to certify the facts required to oppositors the signatures signatures on the left and
constitute an actual and legal publication; but should also appear on the at the bottom.
subscription, on the other hand, is only to write on the same left margin.
paper the names of the witnesses, for the sole purpose of Ruling: It is enough that Ruling: The main text of
identification. the signatures appear on Cagro v. Cagro, it was
What is fairly apparent upon a careful reading of the each and every page of considered a Fatal
attestation clause herein assailed is the fact that while it the will. The purpose here defect by the Supreme
recites that the testator indeed signed the will and all its is to identify that indeed Court. According to the
pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses and the testator and the SC, these signatures in
states as well the number of pages that were used, the witnesses signed the will. order to be in
same does not expressly state therein the circumstance compliance with
that said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to No requirement of the law,
the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. dissenting aside from signatures on
What is then clearly lacking, in the final logical analysis, opinion the left margin, you
is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every should still sign at the
bottom.

However, there were The donation made by Conchita was mortis causa.
strong dissenting opinions For failure to comply with the formalities of wills under
to the effect that to Article 805 and 806, the donations cannot be given
require that the effect.
signatures of the The deeds in question although acknowledged
witnesses aside from the before a notary public of the donor and the donee, the
left margin should also documents were not executed in the manner provided
appear at the bottom is under Article 805 and 806. The dispositions are void.
TOO TECHNICAL. It will
not serve the purpose of ARTICLE 806. Every will must be acknowledged
the law because what is before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses.
important is that the The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy
signature should appear of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of
on each and every page Court. (n)
and this purpose is
accomplished by affixing GARCIA vs. GATCHALIAN
the signature on the left. November 25, 1967
LIM vs. CA FACTS: The allowance of the will of Gatchalian was

February 28, 1996 denied on the ground that the attesting witnesses did
not acknowledge it before a notary public as required
FACTS: Lim was charged for committing the crime of estafa by law.
for defrauding Suarez. Lim maintains that she cannot be HELD: An examination of the document shows that the
liable for estate. According to her, the real agreement same was acknowledged before a notary public by the
between her and Suarez was a sale on credit because she testator but not by the instrumental witnesses.
did not sign on the blank space provided for the signature Compliance with the requirement contained in
of person receiving the jewelry but at the upper portion Article 806 to the effect that a will must be
immediately below the description of the items taken. acknowledged before a notary public by the testator
and also by the witnesses is indispensable for its validity.
HELD: The moment she affixed her signature thereon, Lim As the document under consideration does not comply
became bound by all the terms stipulated in the receipt. with this requirement, it is obvious that the same may not
She opened herself to all the legal obligations that may be probated.
arise from their breach.
There is only one type of legal instrument where the law JAVELLANA vs. LEDESMA
strictly prescribes the location of the signature of the parties 97 PHIL 258
thereto. This is in the case of notarial wills found in Article
805 of the Civil Code. FACTS: The opposition to the probate of the will of
In the case before us, the parties did not execute a Apolinaria is founded on 3 specific issues. One of the
notarial will but a simple contract of agency to sell on issues is whether the acknowledgment clause was
commission basis, thus making the position of petitioner's signed and the notarial seal affixed by the notary
signature thereto immaterial. without the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses
HELD: Whether or not the notary signed the certification
of acknowledgment in the presence of the testatrix and
MAGLASANG vs. CABATINGAN the witnesses does not affect the validity of the codicil.
April 24, 2003 The new Civil Code does not require that the signing of
the testator, witnesses and notary should be
FACTS: Cabatingan executed in favor of her brother a accomplished in one single act.
Deed of Conditional Donation and 4 other Deeds of While testator and witnesses must sign in the
Donation. presence of each other, all that is thereafter required is
All deeds contained therein that the donation shall be that "every will must be acknowledged before a notary
effective upon the death of the donor and that it shall be public by the testator and the witnesses" (Article 806);
deemed automatically rescinded if the donor survives the i.e., that the latter should avow to the certifying officer
donees. the authenticity of their signatures and the voluntariness
of their actions in executing the testamentary
HELD: The fact that the donation was made “in disposition. This was done in this case. The subsequent
consideration of the love and affection of the donor” and signing and sealing by the notary of his certification that
the stipulation on rescission in case the donee dies ahead the testament was duly acknowledged by the
of the nature do not confirm the nature of the donation as participants therein is no part of the acknowledgment
inter vivos because transfers mortis cause may also be itself nor of the testamentary act. Hence, their separate
made for the same reason. execution out of the presence of the testatrix and her
witnesses can not be said to violate the rule that
testaments should be completed without interruption.

CRUZ vs. VILLASOR FACTS: The petition for probate of a will was dismissed
November 26, 1973 on the ground that it does not bear a thirty-centavo
documentary stamp.
HELD: The last will and testament in question was not
executed in accordance with law. The notary public before HELD: The dismissal of the petition was not proper. What
whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the probate court should have done was to require the
the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge petitioner or proponent to affix the requisite thirty-
before himself his having signed the will. To acknowledge centavo documentary stamp to the notarial
before means to avow, to own as genuine, to assent, to acknowledgment of the will which is the taxable portion
admit-, and "before" means in front or preceding in space of that document. After all, the documentary stamp
or ahead of. may be affixed at the time the taxable document is
This cannot be done because he cannot split his presented in evidence.
personality into two so that one will appear before the
other to acknowledge his participation. That function
would be defeated if the notary public were one of the
attesting or instrumental witnesses. For then, he would be TESTATE ESTATE OF LEDESMA vs. LEDESMA
interested in sustaining the validity of the will as it directly June 30, 1955
involves himself and the validity of his own act. It would
place him in an inconsistent position. HELD: The testator and the instrumental witnesses do not
Furthermore, the function of a notary public is, among have to make the acknowledgment in the presence of
others, to guard against any illegal or immoral one another. This is required only in attestation, not in
arrangements would be thwarted. the acknowledgment.
GONZALES vs. CA ARTICLE 807. If the testator be deaf, or a deaf-mute,

May 25, 1979 he must personally read the will, if able to do so;
otherwise, he shall designate two persons to read it and
FACTS: Respondent court found that Atty. Paraiso was not communicate to him, in some practicable manner, the
previously furnished with the names and residence contents thereof. (n)
certificates of the witnesses as to enable him to type such
data into the document, which the petitioner assails as
ARTICLE 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be
contradictory and irreconcilable with the statement of that
read to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing
Atty. Paraiso was handed a list (containing the names of
witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom
the witnesses and their respective residence certificates)
the will is acknowledged. (n)
immediately upon their arrival in the law office by Isabel
Gabriel (deceased) and this was corroborated by Atty.
ALVARADO vs. GAVIOLA
Paraiso himself who testified that it was only on said
September 14, 1993
occasion that he received such list from Isabel Gabriel
FACTS: The testator did not read the final draft of the will
HELD: Whether Atty. Paraiso was previously furnished with
himself. Instead, private respondent, as the lawyer who
the names and residence certificates of the witnesses on a
drafted the 8-paged document, read the same aloud in
prior occasion or on the very occasion and date in April 15,
the presence of the testator, the 3 instrumental witnesses
1961 when the will was executed, is of no moment for such
and the notary public. The latter 4 followed the reading
data appear in the notarial acknowledgment of Notary
with their own respective copies previously furnished
Public Cipriano Paraiso, subscribed and sworn to by the
them.
witnesses on April 15, 1961 following the attestation clause
Said will was admitted to probate. Later on, a
duly executed and signed on the same occasion, April 15,
codicil was executed, and by that time, the testator was
1961. And since the document is a notarial will duly
already suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance
acknowledged by the testatrix and the witnesses before a
and revocatory clauses were unchanged. As in the case
notary public, the same is a public document executed
of the notarial will, the testator did not personally read
and attested through the intervention of the notary public
the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was private
and as such public document is evidence of the facts in
respondent who read it aloud in his presence and in the
clear, unequivocal manner therein expressed. It has in its
presence of the three instrumental witnesses (same as
favor the presumption of regularity. To contradict all these,
those of the notarial will) and the notary public who
there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more
followed the reading using their own copies.
than merely preponderant. There is no such evidence
pointed by petitioner in the case at bar.
HELD: Article 808 not only applies to blind testators, but
also to those who, for one reason or another, are
GABUCAN vs. CA
incapable of reading their wills. Hence, the will should
January 28, 1980
have been read by the notary public and an
instrumental witness. However, the spirit behind the law
was served though the letter was not. In this case, there
was substantial compliance. Substantial compliance is

acceptable where the purpose of the law has been trickery but are never intended to be so rigid and
satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege.
the execution of wills are intended to protect the testator The testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the
from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are never intended contents read corresponded with his instructions. Only
to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary then did the signing and acknowledgement take place.
privilege. There is no evidence, and petitioner does not so allege,
In this case, private respondent read the testator's will that the contents of the will and codicil were not
and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his three sufficiently made known and communicated to the
instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and testator.
subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being
asked, that the contents read corresponded with his CANEDA vs. CA
instructions. Only then did the signing and May 28, 1993
acknowledgement take place.
HELD: What is clearly lacking is the statement that the
GARCIA vs. VASQUEZ witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the
32 SCRA 490 presence of the testator and of one another.
The absence of that statement required by law is a
FACTS: The oppositors challenged the correctness of the fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result
admission of the will for probate on the ground that the in the disallowance of the will. Such defect in the
testatrix’ eyesight was so poor and defective that she could attestation clause obviously cannot be characterized as
not have read the provisions of the will, contrary to the merely involving the form of the will or the language
testimonies of witnesses. The ophthalmologist testified that used therein which would warrant the application of the
the vision of the testatrix remained mainly for viewing substantial compliance rule.
distant objects and not for reading print. Under Article 809, the defects or imperfections must
only be with respect to the form of the attestation or the
HELD: Against the background of defective eyesight of the language employed therein. Such defects or
alleged testatrix, the appearance of the 1960 will, acquires imperfections would not render a will invalid should it be
striking significance. Upon, its face, the testamentary proved that the will was really executed and attested in
provisions, the attestation clause and acknowledgment compliance with Article 805. The defect is not only in the
were crammed together into a single sheet of paper, so form or the language of the attestation clause but the
much so that the words had to be written very close to the total absence of a specific element required by Article
top, bottom and two sides of the paper, leaving no margin 805 to be specifically stated in the attestation clause of
whatsoever; the word "and" had to be written by the a will. The rule on substantial compliance in Article 809
symbol "&," apparently to save on space. Plainly, the cannot be invoked or relied on by respondents since it
testament was not prepared with any regard for the presupposes that the defects in the attestation clause
defective vision of Doña Gliceria. The typographical errors can be cured or supplied by the text of the will or a
remained uncorrected thereby indicating that the consideration of matters apparent therefrom which
execution thereof must have been characterized by haste. would provide the data not expressed in the attestation
It is difficult to understand that so important a document clause or from which it may necessarily be gleaned or
containing the final disposition of one's worldly possessions clearly inferred that the acts not stated in the omitted
should be embodied in an informal and untidily written textual requirements were actually complied with in the
instrument; or that the glaring spelling errors should have execution of the will. In other words, the defects must be
escaped her notice if she had actually retained the ability remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself.
to read the purported will and had done so.
Where Article 808 is not complied with, the said will
suffers from infirmity that affects its due execution.
ARTICLE 809. 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 CAGRO vs. CAGRO
it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested April 29, 1953
in substantial compliance with all the requirements of
article 805. (n) FACTS: The signatures of the three witnesses to the will
do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause,
ALVARADO vs. GAVIOLA although the page containing the same is signed by the
September 14, 1993 witnesses on the left-hand margin.
HELD: Substantial compliance is acceptable where the HELD: An unsigned attestation clause cannot be
purpose of the law has been satisfied, the reason being that considered as an act of the witnesses, since the
the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills are omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof
intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and negatives their participation.

The signatures on the left-hand margin do no conform
substantially to the law. Said signatures are in compliance
with the legal mandate that the will be signed on the left- LABRADOR vs. CA
hand margin of all its pages. If an attestation clause not April 5, 1990
signed by the three witnesses at the bottom thereof, be
admitted as sufficient, it would be easy to add such clause FACTS: The 1st paragraph of the 2nd page of the
to a will on a subsequent occasion and in the absence of holographic will provides:
the testator and any or all of the witnesses. "And this is the day in which we agreed that we are
making the partitioning and assigning the respective
TABOADA vs. ROSAL assignment of the said fishpond, and this being in the
November 5, 1983 month of March, 17th day, in the year 1968, and this
decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be
HELD: Under Article 805, the attestation clause should state followed. And the one who made this writing is no other
the number of pages used upon which the will is written. than MELECIO LABRADOR, their father."
Otherwise, the will becomes void.
In that case, the attestation clause failed to state the HELD: The law does not specify a particular location
number of pages used in the will. But the SC upheld the where the date should be placed in the will. The only
validity of the will because even if it was not stated in the requirements are that the date be in the will itself and
attestation clause because it was cured by the reason that executed in the hand of the testator. These requirements
it was stated in the acknowledgment portion of the will. The are present in the subject will.
defect is still cured. The intention to show 17 March 1968 as the date of
the execution of the will is plain from the tenor of the
VILLAFLOR vs. TOBIAS succeeding words of the paragraph. The will was not an
53 PHIL 714 agreement but a unilateral act of Melecio Labrador
who plainly knew that what he was executing was a will.
FACTS: The Will was questioned because the attestation
clause was written on a separate page even if there was ARTICLE 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it
still a very big space at the bottom of the last page of the shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows
will. At the end of the disposition, there was still a large the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly
space. However, the attestation clause was written on a declare that the will and the signature are in the
separate sheet. handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested, at
least three of such witnesses shall be required.
HELD: Liberal interpretation is applied since these are only In the absence of any competent witness referred
defects in form. The will is considered valid. to in the preceding paragraph, and if the court deem it
necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. (691a)
ARTICLE 810. A person may execute a holographic will
which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the AZAOLA vs. SINGSON
hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, August 5, 1960
and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need
not be witnessed. (678, 688a) FACTS: The probate was denied on the ground that
under Article 811 of the Civil Code, the proponent must
ROXAS vs. DE JESUS, JR. present 3 witnesses who could declare that the will and
January 28, 1985 the signature are in the writing of the testatrix, the
probate being contested; and because the lone witness
FACTS: The will is dated "FEB./61" and states: "This is my will presented by the proponent "did not prove sufficiently
which I want to be respected although it is not written by a that the body of the will was written in the handwriting of
lawyer. . . " the testatrix."
HELD: The liberal construction of the will should prevail. HELD: Since the authenticity of the will was not
As a general rule, the "date" in a holographic Will contested, he was not required to produce more than
should include the day, month, and year of its execution. one witness; but even if the genuineness of the
However, when as in the case at bar, there is no holographic will were contested, Article 811 can not be
appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of
pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established and 3 witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator,
the only issue is whether or not the date "FEB./61" appearing under penalty of having the probate denied. Since no
on the holographic Will is a valid compliance with Article witness may have been present at the execution of a
810 of the Civil Code, probate of the holographic Will holographic will, none being required by law, the
should be allowed under the principle of substantial existence of witnesses possessing the requisite
compliance. qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the
proponent. The 3 witnesses must "know the handwriting
and signature of the testator" and can declare "that the
will and the signature are in the handwriting of the

testator". There may be no available witness acquainted the paucity of the standards used by him. There was
with the testator's hand; or even if so familiarized, the failure to show convincingly that there are radical
witnesses may be unwilling to give a positive opinion. differences that would justify the charge of forgery,
Compliance with the rule of paragraph 1 of Article 811 may taking into account the advanced age of the testatrix,
thus become an impossibility. the evident variability of her signatures, and the effect of
writing fatigue, the duplicate being signed right after the
CODOY vs. CALUGAY original. These factors were not discussed by the expert.
August 12, 1999
RODELAS vs. ARANZA
FACTS: It is contended that the requirement under Article December 7, 1982
811 which requires at least 3 witnesses explicitly declaring
that the signature in the will is the genuine signature of the FACTS: The petition was opposed on the ground that
testator for the probate of a contested holographic will is the alleged holographic will itself, and not an alleged
permissive. copy thereof, must be produced, otherwise it would
produce no effect.
HELD: Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory. The word
"shall" denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent HELD: A photostatic copy or xerox copy of the
with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that holographic will may be allowed because comparison
the word "shall," when used in a statute is mandatory." can be made with the standard writings of the testator.
Comparing the signature in the holographic will and Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or
the signatures in several documents such as the application destroyed holographic will may be admitted because
letter for pasture permit and a letter, the strokes are then the authenticity of the handwriting of the
different. In the letters, there are continuous flows of the deceased can be determined by the probate court.
strokes, evidencing that there is no hesitation in writing
unlike that of the holographic will. The SC cannot be RIVERA vs. CA
certain that the holographic will was in the handwriting by December 7, 1982
the deceased.
FACTS: Jose, claiming to be the only surviving legitimate
Ma’am: Azaola and Codoy are apparently in conflict. son of the deceased Venancio, filed a petition for the
Azaola case provides the 3 witnesses not imperative issuance of letters of administration over Venancio's
because in the first place no witnesses are required in the estate. It was found that Jose was not the son of the
execution of the holographic will. On the other hand, decedent but of a different Venancio Rivera who was
Codoy case states that it is mandatory because the word married to Maria Vital. The Venancio Rivera whose
used in Article 811 is “shall”. It means imperative. If the will estate was in question was married to Maria Jocson, by
is contested, there is a strong possibility that the witness whom he had 7 children, including Adelaido.
presented might be perjured. As such, it was contended that Jose has no
CODOY case prevails because it was decided later by personality to contest the wills, and thus, have the legal
the SC. But, if you are presented with facts similar to the effect of requiring the 3 witnesses.
case of Azaola vs. Singson in taking the bar exam, there
might be a possibility that the examiner wanted you to HELD: The existence and therefore also the authenticity
answer Azaola vs. Singson. To be safe, you can also cite of the holographic wills were questioned by Jose Rivera.
the case of Codoy. The flaw in this argument is that Jose Rivera is not the son
of the deceased Venancio Rivera whose estate is in
ICASIANO vs. ICASIANO question. Hence, being a mere stranger, he had no
June 30, 1964 personality to contest the wills and his opposition thereto
did not have the legal effect of requiring the three
FACTS: Oppositors introduced expert testimony to the witnesses.
effect that the signatures of the testatrix in the duplicate
are not genuine, nor were they written or affixed on the ARTICLE 812. In holographic wills, the dispositions of
same occasion as the original, and further aver that the testator written below his signature must be dated
granting that the documents were genuine, they were and signed by him in order to make them valid as
executed through mistake and with undue influence and testamentary dispositions. (n)
pressure. It was contended that the Court is bound by the
expert testimony as to the authenticity of the signature of
ARTICLE 813. When a number of dispositions
the testatrix.
appearing in a holographic will are signed without being
dated, and the last disposition has a signature and a
HELD: NO, the Court is not bound by such expert testimony.
date, such date validates the dispositions preceding it,
The opinion of expert for oppositors that the signatures of
whatever be the time of prior dispositions. (n)
the testatrix appealing in the duplicate original were not
written by the same hand, leaves the Court unconvinced,
not merely because it is directly contradicted by expert
Martin Ramos for the proponents, but principally because of

ARTICLE 814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, 2. The probate is a proceeding in rem;
erasure or alteration in a holographic will, the testator must 3. The right of a person to dispose of his property by
authenticate the same by his full signature. (n) virtue of a will may be rendered nugatory; and
4. The absent legatees and devisees or such of them
KALAW vs. RELOVA as may have no knowledge of the will, could be
January 15, 1990 cheated of their inheritance thru the collusion of
some of the heirs who might agree to the partition of
FACTS: The probate of the will was opposed on the ground the estate among themselves to the exclusion of
that it contained alterations, corrections, and insertions others.
without the proper authentication by the full signature of There is a need for the probate of the will before
the testatrix as required by Article 814 of the Civil Code. partition, otherwise, the partition disregarding the will is
void.
HELD: Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections,
and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic GUEVARRA vs. GUEVARRA
will have not been noted under his signature, the will is not January 31, 1956
thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as (not related to Article 814)
respects the particular words erased, corrected or
interlined. HELD: Under section 1 of Rule 74, in relation to Rule 76, if
However, when as in this case, the holographic will in the decedent left a will and no debts and the heirs and
dispute had only one substantial provision, which was legatees desire to make an extrajudicial partition of the
altered by substituting the original heir with another, but estate, they must first present that will to the court for
which alteration did not carry the requisite of full probate and divide the estate in accordance with the
authentication by the full signature of the testator, the effect will. They may not disregard the provisions of the will
must be that the entire will is voided or revoked for the unless those provisions are contrary to law. Neither may
simple reason that nothing remains in the will after that they do away with the presentation of the will to the
which could remain valid. court for probate, because such suppression of the will is
That change of mind can neither be given effect contrary to law and public policy.
because she failed to authenticate it in the manner
required by law by affixing her full signature. ARTICLE 815. When a Filipino is in a foreign country,
he is authorized to make a will in any of the forms
AJERO vs. CA established by the law of the country in which he may
September 15, 1994 be. Such will may be probated in the Philippines. (n)
FACTS: The petition for probate of the will was opposed on ARTICLE 816. The will of an alien who is abroad
the ground that it contained alterations and corrections produces effect in the Philippines if made with the
which were not duly signed by decedent. formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which
he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his
HELD: Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows that its country, or in conformity with those which this Code
requirement affects the validity of the dispositions prescribes. (n)
contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the
testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the
ARTICLE 817. A will made in the Philippines by a
result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such citizen or subject of another country, which is executed
failure, however, does not render the whole testament in accordance with the law of the country of which he is
void. a citizen or subject, and which might be proved and
Likewise, a holographic will can still be admitted to allowed by the law of his own country, shall have the
probate, notwithstanding non-compliance with the same effect as if executed according to the laws of the
provisions of Article 814.
Philippines. (n)
Unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or
insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or
MICIANO vs. BRIMO
on testator's signature, their presence does not invalidate
November 1, 1924
the will itself. The lack of authentication will only result in
disallowance of such changes.
FACTS: The appellant's opposition is based on the fact
that the partition in question puts into effect the
VENTURA vs. VENTURA
provisions of Joseph G. Brimo's will which are not in
106 PHIL 1159
accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality. The
(not related to Article 814)
will provided that his property be disposed of in
accordance with the laws in the Philippines. Otherwise,
HELD: The SC held that the will must first be probated and
if relatives does not respect such wish, any disposition
the provisions in the will be followed, otherwise the partition
favorable tot them shall be annulled.
disregarding the will is void, unless the will is contrary to law.
The probate of the will is essential because:
HELD: The Turkish laws should be followed.
1. The law expressly requires it;

However, the oppositor did not prove that said HELD: The final decree of the probate of the will
testamentary dispositions are not in accordance with the Bernabe has conclusive effect. The error committed by
Turkish laws, inasmuch as he did not present any evidence the probate court was an error of law, that should have
showing what the Turkish laws are on the matter, and in the been corrected by appeal, but which did not affect the
absence of evidence on such laws, they are presumed to jurisdiction of the probate court, nor the conclusive
be the same as those of the Philippines, following the effect of its final decision, however erroneous. A final
DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION. It has not been judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a
proved in these proceedings what the Turkish laws are. will is binding upon the whole world.
It should be noted that the condition stated in the will is But the CA should have taken into account that the
contrary to law because it expressly ignores the testator's probate decree could only affect the share of the
national law when such national law of the testator is the deceased husband, Bernabe de la Cerna.
one to govern his testamentary dispositions. Said condition It follows that the validity of the joint will, in so far as
is considered unwritten. the estate of the wife was concerned, must be, on her
death, reexamined and adjudicated de novo, since a
TESTATE ESTATE OF SUNTAY joint will is considered a separate will of each testator.
July 31, 1954 Therefore, the undivided interest of Gervasia
Rebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs
FACTS: A will was claimed to have been executed in intestate, and not exclusively to the testamentary heir,
Amoy, China. The issue was whether such will can be unless some other valid will in her favor is shown to exist,
probated here in the Philippines. or unless she be the only heir intestate of said Gervasia.
HELD: The fact that the municipal district court of Amoy, ARTICLE 819. Wills, prohibited by the preceding
China is a probate court must be proved. The law of China article, executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall
on procedure in the probate or allowance of wills must also not be valid in the Philippines, even though authorized
be proved. The legal requirements for the execution of a by the laws of the country where they may have been
valid will in China in 1931 should also be established by executed. (733a)
competent evidence. There is no proof on these points. SUBSECTION 4
In the absence of proof that the municipal district court Witnesses to Wills
of Amoy is a probate court and on the Chinese law of
procedure in probate matters, it may be presumed that the
ARTICLE 820. Any person of sound mind and of the
proceedings in the matter of probating or allowing a will in
age of eighteen years or more, and not blind, deaf or
the Chinese courts are the same as those provided for in
dumb, and able to read and write, may be a witness to
our laws on the subject. It is a proceeding in rem and for
the execution of a will mentioned in article 805 of this
the validity of such proceedings personal notice or by
Code. (n)
publication or both to all interested parties must be made.
The interested parties in the case were known to reside in
the Philippines. The evidence shows that no such notice ARTICLE 821. The following are disqualified from being
was received by the interested parties residing in the witnesses to a will:
Philippines. Consequently, the authenticated transcript (1) Any person not domiciled in the Philippines;
of proceedings held in the municipal district court of Amoy, (2) Those who have been convicted of falsification of a
China, cannot be deemed and accepted as proceedings document, perjury or false testimony. (n)
leading to the probate or allowance of a will and,
therefore, the will referred to therein cannot be allowed, CRUZ vs. VILLASOR
filed and recorded by a competent court of this country. November 26, 1973
ARTICLE 818. Two or more persons cannot make a will FACTS: Of the 3 instrumental witnesses thereto, Atty.
jointly, or in the same instrument, either for their reciprocal Teves, Jr. is at the same time the Notary Public before
benefit or for the benefit of a third person. (669) whom the will was supposed to have been
acknowledged. As the 3rd witness is the notary public
himself, petitioner argues that the result is that only 2
DELA CERNA vs. POTOT
witnesses appeared before the notary public to
December 23, 1964
acknowledge the will.
FACTS: Spouses Bernabe de la Cerna and Gervasia
HELD: The last will and testament in question was not
Rebaca executed a joint last will and testament whereby
executed in accordance with law. The notary public
they willed that the 2 parcels of land acquired they during
before whom the will was acknowledged cannot be
their marriage be given to Manuela, their niece.
considered as the third instrumental witness since he
The will of Bernabe was admitted to probate by final
cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed
order. The will of Gervasia was declared null and void by
the will. If the third witness were the notary public
the CFI for being executed contrary to the prohibition of
himself, he would have to avow, assent, or admit his
joint wills.
having signed the will in front of himself. This cannot be
done because he cannot split his personality into two so

that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his paper, such document or paper shall not be considered
participation in the making of the will. To permit such a a part of the will unless the following requisites are
situation to obtain would be sanctioning a sheer absurdity. present:
(1) The document or paper referred to in the will must
ARTICLE 822. If the witnesses attesting the execution of a be in existence at the time of the execution of the will;
will are competent at the time of attesting, their becoming (2) The will must clearly describe and identify the same,
subsequently incompetent shall not prevent the allowance stating among other things the number of pages
of the will. (n) thereof;
(3) It must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof
as the document or paper referred to therein; and
ARTICLE 823. If a person attests the execution of a will, to
(4) It must be signed by the testator and the witnesses
whom or to whose spouse, or parent, or child, a devise or
on each and every page, except in case of voluminous
legacy is given by such will, such devise or legacy shall, so
far only as concerns such person, or spouse, or parent, or books of account or inventories. (n)
child of such person, or any one claiming under such
person or spouse, or parent, or child, be void, unless there SUBSECTION 6
are three other competent witnesses to such will. However, Revocation of Wills and Testamentary Dispositions
such person so attesting shall be admitted as a witness as if
such devise or legacy had not been made or given. (n) ARTICLE 828. A will may be revoked by the testator at
any time before his death. Any waiver or restriction of
ARTICLE 824. A mere charge on the estate of the testator this right is void. (737a)
for the payment of debts due at the time of the testator's
death does not prevent his creditors from being competent TESTATE ESTATE OF MALOTO vs. CA
witnesses to his will. (n) February 29, 1988
CALUYA vs. DOMINGO FACTS: Believing that the deceased did not leave
March 27, 1914 behind a last will and testament, the 4 heirs
commenced an intestate proceeding for the settlement
FACTS: One of the grounds for the denial of the probate of of their aunt's estate. They executed an agreement of
the will is that as to the witness Segundino, the will extrajudicial settlement of Adriana's estate.
mentioned and confirmed a sale of land to him by the 3 years later, Adriana’s purported will was
testator, and he being thereby an interested party his discovered. It was alleged that such was not Adriana’s
testimony could not be believed. will since a will was allegedly burned by the househelp
of Adriana, Guadalupe Maloto Vda. de Coral, upon
HELD: The judgment refusing its probate must be instructions of the testatrix.
reversed.
HELD: There is no sufficient basis for the conclusion that
Nothing in the will relative to the sale of land to
Adriana Maloto's will had been effectively revoked.
Segundino Asis creates such an interest therein as falls
The physical act of destruction of a will, like
within the provisions thereof. Indeed, no interest of any kind
burning in this case, does not per se constitute an
was created by the will in favor of Segundino Asis, nor did it
effective revocation, unless the destruction is coupled
convey or transfer any interest to him. It simply mentioned a
with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is
fact already consummated, a sale already made. Even if,
not imperative that the physical destruction be done by
however, the will had conveyed an interest Segundino Asis,
the testator himself. It may be performed by another
it would not have been for that reason void. Only that
person but under the express direction and in the
clause of the will conveying an interest to him would have
presence of the testator.
been void; the remainder could have stood and would
In this case, while animus revocandi, or the
have stood as a valid testament.
intention to revoke, may be conceded, for that is a state
SUBSECTION 5 of mind, yet that requisite alone would not suffice.
Codicils and Incorporation by Reference Animus revocandi is only one of the necessary elements
for the effective revocation of a last will and testament.
The intention to revoke must be accompanied by the
ARTICLE 825. A codicil is a supplement or addition to a
overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or
will, made after the execution of a will and annexed to be
cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by
taken as a part thereof, by which any disposition made in
another person in his presence and under his express
the original will is explained, added to, or altered. (n)
direction. There is paucity of evidence to show
compliance with these requirements. For one, the
ARTICLE 826. In order that a codicil may be effective, it document or papers burned by Adriana's maid,
shall be executed as in the case of a will. Guadalupe, was not satisfactorily established to be the
will of Adriana Maloto. The burning was not proven to
ARTICLE 827. If a will, executed as required by this Code, have been done under the express direction of Adriana.
incorporates into itself by reference any document or The burning was not in her presence. Both witnesses,
Guadalupe and Eladio, stated that they were the only

ones present at the place where the stove was located in
which the papers proffered as a will were burned. The ARTICLE 833. A revocation of a will based on a false
testimony of such witnesses appears inconclusive. cause or an illegal cause is null and void. (n)
ARTICLE 834. The recognition of an illegitimate child

does not lose its legal effect, even though the will
CUEVAS vs. CUEVAS
wherein it was made should be revoked. (741)
December 14, 1955
SUBSECTION 7
Republication and Revival of Wills
FACTS: Antonina executed a notarized conveyance
entitled “Donation Mortis Causa”, giving to her nephew a
parcel of land. Subsequently, Antonia executed another ARTICLE 835. The testator cannot republish, without
document revoking the one she previously made. She filed reproducing in a subsequent will, the dispositions
an action for the recovery of the land. contained in a previous one which is void as to its form.
(n)
HELD: It is donation inter vivos. Antonina stated in the deed
of donation that she will not dispose or take away the land ARTICLE 836. The execution of a codicil referring to a
“because I am reserving it to him upon my death”. When previous will has the effect of republishing the will as
the donor stated that she would continue to retain modified by the codicil. (n)
“possession, cultivation, harvesting and all other rights and
attributes of ownership”, she meant only the right of ARTICLE 837. If after making a will, the testator makes
possession, and not ownership. a second will expressly revoking the first, the revocation
Antonina cannot revoke the donation. Irrevocability is of the second will does not revive the first will, which can
a characteristic of donation inter vivos because it is be revived only by another will or codicil. (739a)
incompatible with the idea of disposition post mortem.
ARTICLE 829. A revocation done outside the Philippines,

by a person who does not have his domicile in this country, SUBSECTION 8
is valid when it is done according to the law of the place Allowance and Disallowance of Wills
where the will was made, or according to the law of the
place in which the testator had his domicile at the time; ARTICLE 838. No will shall pass either real or personal
and if the revocation takes place in this country, when it is property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance
in accordance with the provisions of this Code. (n) with the Rules of Court.
The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition
ARTICLE 830. No will shall be revoked except in the the court having jurisdiction for the allowance of his will.
following cases: In such case, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of
(1) By implication of law; or Court for the allowance of wills after the testator's death
(2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as shall govern. i
provided in case of wills; or The Supreme Court shall formulate such additional
(3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will Rules of Court as may be necessary for the allowance of
with the intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or wills on petition of the testator.
by some other person in his presence, and by his express Subject to the right of appeal, the allowance of the
direction. If burned, torn, cancelled, or obliterated by some will, either during the lifetime of the testator or after his
other person, without the express direction of the testator, death, shall be conclusive as to its due execution. (n)
the will may still be established, and the estate distributed in
accordance therewith, if its contents, and due execution, SPS. PASCUAL vs. CA
and the fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, August 15, 2003
or obliteration are established according to the Rules of
Court. (n) FACTS: Consolacion and Remedios are the niece and
granddaughter of the late Canuto. Canuto and 11
ARTICLE 831. Subsequent wills which do not revoke the others were co-owners of a parcel of land. The land was
previous ones in an express manner, annul only such registered in the name of Catalina, Canuto and
dispositions in the prior wills as are inconsistent with or Victoriano each owned 10/70 share. Canuto and
contrary to those contained in the later wills. (n) Consolacion entered a Kasulatan where Canuto sold his
share in favor of Consolacion.
ARTICLE 832. A revocation made in a subsequent will Remedios filed a complaint against Consolacion for
shall take effect, even if the new will should become the cancellation of TCT. Remedios claimed that she is
inoperative by reason of the incapacity of the heirs, the owner because Catalina devised these lots to her in
devisees or legatees designated therein, or by their Catalina’s will.
renunciation. (740a)

Consolacion sought to dismiss the complaint on the been probated and that the order probating the will is
ground of prescription. Consolacion claimed that the basis conclusive as to the authenticity and due execution
of the action is fraud, and Remedios should have filed the thereof.
action within 4 years from the registration of Consolacion’s
title on October 28, 1968 and not some 19 years later. HELD: The criminal action will not lie. The probate of the
a will by the probate court having jurisdiction thereof is
HELD: The action is barred by prescription. The prescriptive considered as conclusive as to its due execution and
period is 10 years counted from registration of adverse title. validity, and that the will is genuine and not a forgery.
The four-year prescriptive period relied upon by the trial The ruling of the probate court is binding upon the
court applies only if the fraud does not give rise to an complainant even if that person was not actually a
implied trust. Remedios’ does not seek to annul the party to the probate proceeding. Probate proceedings
Kasulatan. Remedios’ action is based on an implied trust. are proceedings in rem. Because there is publication,
Remedios is not a real party in interest who can file the there is constructive notice to the whole world and
complaint. Remedios anchored her claim over the lots on judgment or a decree in a probate proceeding is
the devise of these lots to her under Catalina’s last will. binding upon the entire world, even the state.
However, the trial court found that the probate court did
not issue any order admitting the LAST WILL to probate. ALSUA-BETTS vs. CA
Remedios does not contest this finding. Indeed, during the July 30, 1979
trial, Remedios admitted that Special Proceedings Case
No. C-208 is still pending. Since the probate court has not FACTS: Pablo, Fernando and Francisca agreed in writing
admitted Catalina’s last will, Remedios has not acquired that their father, Don Jesus, be appointed by the court
any right under the last will. REMEDIOS is thus without any executor of the will of their mother. Thereafter, Don
cause of action either to seek reconveyance the lots or to Jesus cancelled his holographic will and executed a
enforce an implied trust over these lots. new. After his death, Francisca filed a petition for the
probate of the new will. It was opposed by his sons,
MANINANG vs. CA Pablo and Fernando, on the ground that Don Jesus was
June 19, 1982 not of sound mind at the time of the execution of the
will.
FACTS: Clemencia executed a holographic will. She The will was disallowed. The daughter argued that
declared in her will that she does not consider Bernardo as the other children, Pablo and Fernando, are in estoppel
her adopted son, and thus, the latter cannot inherit from to question the competence of Don Jesus by virtue of
her. Bernardo opposed the probate of the will on the the agreement previously entered.
ground that the holographic will was null and void because
he, as the only compulsory heir, was preterited and, HELD: The principle of estoppel is not applicable in
therefore, intestacy should ensue. probate proceedings. Probate proceedings involve
public interest, and the application therein of the rule of
HELD: Probate allowed. Generally, the probate of a will is estoppel, when it will block the ascertainment of the
mandatory. The law enjoins the probate of the will and truth as to the circumstances, surrounding the execution
public policy requires it, because unless the will is probated of a testament, would seem inimical to public policy.
and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a The controversy as to the competency of Don Jesus
person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered to execute his will cannot be determined by the acts of
nugatory. his sons to the will in formally agreeing in writing with
Normally, the probate of a Will does not look into its Francisca that their father be appointed by the court
intrinsic validity. The authentication of a will decides no executor of the will of their mother.
other question than such as touch upon the capacity of The SC allowed the probate of the will upon finding
the testator and the compliance with those requisites or that Don Jesus complied with the requirements of law as
solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of wills. to the execution of the will.
The questions relating to the intrinsic validity remain
entirely unaffected, and may be raised even after the will LIM vs. CA
has been authenticated. Opposition to the intrinsic validity January 24, 2000
or legality of the provisions of the will cannot be entertained
in probate proceedings because its only purpose is merely FACTS: In the inventory of the estate of Pastor, it
to determine if the will has been executed in accordance included some properties belonging to some business
with the requirements of the law. entities. The said corporations filed a motion for the
exclusion of their property form the inventory. Rufina
ATILANO MERCADO vs. SANTOS argued that Pastor owned the said business entities. It
September 22, 1938 follows that he also own the properties of the
corporations.
FACTS: 3 years after the will was admitted to probate,
intervenors filed a petition to re-open the proceedings. HELD: The issue on the exclusion and inclusion of
Rosario filed a complaint against Atilano for falsification of property from the inventory is within the competence of
the will probated. Atilano claimed that the will had already the probate court. The determination of which court

exercises jurisdiction over matters of probate depends upon FACTS: Alejandro’s will was admitted to probate in a
the gross value of the estate of the decedent. petition filed by Lourdes. Nilda files a “Motion to Declare
However, the court’s determination is only provisional in the Will Intrinsically Void” after 2 years arguing that
character, not conclusive, and is subject to the final Lourdes was not the legal wife of the decedent. The
decision in a separate action which may be instituted by order declaring the will intrinsically void was affirmed.
the parties. Lourdes failed to file her appellant’s brief. An entry of
In this case, the real properties sought to be excluded judgment was made.
from the inventory were duly registered under the Torrens However, an order was issued by the probate judge
system in the name of the private corporations, and as such setting aside the above order on the ground that it was
were to be afforded the presumptive conclusiveness of merely interlocutory; hence, not final in character.
title. The probate court in denying the motion for exclusion
acted in utter disregard of the presumption of HELD: A probated will cannot be given effect if it was
conclusiveness of title in favor of private respondents. later on declared intrinsically void. There is nothing to
A corporation is clothed with personality separate and execute where the testamentary provisions have been
distinct from that of the persons composing it. declared void in an order that has become final and
Consequently, the assets of the corporation are not the executory.
assets of the estate of Pastor Lim. Even if the will was validly executed, if the testator
provides for dispositions that deprives or impairs the
IN RE: ESTATE OF JOHNSON lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance
November 16, 1918 according to the laws on succession, the unlawful
provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be given effect.
FACTS: After 3 months from the time the will was allowed The intrinsic validity is another matter and questions
probate, the decedent’s daughter from the first marriage, regarding the same may still be raised even after the will
claiming to be the sole legitimate heir, noted an exception has been authenticated.
to the order admitting the will to probate. No petition was A final judgment on probated will, albeit erroneous,
filed but her attorneys merely entered an appearance on is binding on the whole world.
her behalf. 7 months after the probate order was issued, In setting aside the order declaring the will
the same attorneys moved the court to vacate the order intrinsically void, the trial court nullified the entry of
admitting the will to probate. judgment made by the CA. A lower court cannot
reverse or set aside decisions of a superior court.
HELD: The application to set aside must be denied
because it was filed out of time. Under the Code of Civil MALOLES vs. PHILIPS
Procedure, the application for relief must be made within a January 31, 200
reasonable time, but in no case exceeding 6 months after
such judgment, order or other proceeding was taken. Such FACTS: Dr. de Santos filed a petition for the probate of
judgment, order or other proceedings extends to all sorts of his will. He alleged that he had no compulsory heirs. The
judicial proceedings like probate proceedings. petition was granted. Shortly after, he died.
Although the time allowed for the making of such Octavio, his nephew, filed a ‘Motion for
application was inconveniently short, the remedy existed Intervention’. He argued that as the nearest of kin and
and the possibility of its use is proved in this case by the creditor of the testator, his interest in the matter is
circumstance that on June 12, 1916, she in fact appeared in material and direct.
court by her attorneys and excepted to the order admitting
the will to probate. HELD: In order for a person to be allowed to intervene in
a proceeding, he must have an interest in the estate or
LEVISTE vs. CA in the will or in the property to be affected by it. He must
January 30, 1989 be an interested party or one who would be benefited
by the estate such as an heir or one who has a claim
FACTS: Leviste received a letter form a client terminating against the estate like a creditor, and whose interest is
his services in connection with a probate proceeding. material and direct.
Leviste filed a “Motion to Intervene to Protect his Rights to Octavio is not an heir or legatee under the will of the
Fees for Professional Services”. decedent. Neither is he a compulsory heir of the
decedent. As the only and nearest collateral relative of
HELD: Leviste cannot intervene. Leviste was not a party to the decedent, he can inherit from the latter only in case
the probate proceeding in the lower court. He had no of intestacy. He can only inherit if the will is annulled. His
direct interest in the probate of the will. His only interest in interest is therefore not direct or immediate.
the estate is an indirect interest as former counsel for a His claim to being a creditor is belated as it has
prospective heir. One who is only indirectly interested in a been raised for the first time only in his reply to the
will may not interfere in its probate. opposition to his motion to intervene and is not
supported by evidence.
DOROTHEO vs. CA A probate proceeding is terminated upon the
December 8, 1999 issuance of the order allowing the probate of a will.

In cases for the probate of wills, it is well-settled that the manifest therein that ownership was not resolved for it
authority of the court is limited to ascertaining the extrinsic confined itself to the question of extrinsic validity of the
validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound will, and the need for and propriety of appointing a
mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the special administrator.
formalities prescribed by law.
Ordinarily, probate proceedings are instituted only after CORONADO vs. CA
the death of the testator. However, Article 838 of the Civil January 24, 2002
Code authorizes the filing of a petition for probate of the will
filed by the testator himself. FACTS: Juana claims that a portion of the property in
question was inherited by her as provided in the will of
NUGUID vs. NUGUID her grandfather Melecio. Leonida claims that the
June 23, 1966 property in question was bequeathed to her under a will
executed by Dr. Monterola, who was allegedly in
FACTS: The parents of the testatrix opposed the petition for possession thereof even before the outbreak of World
probate on the ground of preterition. They contend that War II. Said will was probated. Juana opposed the
they are compulsory heirs of the deceased in the direct probate.
ascending line and that the institution of the testatrix of her
sister as the universal heir preterited them, and that in HELD: While it is true that no will shall pass either real or
consequence the institution is void. personal property unless it is proved and allowed in the
proper court, the questioned will, however, may be
HELD: The court's area of inquiry is limited - to an sustained on the basis of Article 1056 of the Civil Code of
examination of, and resolution on, the extrinsic validity of 1899, which was in force at the time said document was
the will. The due execution thereof, the testatrix's executed by Melecio in 1918. In this case, nowhere was
testamentary capacity, and the compliance with the it alleged nor shown that Leonida is entitled to legitime
requisites or solemnities by law prescribed, are the questions from Melecio. The truth of the matter is that the record is
solely to be represented, and to be acted upon, by the bereft of any showing that Leonida and the late Melecio
court. were related to each other.
However, if it is alleged that the will is void because of Juana is not estopped from questioning the
preterition, a probate would be useless, if indeed there was ownership of the property in question, notwithstanding
preterition. her having objected to the probate of the will executed
Since the will provides for the institution of the testatrix’ by Monterola under which Leonida is claiming title to the
sister as universal heir and nothing more, the result is the said property.
same. The entire will is null and void.
CAYETANO vs. LEONIDAS
PASTOR vs. CA May 30, 1984
June 24, 1983
FACTS: Nenita, sister of the testatrix, filed a petition for
FACTS The petition for probate was granted. The hearing the reprobate of a will allegedly executed by Adoracion
on the intrinsic validity of the will was opposed on the in the US. Adoracion was a US citizen. The petition was
ground that there was a pending reconveyance suit over granted. Hermogenes, father of Adoracion, maintained
the ownership of shares in Atlas mining. The court resolved that since the reprobate was allowed, he was divested
the question of ownership of the royalties payable by Atlas of his legitime which was reserved by law for him.
mining to the estate of the decedent and ordered the
payment of the legacy. HELD: The probate court can rule upon the issue on
preterition, although such issue deals with the validity of
HELD: The probate order cannot resolve with finality the the provisions of the will.
questions of ownership of properties involved in the As a general rule, the probate court's authority is
proceeding. The determination is merely provisional. limited only to the extrinsic validity of the will, the due
Hence, the legacy should not be given yet. execution thereof, the testatrix's testamentary capacity
As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities
matter which the probate court cannot resolve with finality. prescribed by law, The intrinsic validity of the will
Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain normally comes only after the court has declared that
property should or should not be included in the inventory the will has been duly authenticated. However, where
of estate properties, the probate court may pass upon the practical considerations demand that the intrinsic
title thereto, but such determination is provisional, not validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is
conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate probated, the court should meet the issue.
action to resolve title. Although on its face, the will appeared to have
In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the preterited Hermogenes, and thus, reprobate should
issue by and large is restricted to the extrinsic validity of the have been denied. But it was sufficiently established
will. that Adoracion, at the time of her death, was a US
Nowhere in the dispositive portion is there a declaration citizen resident. As regards the intrinsic validity of the
of ownership of specific properties. On the contrary, it is will, the national law of the decedent must apply.

HELD: The lower court has no jurisdiction to pass finally
SOLIVIO vs. CA and definitely upon the title or ownership of the
February 12, 1990 properties involved in the summary settlement of the
estate of the deceased Filomena.
FACTS: Celedonia, maternal aunt of the deceased, was The probate court may only rule upon the title to
declared as the sole heir. 4 months later, Concordia, sister property in the following cases:
of the deceased’s father file a MFR claiming that she too 1. For the purpose of determining whether or not a
was an heir of the deceased. Instead of appealing, given property should be included in the
Concordia sued Celedonia for partition, recovery of inventory of the estate of the deceased. But
possession, ownership and damages. The suit was initiated such determination is not conclusive.
while the probate proceedings were still pending. Branch 2. If the parties voluntarily submitted to its
26 granted Concordia’s prayers. jurisdiction and introduced evidence to prove
ownership.
HELD: Branch 26 was incorrect in taking cognizance of the In the case at bar, the action instituted by the
case because it was the probate court that had the petitioner was not for the purpose of determining
exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and legal distribution of whether or not a given property should be included in
the estate. the inventory of the estate of the deceased. The action
It is the order of distribution directing the delivery of the was for partition and distribution of the properties left by
residue of the estate to the persons entitled thereto that the deceased.
brings to a close the intestate proceedings. The order Neither have all of the parties voluntarily submitted
declaring Celedonia as the sole heir of the estate did not the issue of ownership for resolution by the court. As a
toll the end of the proceedings. matter of fact, the petitioner opposed the petition of
In the interest of orderly procedure and to avoid private respondents to have the issue of ownership or
confusing and conflicting dispositions of a decedent’s title decided in the proceeding for the settlement of the
estate, a court should not interfere with probate estate of the deceased.
proceedings pending in a co-equal court. It was therefore erroneous for the lower court to
resolve the question of title or ownership over the
AJERO vs. CA properties in said proceeding. It could only pass upon
September 16, 1994 such a question in the exercise of its general jurisdiction
in an ordinary action.
FACTS: The probate of a will was opposed on the ground
that the testatrix cannot validly dispose of the house and lot ETHEL GRIMM ROBERTS vs. LEONIDAS
because she shared the property with her father’s other April 27, 1984
heirs.
FACTS: Grimm, a US citizen of Manila, executed 2 will in
HELD: As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are San Francisco, California. One will disposed of his
limited to pass only upon the extrinsic validity of the will Philippine estate and the other disposed of his estate
sought to be probated. outside the Philippines.
However, in exceptional instances, the courts are not Ethel, Grimm’s daughter by a first marriage, filed a
powerless to do what the situation constrains them to do, petition for intestate proceeding. Maxine, Grimm’s 2 nd
and pass upon certain provisions of the will. wife, opposed on the ground of the pendency of the
In this case, the decedent herself stated in her probate proceedings in Utah. She later filed a petition
holographic will that the property is in the name of her late for probate of the 2 wills, already probated in Utah and
father. Thus, the testatrix cannot validly dispose of the prayed that the partition approved by Branch 20, the
whole property, which she shares with her father’s other intestate court, be set aside. This was approved by
heirs. Branch 38.
MAGALLANES vs. KAYANAN HELD: Such petition for the probate of the 2 wills and the
January 20, 1976 annulment of the partition approved by Branch 20 can
be entertained by Branch 38. A testate proceeding is
FACTS: Lucena filed a “solicitud” praying that certain lots proper in this case.
be partitioned and distributed among the heirs of the The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous
deceased Filomena. The heirs of Eligio filed a motion to that the estate of a person who died testate should be
dismiss claiming ownership over the parcels of land in settled in an intestate proceeding. The intestate case
question and raising the issue that the trial court is devoid of should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and
jurisdiction to resolve the issues raised in the pleadings. the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should
The heirs of Eligio filed a petition for summary judgment continue hearing the 2 cases.
on the pleadings praying that their absolute right of
ownership over the properties in question be recognized VDA. DE KILAYKO vs. JUDGE TENGCO
and confirmed. It was granted. March 27, 1992

FACTS: In the settlement of the estate of Lizares, a project June 27, 1975
partition was submitted. In accordance with the said
project of partition, the heirs executed an agreement of FACTS: The testatrix said in her will that it was her desire
partition and subdivision. that her properties should not be divided among her
Later, a motion was filed to reopen the testate estate heirs during her husband’s lifetime. She further stated
proceedings of Lizares. that after her husband’s death, her paraphernal lands
and all the conjugal lands should be distributed in the
HELD: The testate proceedings cannot anymore be manner set forth in her will. She devised and partitioned
reopened because the Lizares sisters recognized the the conjugal lands as if she owned all of them. Thus, she
decree of partition sanctioned by the probate court and in disposed of in the will her husband’s share of the
fact reaped the fruits thereof. Hence, they are now conjugal assets.
precluded from attacking the validity of the partition or any The husband and one of the daughters opposed
part of it in the guise of a complaint for reconveyance. the probate of the will alleging preterition of the
In testate succession, there can be no valid partition husband and alleged improper partition of the conjugal
among the heirs until after the will has been probated. A estate. The husband later withdrew his opposition and
project partition is merely a proposal for the distribution of expressed conformity with his wife’s wishes.
the hereditary estate which the court may accept or reject. The probate court gave effect to the renunciation
It is the court that makes that distribution of the estate and of the husband’s hereditary rights. Later, the probate
determines the persons entitled thereto. court dismissed the petition and declared the will void
It cannot be denied that when they moved for the and converted the testate proceeding into an intestate
reopening of the testate estate proceedings of Maria, the proceeding.
judicial decree of partition and the order of closure of such
proceedings was already final and executory. HELD: The probate court can pass upon the intrinsic
validity of the will before ruling on its formal validity in this
ARANCILLO vs. PENAFLORIDA case.
54 OG 2914 In view of unusual provisions in the will, which are of
dubious legality, and because of the motion to withdraw
HELD: Even if the discovered will has already been the petition for probate, the trial court acted correctly in
probated, if later on a subsequent will is discovered, the passing upon the will’s intrinsic validity even before its
latter may still be presented for probate. formal validity had been established.
Even if the discovered will had been made earlier than The probate court, however, was not correct in
the probate will, it can still be probated as long as the 2 wills declaring the will intrinsically void.
can be reconciled, or if there are portions in the first which The invalidity of one of several dispositions
have not been revoked in the second. contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the
other dispositions, unless it is to be presumed that the
CAÑIZA vs. CA testator would not have made such other dispositions if
February 24, 1997 the first invalid disposition had not been made.
The statement of the testatrix that she owned the
FACTS: Through her guardian, Carmen sued the Spouses southern half of the conjugal lands is contrary to law
Estrada for ejectment from her property alleging that she because, although she was a co-owner thereof, her
already had urgent need of the house on account of her share was inchoate and pro-indiviso. But that illegal
advanced age and failing health. The Estradas insist that declaration does not nullify the entire will. It may be
the devise of the house to them by Carmen clearly denotes disregarded. The distribution and partition would
her intention that they remain in possession thereof since become effective upon the husband’s death. In the
their ouster be inconsistent with the Carmen’s holographic meantime, the net income should be equitably divided
will. among the children and the surviving spouse.
By reason of the surviving husband’s conformity to
HELD: A legal guardian can validly sue on behalf of her his wife’s will and his renunciation of his hereditary rights,
ward for ejectment where the same property is urgently his ½ conjugal share became a part of his deceased
needed by her ward. wife’s estate. His conformity had the effect of validating
A will is essentially ambulatory. At any time prior to the the partition made in the will, without prejudice to the
testator’s death, it may be changed or revoked, and until rights of the creditors and the legitimes of the
admitted to probate, it has no effect whatever and no right compulsory heirs.
can be claimed thereunder.
An owner’s intention to confer title in the future to CAMAYA vs. PATULANDONG
persons possessing property by his tolerance, is not February 23, 2004
inconsistent with the former’s taking back possession in the
meantime for any reason deemed sufficient. In this case, FACTS: Rufina executed a notarized will where she
there was sufficient cause for the owner’s resumption of devised a parcel of land to her grandson Anselmo.
possession. Later, she executed a codicil which stated that her 4
children and Anselmo would inherit the above parcel of
BALANAY, JR. vs. MARTINEZ land.

Anselmo filed an action for partition against the
Patulandongs. It was granted, subject to the result of the HELD: The imputation of blindness has not been
probate of the codicil. Anselmo then sold the land to the substantiated. While witnesses testified that Carlos had
Camayas. to request them to read report and contract to him due
The probate court then issued an order wherein the title to failing eyesight, they could not assure the court that
issued to the Camayas were declared void and it voided he was in fact blind. The deceased was still signing
the sale as well. checks and could read papers by himself. The
The Camayas contended that the probate court has decedent also appeared to be in full possession of his
no power to declare null and void the sale and their title. mental faculties.
The claim that the will was obtained through undue
HELD: The probate court does not have the power to annul influence and improper pressure has no substantial basis
the title to lands subject of a testate proceeding pending but is more matter of conjecture engendered by
before it. The probate court exceeded its jurisdiction when suspicion which the weight of authority regards as
it further declared the deed of sale and the titles of the insufficient to sustain a verdict defeating a will on that
Camayas null and void, it having had the effect of ground. It is not enough that there was opportunity to
depriving them possession and ownership of the property. exercise undue influence or possibility that it might have
A probate court cannot adjudicate or determine title been exercised. There must be substantial evidence
to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which that it was actually exercised.
are equally claimed to belong to outside parties. All that
said court could do as regards such properties is to COSO vs. FERNANDEZ
determine whether they should or should not be included in 42 PHIL 596
the inventory.
Though the judgment in the partition case had FACTS: Frederico was a married man and a resident of
become final and executory as it was not appealed, it the Philippines. He met Rosario in Spain and had illicit
specifically provided in its dispositive portion that the relations with her for many years.
decision was without prejudice to the probate of the The will of Frederico tercio de libre disposicion to the
codicil. The rights of the prevailing parties in said case were illegitimate son of the testator with Rosario and to her
subject to the outcome of the probate of the codicil. payment by way of reimbursement for the expenses
incurred by her in taking care of the testator when he is
ARTICLE 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the alleged to have suffered from a sever illness.
following cases: The CFI set aside his will on the ground of undue
(1) If the formalities required by law have not been influence alleged to have been exercised over the mind
complied with; of the testator by Rosario.
(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally
incapable of making a will, at the time of its execution; HELD: The mere or reasonable influence over a testator
(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the is not sufficient to invalidate a will. The influence must be
influence of fear, or threats; undue, a kind that so overpowers the mind of the
(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and testator as to destroy his free agency and make him
influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of some other express the will of another, rather than his own.
person; The mere fact that some influence exercised by a
(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud; person sustaining an adulterous relation does not
(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that invalidate a will, unless it is further shown that the
the instrument he signed should be his will at the time of influence destroys the testator’s free agency. The
affixing his signature thereto. (n) testator is an intelligent man, a lawyer by profession.
Mere affection, even if illegitimate, is not undue
OZAETA vs. CUARTERO influence and does not invalidate a will.
99 PHIL 1041 But still under the law, the mistress is incapacitated
to inherit.
FACTS: Carlos was married to Cesaria and they had 3
children. After Cesaria died, Carlos lived unmarried with SECTION 2
Rosa and they had 8 children. While living with Rosa, Carlos Institution of Heir
had relations with Maria and they had 6 children.
Subsequently, Carlos married Rosa and thereafter made his ARTICLE 840. Institution of heir is an act by virtue of
will. At the time the will was made, Carlos was living with which a testator designates in his will the person or
Ramon while his house was being repaired. The will named persons who are to succeed him in his property and
Pres. Roxas as executor and Ramon as executor in default transmissible rights and obligations. (n)
of Pres. Roxas.
Ramon filed a petition for probate joined by Rosa and ARTICLE 841. A will shall be valid even though it
her children. Maria and her children opposed it on the should not contain an institution of an heir, or such
ground that it was procured by fraud, undue pressure and institution should not comprise the entire estate, and
influence. The lower court allowed probate. The children even though the person so instituted should not accept
of the first marriage appealed. the inheritance or should be incapacitated to succeed.

In such cases the testamentary dispositions made in "Second. I declare to be my sisters in lawful wedlock
accordance with law shall be complied with and the the persons named Doña Antonia Uson, now deceased,
remainder of the estate shall pass to the legal heirs. (764) who has left two daughters called Maria Rosario, widow,
of Estanislao Lengson; Ignacia Uson, married to Don
Vicente Puzon; Eufemia Uson, now deceased, who is
survived by three daughters called Maria Salud, Maria
Amparo, and Maria Asuncion; and Maria Pilar Uson;
Maria Manaoag Uson, unmarried, issue had by our
deceased father Don Daniel Uson with one Leonarda
ARTICLE 842. One who has no compulsory heirs may
Fernandez, alias Andao de Lingayen, so that they may
dispose by will of all his estate or any part of it in favor of
have and enjoy it in equal parts as good sisters and
any person having capacity to succeed.
relatives.
One who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his
estate provided he does not contravene the provisions of
HELD: The property should be divided equally between
this Code with regard to the legitime of said heirs. (763a)
the living sisters and the children of the deceased sisters,
share and share alike, a niece taking the same share
ARTICLE 843. The testator shall designate the heir by his that a sister receives.
name and surname, and when there are two persons The testatrix, in the first paragraph, declares that
having the same names, he shall indicate some after her husband's death she desires that her sisters and
circumstance by which the instituted heir may be known. nieces shall succeed him as heirs. In the 2nd paragraph,
Even though the testator may have omitted the name the nieces are referred to in no way different from the
of the heir, should he designate him in such manner that sisters.
there can be no doubt as to who has been instituted, the In that final declaration, the testatrix desires that the
institution shall be valid. (772) sisters and nieces shall take and enjoy the property in
equal parts. The testatrix's intention is fairly clear.
ARTICLE 844. An error in the name, surname, or
circumstances of the heir shall not vitiate the institution ARTICLE 848. If the testator should institute his brothers
when it is possible, in any other manner, to know with and sisters, and he has some of full blood and others of
certainty the person instituted. half blood, the inheritance shall be distributed equally
If among persons having the same names and unless a different intention appears. (770a)
surnames, there is a similarity of circumstances in such a
way that, even with the use of other proof, the person
ARTICLE 849. When the testator calls to the
instituted cannot be identified, none of them shall be an
succession a person and his children they are all
heir. (773a)
deemed to have been instituted simultaneously and not
successively. (771)
ARTICLE 845. Every disposition in favor of an unknown
person shall be void, unless by some event or circumstance
ARTICLE 850. The statement of a false cause for the
his identity becomes certain. However, a disposition in favor
institution of an heir shall be considered as not written,
of a definite class or group of persons shall be valid. (750a)
unless it appears from the will that the testator would not
have made such institution if he had known the falsity of
ARTICLE 846. Heirs instituted without designation of such cause. (767a)
shares shall inherit in equal parts. (765)
AUSTRIA vs. REYES
ARTICLE 847. When the testator institutes some heirs February 27, 1970
individually and others collectively as when he says, "I
designate as my heirs A and B, and the children of C," FACTS: The bulk of the estate of Basilia was destined
those collectively designated shall be considered as under the will to pass on to the respondents, all of whom
individually instituted, unless it clearly appears that the had been assumed and declared by Basilia as her own
intention of the testator was otherwise. (769a) legally adopted children.
Petitioners filed a petition in intervention for partition
NABLE vs. USON alleging that they are the nearest of kin of Basilia, and
March 10, 1914 that the respondents had not in fact been adopted by
the decedent in accordance with law, rendering these
FACTS: The codicil of Filomena contains the following: respondents mere strangers to the decedent and
"First. I declare that all the property which belongs to without any right to succeed as heirs. The court allowed
me as conjugal property, referred to in my said testament, the intervention.
shall be the property of my aforesaid husband, Don Rafael After 3 years after that they were allowed to
Sison; in case all or part of said property exists at my intervene, petitioners moved to set for hearing the
husband's death, it is my will that at his death my sisters and matter on genuineness of the adoption.
nieces hereinafter named succeed him as heirs.

HELD: The institution of heirs would retain efficacy in the MALOLES II vs. PHILIPS
event there exists proof that the adoption of the same heirs January 31, 200
by the decedent is false.
The petitioners seems to imply, from the use of the FACTS: Dr. de Santos filed a petition for probate of his
terms, "sapilitang tagapagmana" (compulsory heirs) and will. In his petition, Dr. De Santos alleged that he had no
"sapilitang mana" (legitime), that the impelling reason or compulsory heirs and that he had named in his will as
cause for the institution of the respondents was the sole legatee and devisee the Arturo de Santos
testatrix's belief that under the law she could not do Foundation, Inc. The petition for the allowance of the
otherwise. If this were indeed what prompted the testatrix in said will was approved and allowed. Maloles II filed a
instituting the respondents, she did not make it known in her motion for intervention claiming that, as the only child of
will. If she was aware that succession to the legitime takes Alicia de Santos (testator's sister) and Octavio L. Maloles,
place by operation of law, independent of her own wishes, Sr., he was the sole full-blooded nephew and nearest of
she would not have found it convenient to name her kin of Dr. De Santos. He likewise alleged that he was a
supposed compulsory heirs to their legitimes. The creditor of the testator.
decedent's will does not state in a specific or unequivocal
manner the cause for such institution of heirs. It cannot be HELD: Maloles II is not an heir or legatee under the will of
annulled on the basis of guesswork or uncertain the decedent. Neither is he a compulsory heir of the
implications. latter. As the only and nearest collateral relative of the
Such institution may be annulled only when one is decedent, he can inherit from the latter only in case of
satisfied, after an examination of the will, that the testator intestacy. Since the decedent has left a will which has
clearly would not have made the institution if he had already been probated and disposes of all his properties
known the cause for it to be false. the private respondent can inherit only if the said will is
At all events, the legality of the adoption of the annulled.
respondents by the testatrix can be assailed only in a His claim to being a creditor of the estate is a
separate action brought for that purpose, and cannot be belated one, having been raised for the first time only in
the subject of a collateral attack. his reply to the opposition to his motion to intervene,
and, as far as the records show, not supported by
ARTICLE 851. If the testator has instituted only one heir, evidence.
and the institution is limited to an aliquot part of the It has been held that an "interested person" is one
inheritance, legal succession takes place with respect to who would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir,
the remainder of the estate. or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a
The same rule applies, if the testator has instituted creditor, and whose interest is material and direct, not
several heirs each being limited to an aliquot part, and all merely incidental or contingent.
the parts do not cover the whole inheritance. (n)
ACAIN vs. IAC
October 27, 1987
ARTICLE 852. If it was the intention of the testator that
the instituted heirs should become sole heirs to the whole
estate, or the whole free portion, as the case may be, and FACTS: Constantino filed a petition for the probate of
each of them has been instituted to an aliquot part of the the will of the late Nemesio. The will provided that all his
inheritance and their aliquot parts together do not cover shares from properties he earned with his wife shall be
the whole inheritance, or the whole free portion, each part given to his brother Segundo (father of Constantino). In
case Segundo dies, all such property shall be given to
shall be increased proportionally. (n)
Segundo’s children. Segundo pre-deceased Nemesio.
The oppositors Virginia, a legally adopted daughter
ARTICLE 853. If each of the instituted heirs has been of the deceased, and the latter's widow Rosa filed a
given an aliquot part of the inheritance, and the parts motion to dismiss on the following grounds:
together exceed the whole inheritance, or the whole free (1) the petitioner has no legal capacity to institute these
portion, as the case may be, each part shall be reduced proceedings;
proportionally. (n) (2) he is merely a universal heir and
(3) the widow and the adopted daughter have been
ARTICLE 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or preterited.
all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living
at the time of the execution of the will or born after the HELD: Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's
death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but will of the forced heirs or anyone of them either because
the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned,
not inofficious. they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly
If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the disinherited. Insofar as the widow is concerned,
testator, the institution shall be effectual, without prejudice Article 854 may not apply as she does not ascend or
to the right of representation. (814a) descend from the testator, although she is a compulsory
heir. Even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir,
there is no preterition even if she is omitted from the
inheritance, for she is not in the direct line.

The same thing cannot be said of the other respondent relief instead rests on Article 1104 of the Civil Code to the
Virginia, whose legal adoption by the testator has not been effect that where the preterition is not attended by bad
questioned by petitioner. Adoption gives to the adopted faith and fraud, the partition shall not be rescinded but
person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate the preterited heir shall be paid the value of the share
child of the adopter and makes the adopted person a legal pertaining to her. Again, the appellate court has thus
heir of the adopter. It cannot be denied that she was totally acted properly in ordering the remand of the case for
omitted and preterited in the will of the testator and that further proceedings to make the proper valuation of the
both adopted child and the widow were deprived of at Isarog property and ascertainment of the amount due
least their legitime. Neither can it be denied that they were petitioner Delia Viado.
not expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of preterition
of the legally adopted child. NERI vs. ATUKIN
Preterition annuls the institution of an heir and May 21, 1943
annulment throws open to intestate succession the entire
inheritance. The only provisions which do not result in FACTS: In his will, the testator left all his property by
intestacy are the legacies and devises made in the will for universal title to the children by his second marriage with
they should stand valid and respected, except insofar as preterition of the children by his first marriage.
the legitimes are concerned.
The universal institution of petitioner together with his HELD: The testator left all his property by universal title to
brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of the testator the children by his second marriage, and that without
results in totally abrogating the will because the nullification expressly disinheriting the children by his first marriage,
of such institution of universal heirs - without any other he left nothing to them or, at least, some of them. This is
testamentary disposition in the will - amounts to a a case of preterition governed by Article 814 (Article
declaration that nothing at all was written. 854) of the Civil Code, which provides that the institution
In order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a of heirs shall be annulled and intestate succession should
probate proceeding he must have an interest in the estate, be declared open.
or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it. The theory is advanced that the bequest made by
Petitioner is not the appointed executor, neither a devisee universal title in favor of the children by the second
or a legatee there being no mention in the testamentary marriage should be treated as legacy and devise and,
disposition of any gift of an individual item of personal or accordingly, it must not be entirely annulled but merely
real property he is called upon to receive. At the outset, he reduced. This theory, if adopted, will result in a complete
appears to have an interest in the will as an heir. However, abrogation of Articles 814 and 851 of the Civil Code.
intestacy having resulted from the preterition of respondent In a case of preterition where in which the whole
adopted child and the universal institution of heirs, property is left to one or some forced heirs, the total
petitioner is in effect not an heir of the testator. He has no nullity of the testamentary disposition would have the
legal standing to petition for the probate of the will left by effect, not of depriving totally the instituted heir of his
the deceased. share in the inheritance, but of placing him and the
other forced heirs upon the basis of equality.
NON vs. CA
February 15, 2000 MANINANG vs. CA
June 19, 1982
FACTS: Petitioners contended that the late Nilo employed
forgery and undue influence to coerce Julian to execute FACTS: Clemencia, left a holographic will which
the deed of donation. Petitioner Rebecca averred that her provides that all her properties shall be inherited by Dra.
brother Nilo employed fraud to procure her signature to the Maninang with whose family Clemencia has lived
deed of extrajudicial settlement. She added that the continuously for the last 30 years. The will also provided
exclusion of her retardate sister, Delia Viado, in the that she does not consider Bernardo as his adopted son.
extrajudicial settlement, resulted in the latter's preterition Bernardo, as the adopted son, claims to be the sole heir
that should warrant its annulment. of decedent Clemencia Aseneta, instituted intestate
proceedings.
HELD: When Virginia died intestate, her part of the
conjugal property, the Isarog property included, was HELD: In the instant case, a crucial issue that calls for
transmitted to her heirs — her husband Julian and their resolution is whether under the terms of the decedent's
children. The inheritance, which vested from the moment of Will, private respondent had been preterited or
death of the decedent, remained under a co-ownership disinherited, and if the latter, whether it was a valid
regime among the heirs until partition. disinheritance. Preterition and disinheritance are two
Petitioners are vague on how and in what manner diverse concepts.
fraud, forgery and undue influence occurred. Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will
The exclusion of petitioner Delia Viado, alleged to be a of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because
retardate, from the deed of extrajudicial settlement verily they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned,
has had the effect of preterition. This kind of preterition, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly
however, in the absence of proof of fraud and bad faith, disinherited. Disinheritance is a testamentary disposition
does not justify a collateral attack on the TCT issued. The

depriving any compulsory heirs of his share in the legitime much as may be necessary must be taken
for a cause authorized by law. proportionally from the shares of the other compulsory
By virtue of the dismissal of the testate case, the heirs. (1080a)
determination of that controversial issue has not been
thoroughly considered. The conclusion of the trial court was ARTICLE 856. A voluntary heir who dies before the
that Bernardo has been preterited. The SC is of opinion, testator transmits nothing to his heirs.
however, that from the face of the will, that conclusion is A compulsory heir who dies before the testator, a
not indubitable. Such preterition is still questionable. The person incapacitated to succeed, and one who
Special Proceeding is REMANDED to the lower court renounces the inheritance, shall transmit no right to his
own heirs except in cases expressly provided for in this
TAMAYO vs. TAMAYO Code. (766a)
August 12, 2005
(Preterition not mentioned in the ruling) SECTION 3
Substitution of Heirs
FACTS: Petitioners are half-siblings of the respondents.
Petitioners filed a complaint for the revocation of the said
donation, alleging they were preterited. CA dismissed their
ARTICLE 857. Substitution is the appointment of
appeal for failure to pay the corresponding docket fees.
another heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in
default of the heir originally instituted. (n)
HELD: CA was correct in dismissing the appeal. Failure to
pay the required docket fees will result to the dismissal of
the appeal. ARTICLE 858. Substitution of heirs may be:
(1) Simple or common;
JLT AGRO vs. BALANSAG (2) Brief or compendious;
March 11, 2005 (3) Reciprocal; or
(4) Fideicommissary. (n)
FACTS: Julian married Antonia and they had 2 children.
After Antonia’s death, Julian married Milagros and they ARTICLE 859. The testator may designate one or more
had 4 children. A compromise agreement was entered persons to substitute the heir or heirs instituted in case
wherein it was to be owned in common by Julian and his 2 such heir or heirs should die before him, or should not
children from the 1st marriage. wish, or should be incapacitated to accept the
The 3 of them executed a Deed of Assignment of inheritance.
Assets and Liabilities in favor of JLT Agro. A Supplemental A simple substitution, without a statement of the
Deed was later executed transferring ownership over the lot cases to which it refers, shall comprise the three
in favor of JLT Agro. Meanwhile, Milagros and her children mentioned in the preceding paragraph, unless the
took possession over the subject lot. Balansag also bought testator has otherwise provided. (774)
the said lot from Milagros.
RABADILLA vs. CA
HELD: The appellate court erred in holding that future June 29, 2000
legitime can be determined, adjudicated and reserved
prior to the death of Don Julian. At the time of the FACTS: In the codicil of testatrix, Rabadilla was instituted
execution of the deed of assignment covering the lot in as a devisee of a lot, containing the following provisions:
question in favor of petitioner, Julian remained the owner of 1. Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies,
the property since ownership over the subject lot would every year, to give to Belleza 100 piculs of sugar
only pass to his heirs from the second marriage at the time until Belleza dies;
of his death. 2. Should Rabadilla die, his heir to whom he shall
Don Julian did not execute a will since what he give the lot shall have to obligation to still give
resorted to was a partition inter vivos of his properties, as yearly the sugar as specified to Belleza;
evidenced by the court approved Compromise 3. In the event that the lot is sold, leased or
Agreement. It is premature if not irrelevant to speak of mortgaged, the buyer, lessee, mortgagee, shall
preterition prior to the death of Don Julian in the absence have also the obligation to respect and deliver
of a will depriving a legal heir of his legitime. Besides, there yearly sugar to Belleza. Should the command
are other properties which the heirs from the second be not respected, Belleza shall immediately
marriage could inherit from Don Julian upon his death. seize the lot and turn it over to the testatrix’ near
Hence, the total omission from inheritance of Don Julian's descendants.
heirs from the second marriage, a requirement for
preterition to exist, is hardly imaginable as it is unfounded. HELD: This is not a case of simple substitution. The
codicil did not provide that should Rabadilla default
ARTICLE 855. The share of a child or descendant omitted due to predecease, incapacity or renunciation, the
in a will must first be taken from the part of the estate not testatrix’ near descendants would substitute him.
disposed of by the will, if any; if that is not sufficient, so Neither is there a fideicommissary substitution. Here,
the instituted heir is in fact allowed under the Codicil to

alienate the property provided the negotiation is with the Article 861. If heirs instituted in unequal shares
near descendants or the sister of the testatrix. Also, the should be reciprocally substituted, the substitute shall
near descendants’ right to inherit from the testatrix is not acquire the share of the heir who dies, renounces, or is
definite. It will only pass to them if the obligation to deliver incapacitated, unless it clearly appears that the
is not fulfilled. Moreover, a fideicommissary substitution is intention of the testator was otherwise. If there are more
void if the first heir is not related by first degree to the than one substitute, they shall have the same share in
second degree. In this case, the near descendants are not the substitution as in the institution. (779a)
at all related to Dr. Rabadilla.
This is also not a conditional institution. The testatrix did
ARTICLE 862. The substitute shall be subject to the
not make Rabadilla’s inheritance dependent on the
same charges and conditions imposed upon the
performance of the said obligation. Since testamentary
instituted heir, unless the testator has expressly provided
dispositions are generally acts of liberality, an obligation
the contrary, or the charges or conditions are personally
imposed upon the heir should not be considered a
applicable only to the heir instituted. (780)
condition unless it clearly appears from the will itself that
such was the intention of the testator. In case of doubt, the
institution should be considered as modal and not ARTICLE 863. A fideicommissary substitution by virtue
conditional. of which the fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted
The manner of institution is modal because it imposes a with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a
charge upon the instituted heir without affecting the second heir the whole or part of the inheritance, shall be
efficacy of such institution. A mode imposes an obligation valid and shall take effect, provided such substitution
upon the heir or legatee but it does not affect the efficacy does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally
of his rights to the succession. In a conditional testamentary instituted, and provided further, that the fiduciary or first
disposition, the condition must happen or be fulfilled in heir and the second heir are living at the time of the
order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the testator. death of the testator. (781a)
The condition suspends but does not obligate. The mode
obligates but does not suspend.
TESTATE ESTATE OF RAMIREZ vs. VDA. DE RAMIREZ

February 15, 1982 PCIB vs. ESCOLIN; PCIB vs. PABLICO
March 29, 1974
FACTS: The principal beneficiaries of Jose are his widow, his
2 grandnephews and his companion Wanda. The widow is FACTS: Linnie Hodges died leaving a will which states
a French who lives in Paris, while the companion Wanda is that at the death of her husband, Charles Hodges, she
an Austrian who lives in Spain. Moreover, the testator gives, devises and bequeaths all of the rest, residue and
provided for substitutions. remainder of her estate, both real and personal,
Jose, a Filipino, died in Spain with only his widow as wherever situated or located, to be equally divided
compulsory heir. A project partition was submitted wherein among her brothers and sisters, share and share alike.
One part shall go to the widow and the other part or "free Charles died. Before Charles’ death, he executed an
portion" shall go to the grandnephews. It was provided affidavit wherein he ratified and confirmed all that he
that 1/3 of the free portion is charged with the widow's stated in the estate tax returns as to his having
usufruct and the remaining 2/3 with a usufruct in favor of renounced what was given him by his wife's will.
Wanda. PCIB contended that, viewed as a substitution, the
The grandnephews opposed the project of partition testamentary disposition in favor of Mrs. Hodges' brothers
and one of the grounds was that the provisions for and sisters may not be given effect.
fideicommissary substitutions are invalid because the first
heirs are not related to the second heirs or substitutes within
the first degree. HELD: Mrs. Hodges' will provides neither for a simple or
vulgar substitution under Article 859 of the Civil Code nor
HELD: The fideicommissary substitution is void. The for a fideicommissary substitution under Article 863
substitutes are not related to Wanda. The second heir must thereof. There is no vulgar substitution therein because
be related to and be one generation from the first heir. It there is no provision for either (1) predecease of the
follows that the fideicommissary can only be either a child testator by the designated heir or (2) refusal or (3)
or a parent of the first heir. incapacity of the latter to accept the inheritance, as
Therefore, 1/2 of the estate which is the free portion required by Article 859; and neither is there a
goes to Roberto and Jorge Ramirez in naked ownership fideicommissary substitution therein because no
and the usufruct to Wanda de Wrobleski with a simple obligation is imposed thereby upon Hodges to preserve
substitution in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. the estate or any part thereof for anyone else.
Ramirez, the substitutes. The brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges are not
substitutes for Hodges because, under her will, they are
Article 860. Two or more persons may be substituted for not to inherit what Hodges cannot, would not or may
one, and one person for two or more heirs. not inherit, but what he would not dispose of from his
inheritance; rather, therefore, they are also heirs

instituted simultaneously with Hodges, subject, however, to to various persons, not simultaneously, but successively,
certain conditions, partially resolutory insofar as Hodges was the provisions of article 863 shall apply. (787a)
concerned and correspondingly suspensive with reference
to his brothers and sisters-in-law.
It is partially resolutory, since it bequeaths unto Hodges ARTICLE 870. The dispositions of the testator declaring
the whole of her estate to be owned and enjoyed by him all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty
as universal and sole heir with absolute dominion over them years are void. (n)
only during his lifetime, which means that while he could
completely and absolutely dispose of any portion thereof
SECTION 4
inter vivos to anyone other than himself, he was not free to
Conditional Testamentary Dispositions and Testamentary
do so mortis causa, and all his rights to what might remain
Dispositions With a Term
upon his death would cease entirely upon the occurrence
of that contingency, inasmuch as the right of his brothers
ARTICLE 871. The institution of an heir may be made
and sisters-in-law to the inheritance, although vested
conditionally, or for a certain purpose or cause. (790a)
already upon the death of Mrs. Hodges, would
automatically become operative upon the occurrence of
the death of Hodges in the event of actual existence of
any remainder of her estate then. ARTICLE 872. The testator cannot impose any charge,
condition, or substitution whatsoever upon the legitimes
ARTICLE 864. A fideicommissary substitution can never prescribed in this Code. Should he do so, the same shall
burden the legitime. (782a) be considered as not imposed. (813a)
ARTICLE 865. Every fideicommissary substitution must be ARTICLE 873. Impossible conditions and those
expressly made in order that it may be valid. contrary to law or good customs shall be considered as
The fiduciary shall be obliged to deliver the inheritance not imposed and shall in no manner prejudice the heir,
to the second heir, without other deductions than those even if the testator should otherwise provide. (792a)
which arise from legitimate expenses, credits and
improvements, save in the case where the testator has ARTICLE 874. An absolute condition not to contract a
provided otherwise. (783) first or subsequent marriage shall be considered as not
written unless such condition has been imposed on the
ARTICLE 866. The second heir shall acquire a right to the widow or widower by the deceased spouse, or by the
succession from the time of the testator's death, even latter's ascendants or descendants.
though he should die before the fiduciary. The right of the Nevertheless, the right of usufruct, or an allowance
second heir shall pass to his heirs. (784) or some personal prestation may be devised or
bequeathed to any person for the time during which he
or she should remain unmarried or in widowhood. (793a)
ARTICLE 867. The following shall not take effect:
(1) Fideicommissary substitutions which are not made in an
express manner, either by giving them this name, or ARTICLE 875. Any disposition made upon the
imposing upon the fiduciary the absolute obligation to condition that the heir shall make some provision in his
deliver the property to a second heir; will in favor of the testator or of any other person shall be
(2) Provisions which contain a perpetual prohibition to void. (794a)
alienate, and even a temporary one, beyond the limit fixed
in Article 863; ARTICLE 876. Any purely potestative condition
(3) Those which impose upon the heir the charge of imposed upon an heir must be fulfilled by him as soon as
paying to various persons successively, beyond the limit he learns of the testator's death.
prescribed in Article 863, a certain income or pension; This rule shall not apply when the condition, already
(4) Those which leave to a person the whole or part of the complied with, cannot be fulfilled again.
hereditary property in order that he may apply or invest the
same according to secret instructions communicated to ARTICLE 877. If the condition is casual or mixed, it
him by the testator. (785a) shall be sufficient if it happen or be fulfilled at any time
before or after the death of the testator, unless he has
ARTICLE 868. The nullity of the fideicommissary provided otherwise.
substitution does not prejudice the validity of the institution Should it have existed or should it have been fulfilled
of the heirs first designated; the fideicommissary clause shall at the time the will was executed and the testator was
simply be considered as not written. (786) unaware thereof, it shall be deemed as complied with.
If he had knowledge thereof, the condition shall be
ARTICLE 869. A provision whereby the testator leaves to considered fulfilled only when it is of such a nature that it
a person the whole or part of the inheritance, and to can no longer exist or be complied with again. (796)
another the usufruct, shall be valid. If he gives the usufruct

ARTICLE 878. A disposition with a suspensive term does possession of the property until after having given
not prevent the instituted heir from acquiring his rights and sufficient security, with the intervention of the instituted
transmitting them to his heirs even before the arrival of the heir. (805)
term. (799a)
SECTION 5
ARTICLE 879. If the potestative condition imposed upon Legitime
the heir is negative, or consists in not doing or not giving
something, he shall comply by giving a security that he will ARTICLE 886. Legitime is that part of the testator's
not do or give that which has been prohibited by the property which he cannot dispose of because the law
testator, and that in case of contravention he will return has reserved it for certain heirs who are, therefore,
whatever he may have received, together with its fruits and called compulsory heirs. (806)
interests. (800a)
ARTICLE 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
ARTICLE 880. If the heir be instituted under a suspensive (1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect
condition or term, the estate shall be placed under to their legitimate parents and ascendants;
administration until the condition is fulfilled, or until it (2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and
becomes certain that it cannot be fulfilled, or until the ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children
arrival of the term. and descendants;
The same shall be done if the heir does not give the (3) The widow or widower;
security required in the preceding article. (801a) (4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural
children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287.
ARTICLE 881. The appointment of the administrator of
the estate mentioned in the preceding article, as well as Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are
not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2; neither do they
the manner of the administration and the rights and
exclude one another.
obligations of the administrator shall be governed by the
In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must
Rules of Court. (804a)
be duly proved.
The father or mother of illegitimate children of the
ARTICLE 882. The statement of the object of the three classes mentioned, shall inherit from them in the
institution, or the application of the property left by the manner and to the extent established by this Code.
testator, or the charge imposed by him, shall not be (807a)
considered as a condition unless it appears that such was
his intention.
That which has been left in this manner may be ARTICLE 888. The legitime of legitimate children and
descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate
claimed at once provided that the instituted heir or his heirs
of the father and of the mother.
give security for compliance with the wishes of the testator
and for the return of anything he or they may receive, The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half,
together with its fruits and interests, if he or they should subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the
disregard this obligation. (797a) surviving spouse as hereinafter provided. (808a)
FRANCISCO vs. FRANCISCO

ARTICLE 883. When without the fault of the heir, an
March 8, 2001
institution referred to in the preceding article cannot take
effect in the exact manner stated by the testator, it shall be
FACTS: Respondent Aida is the only daughter of
complied with in a manner most analogous to and in
Gregorio and Cirila, both deceased. Petitioners are
conformity with his wishes.
daughters of Gregorio with his common law wife Julia.
If the person interested in the condition should prevent
Gregorio sold a parcel of land to his illegitimate children.
its fulfillment, without the fault of the heir, the condition shall
be deemed to have been complied with. (798a)
HELD: The kasulatan was simulated. There was no
consideration for the contract of sale. Even if it was not
ARTICLE 884. Conditions imposed by the testator upon simulated, it still violated the Civil Codei provisions insofar
the heirs shall be governed by the rules established for as the transaction affected respondent’s legitime. The
conditional obligations in all matters not provided for by this sale was executed in 1983, when the applicable law
Section. (791a) was the Civil Code, not the Family Code.
Obviously, the sale was Gregorio’s way to transfer
ARTICLE 885. The designation of the day or time when the property to his illegitimate daughters at the expense
the effects of the institution of an heir shall commence or of his legitimate daughter.
cease shall be valid. If indeed the parcels of land involved were the only
In both cases, the legal heir shall be considered as property left by their father, the sale in fact would
called to the succession until the arrival of the period or its deprive respondent of her share in her father’s estate.
expiration. But in the first case he shall not enter into By law, she is entitled to half of the estate of her father
as his only legitimate child.

son’s widow and 7 children. One of the children,
ARTICLE 889. The legitime of legitimate parents or Filomena, Jr. died intestate and without any child. Her
ascendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estates of mother partitioned their 1/3 share in the estate of
their children and descendants. Legarda with her 6 surviving children and gave the
The children or descendants may freely dispose of the properties she inherited from Filomena, Jr. to her 16
other half, subject to the rights of illegitimate children and grandchildren by means of a holographic will.
of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided. (809a)
HELD: The giving through the holographic will is not
lawful because the properties given by such
ARTICLE 890. The legitime reserved for the legitimate
holographic will were reservable properties because
parents shall be divided between them equally; if one of
they were inherited gratuitously from an ascendant
the parents should have died, the whole shall pass to the
transmitted to a descendant (Filomena, Jr.) then given
survivor.
If the testator leaves neither father nor mother, but is to another ascendant (Filomena, Sr.) by operation of
survived by ascendants of equal degree of the paternal law. Said properties should not have been given to the
and maternal lines, the legitime shall be divided equally grandchildren (3rd degree reservees) but to the children
between both lines. If the ascendants should be of different (2nd degree reservees).
degrees, it shall pertain entirely to the ones nearest in Reservees may be the common descendants of the
reservoir and the origin reserve troncal contemplates
degree of either line. (810)
legitimate relationship. Illegitimate relationship and
relationship by affinity are excluded.
ARTICLE 891. The ascendant who inherits from his DE PAPA vs. CAMACHO
descendant any property which the latter may have September 24, 1986
acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a
brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he HELD: The stated purpose of the reserve is accomplished
may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of once the property has devolved to the specified
relatives who are within the third degree and who belong relatives of the line of origin. But from this time on, there
to the line from which said property came. (871) is no further occasion for its application.
CHUA vs. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL ARTICLE 892. If only one legitimate child or
August 31, 1977 descendant of the deceased survives, the widow or
widower shall be entitled to one-fourth of the hereditary
FACTS: During his marriage to his 1st wife, a man had a son estate. In case of a legal separation, the surviving
and 2 grandchildren. He married again when his 1 st wife spouse may inherit if it was the deceased who had
died and had a son with the 2nd wife. When the man died, given cause for the same.
a parcel of land owned by him was inherited by his son and If there are two or more legitimate children or
2nd wife through intestate succession. Later, the son of the descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a
2nd marriage died and his half-share was inherited by his portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate
mother (2nd wife) by operation of law. children or descendants.
In both cases, the legitime of the surviving spouse
HELD: After the mother’s death, the son and the shall be taken from the portion that can be freely
grandchildren can get the half share of the land that was disposed of by the testator. (834a)
held by the 2nd wife by way of reserve troncal. This ½ has
been inherited by the son of the 2 nd marriage by gratuitous
title and transferred to his mother by operation of law. The ARTICLE 893. If the testator leaves no legitimate
descendants, but leaves legitimate ascendants, the
present claimants are relatives within the 3 rd degree
surviving spouse shall have a right to one-fourth of the
(reservees).
It was really a gratuitous object received from the hereditary estate.
father, who had not imposed any condition or burden on This fourth shall be taken from the free portion of the
the lot. The obligation to pay interests, costs and other fees estate. (836a)
was imposed not by the origin but by the court. The said ½
is therefore reservable. ARTICLE 894. If the testator leaves illegitimate
In case of reserve troncal, the reservee’s right or cause children, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-
of action accrues only from the moment the reservoir dies. third of the hereditary estate of the deceased and the
illegitimate children to another third. The remaining third
GONZALES vs. CFI OF MANILA shall be at the free disposal of the testator. (n)
May 19, 1981
ARTICLE 895. The legitime of each of the
FACTS: Legarda died survived by 3 groups of heirs who acknowledged natural children and each of the natural
partitioned the real properties among themselves in 3 equal children by legal fiction shall consist of one-half of the
portions: one daughter, another daughter and heirs of a legitime of each of the legitimate children or
deceased son. The heirs of the deceased son were the descendants.

The legitime of an illegitimate child who is neither an shall be divided between the surviving spouse and the
acknowledged natural, nor a natural child by legal fiction, illegitimate children so that such widow or widower shall
shall be equal in every case to four-fifths of the legitime of have one-fourth of the estate, and the illegitimate
an acknowledged natural child. children the other fourth.
The legitime of the illegitimate children shall be taken
from the portion of the estate at the free disposal of the ARTICLE 899. When the widow or widower survives
testator, provided that in no case shall the total legitime of with legitimate parents or ascendants and with
such illegitimate children exceed that free portion, and that illegitimate children, such surviving spouse shall be
the legitime of the surviving spouse must first be fully entitled to one-eighth of the hereditary estate of the
satisfied. (840a) deceased which must be taken from the free portion,
and the illegitimate children shall be entitled to one-
ARTICLE 896. Illegitimate children who may survive with fourth of the estate which shall be taken also from the
legitimate parents or ascendants of the deceased shall be disposable portion. The testator may freely dispose of
entitled to one-fourth of the hereditary estate to be taken the remaining one-eighth of the estate. (n)
from the portion at the free disposal of the testator. (841a)
ARTICLE 900. If the only survivor is the widow or
ARTICLE 897. When the widow or widower survives with widower, she or he shall be entitled to one-half of the
legitimate children or descendants, and acknowledged hereditary estate of the deceased spouse, and the
natural children, or natural children by legal fiction, such testator may freely dispose of the other half. (837a)
surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the If the marriage between the surviving spouse and
legitime of each of the legitimate children which must be the testator was solemnized in articulo mortis, and the
taken from that part of the estate which the testator can testator died within three months from the time of the
freely dispose of. (n) marriage, the legitime of the surviving spouse as the sole
heir shall be one-third of the hereditary estate, except
when they have been living as husband and wife for
ARTICLE 898. If the widow or widower survives with
more than five years. In the latter case, the legitime of
legitimate children or descendants, and with illegitimate
the surviving spouse shall be that specified in the
children other than acknowledged natural, or natural
preceding paragraph. (n)
children by legal fiction, the share of the surviving spouse
shall be the same as that provided in the preceding article.
(n) ARTICLE 901. When the testator dies leaving
illegitimate children and no other compulsory heirs, such
DEL ROSARIO vs. CONANAN illegitimate children shall have a right to one-half of the
March 30, 1977 hereditary estate of the deceased.
The other half shall be at the free disposal of the
FACTS: Dorotea is the legitimate surviving wife of the testator. (842a)
deceased Felix. Marilou is the legally adopted children of
Felix and Dorotea. Gertrudes, mother of Felix filed a ARTICLE 902. The rights of illegitimate children set
petition for settlement and partition of estate of Felix who forth in the preceding articles are transmitted upon their
died in a plane crash. death to their descendants, whether legitimate or
The lower court dismissed the petition holding that the illegitimate. (843a)
law on intestate succession is clear that an adopted child
concurring with the surviving spouse of the adopter ARTICLE 903. The legitime of the parents who have
excludes the legitimate ascendants from succession. an illegitimate child, when such child leaves neither
legitimate descendants, nor a surviving spouse, nor
HELD: Gertrudes has a right over the properties sought to illegitimate children, is one-half of the hereditary estate
be partitioned. It is unjust to exclude the adopter’s parents of such illegitimate child. If only legitimate or illegitimate
from the inheritance in favor of an adopted person. It is children are left, the parents are not entitled to any
unfair to accord more successional rights to the adopted, legitime whatsoever. If only the widow or widower
who is only related artificially by fiction of law to the survives with parents of the illegitimate child, the legitime
deceased, than those who are naturally related to him by of the parents is one-fourth of the hereditary estate of
blood in the direct ascending line. the child, and that of the surviving spouse also one-
In intestate succession, where legitimate parents or fourth of the estate. (n)
ascendants concur with the surviving spouse of the
deceased, the latter does not necessarily exclude the
ARTICLE 904. The testator cannot deprive his
former from the inheritance.
compulsory heirs of their legitime, except in cases
An adopted child surviving with legitimate parents of
expressly specified by law.
the deceased adopter has the same successional rights as
Neither can he impose upon the same any burden,
an acknowledged natural child. encumbrance, condition, or substitution of any kind
If legitimate ascendants, the surviving spouse, and
whatsoever. (813a)
illegitimate children are left, the ascendants shall be
entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the other half

ARTICLE 905. Every renunciation or compromise as ARTICLE 912. If the devise subject to reduction should
regards a future legitime between the person owing it and consist of real property, which cannot be conveniently
his compulsory heirs is void, and the latter may claim the divided, it shall go to the devisee if the reduction does
same upon the death of the former; but they must bring to not absorb one-half of its value; and in a contrary case,
collation whatever they may have received by virtue of the to the compulsory heirs; but the former and the latter
renunciation or compromise. (816) shall reimburse each other in cash for what respectively
belongs to them.
ARTICLE 906. Any compulsory heir to whom the testator The devisee who is entitled to a legitime may retain
has left by any title less than the legitime belonging to him the entire property, provided its value does not exceed
may demand that the same be fully satisfied. (815) that of the disposable portion and of the share
pertaining to him as legitime. (821)
ARTICLE 907. Testamentary dispositions that impair or
diminish the legitime of the compulsory heirs shall be DIZON-RIVERA vs. DIZON
reduced on petition of the same, insofar as they may be JUNE 30, 1970
inofficious or excessive. (817)
FACTS: The testatrix died and was survived by 7
compulsory heirs - 6 legitimate children and a legitimate
ARTICLE 908. To determine the legitime, the value of the granddaughter. The testatrix left a last will and named
property left at the death of the testator shall be beneficiaries in her will the 7 compulsory heirs plus 7
considered, deducting all debts and charges, which shall other legitimate grandchildren.
not include those imposed in the will. A project partition was filed reducing the share of
To the net value of the hereditary estate, shall be Marina and Tomas’ share (children) as they are
added the value of all donations by the testator that are admittedly considered to have received in the will more
subject to collation, at the time he made them. (818a) than their respective legitime. The other children
proposed their own project partition whereby they
ARTICLE 909. Donations given to children shall be would reduce the testamentary disposition or partition
charged to their legitime. made by the testatrix to ½ and limit the same, which
Donations made to strangers shall be charged to that they would consider as mere devises or legacies to ½ of
part of the estate of which the testator could have the estate as the disposable free portion.
disposed by his last will.
Insofar as they may be inofficious or may exceed the HELD: The testamentary dispositions made in the
disposable portion, they shall be reduced according to the testatrix’ will are not in the nature of devises imputable to
rules established by this Code. (819a) the free portion of her estate. It is not subject to
reduction.
ARTICLE 910. Donations which an illegitimate child may The 2nd paragraph of Article 912 covers precisely the
have received during the lifetime of his father or mother, case of Marina, who admittedly was favored by the
shall be charged to his legitime. testatrix with the large bulk of her estate in providing that
Should they exceed the portion that can be freely ‘the devisee who is entitled to a legitime may retain the
disposed of, they shall be reduced in the manner entire property, provided its value does not exceed that
prescribed by this Code. (847a) of the disposable portion and of the share pertaining to
the legitime. For diversity of apportionment is the usual
reason for making a testament, otherwise, the decedent
ARTICLE 911. After the legitime has been determined in
might as well die intestate.
accordance with the three preceding articles, the
reduction shall be made as follows:
(1) Donations shall be respected as long as the legitime ARTICLE 913. If the heirs or devisees do not choose to
can be covered, reducing or annulling, if necessary, the avail themselves of the right granted by the preceding
devises or legacies made in the will; article, any heir or devisee who did not have such right
(2) The reduction of the devises or legacies shall be pro may exercise it; should the latter not make use of it, the
rata, without any distinction whatever. property shall be sold at public auction at the instance
If the testator has directed that a certain devise or of any one of the interested parties. (822)
legacy be paid in preference to others, it shall not
suffer any reduction until the latter have been ARTICLE 914. The testator may devise and bequeath
applied in full to the payment of the legitime. the free portion as he may deem fit. (n)
(3) If the devise or legacy consists of a usufruct or life
annuity, whose value may be considered greater than SECTION 6
that of the disposable portion, the compulsory heirs may Disinheritance
choose between complying with the testamentary
provision and delivering to the devisee or legatee ARTICLE 915. A compulsory heir may, in
the part of the inheritance of which the testator could consequence of disinheritance, be deprived of his
freely dispose. (820a) legitime, for causes expressly stated by law. (848a)

ARTICLE 916. Disinheritance can be effected only (6) The loss of parental authority for causes specified in
through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be this Code;
specified. (849) (7) The refusal to support the children or descendants
without justifiable cause;
(8) An attempt by one of the parents against the life of
ARTICLE 917. The burden of proving the truth of the
the other, unless there has been a reconciliation
cause for disinheritance shall rest upon the other heirs of the
between them. (756, 854, 674a)
testator, if the disinherited heir should deny it. (850)
ARTICLE 918. Disinheritance without a specification of ARTICLE 921. The following shall be sufficient causes
for disinheriting a spouse:
the cause, or for a cause the truth of which, if contradicted,
(1) When the spouse has been convicted of an
is not proved, or which is not one of those set forth in this
attempt against the life of the testator, his or her
Code, shall annul the institution of heirs insofar as it may
prejudice the person disinherited; but the devises and descendants, or ascendants;
legacies and other testamentary dispositions shall be valid (2) When the spouse has accused the testator of a
crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment of six
to such extent as will not impair the legitime. (851a)
years or more, and the accusation has been found to
be false;
ARTICLE 919. The following shall be sufficient causes for (3) When the spouse by fraud, violence, intimidation, or
the disinheritance of children and descendants, legitimate undue influence cause the testator to make a will or to
as well as illegitimate: change one already made;
(1) When a child or descendant has been found guilty of (4) When the spouse has given cause for legal
an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her separation;
spouse, descendants, or ascendants; (5) When the spouse has given grounds for the loss of
(2) When a child or descendant has accused the testator parental authority;
of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment (6) Unjustifiable refusal to support the children or the
for six years or more, if the accusation has been found other spouse. (756, 855, 674a)
groundless;
(3) When a child or descendant has been convicted of
adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the
testator; ARTICLE 922. A subsequent reconciliation between
the offender and the offended person deprives the
(4) When a child or descendant by fraud, violence,
latter of the right to disinherit, and renders ineffectual
intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to
make a will or to change one already made; any disinheritance that may have been made. (856)
(5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent
or ascendant who disinherits such child or descendant; ARTICLE 923. The children and descendants of the
(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the person disinherited shall take his or her place and shall
child or descendant; preserve the rights of compulsory heirs with respect to
(7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or the legitime; but the disinherited parent shall not have
disgraceful life; the usufruct or administration of the property which
(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty constitutes the legitime. (857)
of civil interdiction. (756, 853, 674a)
SECTION 7
ARTICLE 920. The following shall be sufficient causes for Legacies and Devises
the disinheritance of parents or ascendants, whether
legitimate or illegitimate: ARTICLE 924. All things and rights which are within the
(1) When the parents have abandoned their children or commerce of man may be bequeathed or devised.
induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral life, (865a)
or attempted against their virtue;
(2) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of ARTICLE 925. A testator may charge with legacies
an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her and devises not only his compulsory heirs but also the
spouse, descendants, or ascendants; legatees and devisees.
(3) When the parent or ascendant has accused the The latter shall be liable for the charge only to the extent
testator of a crime for which the law prescribes of the value of the legacy or the devise received by
imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation them. The compulsory heirs shall not be liable for the
has been found to be false; charge beyond the amount of the free portion given
(4) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of them. (858a)
adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the
testator; ARTICLE 926. When the testator charges one of the
(5) When the parent or ascendant by fraud, violence, heirs with a legacy or devise, he alone shall be bound.
intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to
make a will or to change one already made;

Should he not charge anyone in particular, all shall be Any other charge, perpetual or temporary, with
liable in the same proportion in which they may inherit. which the thing bequeathed is burdened, passes with it
(859) to the legatee or devisee. (867a)
ARTICLE 927. If two or more heirs take possession of the ARTICLE 935. The legacy of a credit against a third
estate, they shall be solidarily liable for the loss or person or of the remission or release of a debt of the
destruction of a thing devised or bequeathed, even though legatee shall be effective only as regards that part of
only one of them should have been negligent. (n) the credit or debt existing at the time of the death of the
testator.
In the first case, the estate shall comply with the
ARTICLE 928. The heir who is bound to deliver the legacy
legacy by assigning to the legatee all rights of action it
or devise shall be liable in case of eviction, if the thing is
may have against the debtor. In the second case, by
indeterminate and is indicated only by its kind. (860)
giving the legatee an acquittance, should he request
one.
ARTICLE 929. If the testator, heir, or legatee owns only a In both cases, the legacy shall comprise all interests
part of, or an interest in the thing bequeathed, the legacy on the credit or debt which may be due the testator at
or devise shall be understood limited to such part or the time of his death. (870a)
interest, unless the testator expressly declares that he gives
the thing in its entirety. (864a)
ARTICLE 936. The legacy referred to in the preceding
article shall lapse if the testator, after having made it,
ARTICLE 930. The legacy or devise of a thing belonging should bring an action against the debtor for the
to another person is void, if the testator erroneously payment of his debt, even if such payment should not
believed that the thing pertained to him. But if the thing have been effected at the time of his death.
bequeathed, though not belonging to the testator when The legacy to the debtor of the thing pledged by
he made the will, afterwards becomes his, by whatever him is understood to discharge only the right of pledge.
title, the disposition shall take effect. (862a) (871)
ARTICLE 931. If the testator orders that a thing belonging ARTICLE 937. A generic legacy of release or remission
to another be acquired in order that it be given to a of debts comprises those existing at the time of the
legatee or devisee, the heir upon whom the obligation is execution of the will, but not subsequent ones. (872)
imposed or the estate must acquire it and give the same to
the legatee or devisee; but if the owner of the thing refuses
to alienate the same, or demands an excessive price ARTICLE 938. A legacy or devise made to a creditor
shall not be applied to his credit, unless the testator so
therefor, the heir or the estate shall only be obliged to give
expressly declares.
the just value of the thing. (861a)
In the latter case, the creditor shall have the right to
collect the excess, if any, of the credit or of the legacy
ARTICLE 932. The legacy or devise of a thing which at or devise. (873a)
the time of the execution of the will already belonged to
the legatee or devisee shall be ineffective, even though
another person may have some interest therein. ARTICLE 939. If the testator orders the payment of
If the testator expressly orders that the thing be freed what he believes he owes but does not in fact owe, the
from such interest or encumbrance, the legacy or devise disposition shall be considered as not written. If as
regards a specified debt more than the amount thereof
shall be valid to that extent. (866a)
is ordered paid, the excess is not due, unless a contrary
intention appears.
ARTICLE 933. If the thing bequeathed belonged to the The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the
legatee or devisee at the time of the execution of the will, fulfillment of natural obligations. (n)
the legacy or devise shall be without effect, even though it
may have subsequently alienated by him.
If the legatee or devisee acquires it gratuitously after ARTICLE 940. In alternative legacies or devises, the
choice is presumed to be left to the heir upon whom the
such time, he can claim nothing by virtue of the legacy or
obligation to give the legacy or devise may be imposed,
devise; but if it has been acquired by onerous title he can
or the executor or administrator of the estate if no
demand reimbursement from the heir or the estate. (878a)
particular heir is so obliged.
If the heir, legatee or devisee, who may have been
ARTICLE 934. If the testator should bequeath or devise given the choice, dies before making it, this right shall
something pledged or mortgaged to secure a recoverable pass to the respective heirs.
debt before the execution of the will, the estate is obliged Once made, the choice is irrevocable.
to pay the debt, unless the contrary intention appears. In the alternative legacies or devises, except as
The same rule applies when the thing is pledged or herein provided, the provisions of this Code regulating
mortgaged after the execution of the will. obligations of the same kind shall be observed, save

such modifications as may appear from the intention offspring of animals, or uncollected income; but not the
expressed by the testator. (874a) income which was due and unpaid before the latter's
death.
ARTICLE 941. A legacy of generic personal property shall From the moment of the testator's death, the thing
be valid even if there be no things of the same kind in the bequeathed shall be at the risk of the legatee or
estate. devisee, who shall, therefore, bear its loss or
A devise of indeterminate real property shall be valid deterioration, and shall be benefited by its increase or
only if there be immovable property of its kind in the estate. improvement, without prejudice to the responsibility of
The right of choice shall belong to the executor or the executor or administrator. (882a)
administrator who shall comply with the legacy by the
delivery of a thing which is neither of inferior nor of superior ARTICLE 949. If the bequest should not be of a
quality. (875a) specific and determinate thing, but is generic or of
quantity, its fruits and interests from the time of the death
ARTICLE 942. Whenever the testator expressly leaves the of the testator shall pertain to the legatee or devisee if
right of choice to the heir, or to the legatee or devisee, the the testator has expressly so ordered. (884a)
former may give or the latter may choose whichever he
may prefer. (876a) ARTICLE 950. If the estate should not be sufficient to
cover all the legacies or devises, their payment shall be
ARTICLE 943. If the heir, legatee or devisee cannot made in the following order:
make the choice, in case it has been granted him, his right (1) Remuneratory legacies or devises;
shall pass to his heirs; but a choice once made shall be (2) Legacies or devises declared by the testator to be
irrevocable. (877a) preferential;
(3) Legacies for support;
(4) Legacies for education;
ARTICLE 944. A legacy for education lasts until the
(5) Legacies or devises of a specific, determinate thing
legatee is of age, or beyond the age of majority in order
which forms a part of the estate;
that the legatee may finish some professional, vocational or
(6) All others pro rata. (887a)
general course, provided he pursues his course diligently.
A legacy for support lasts during the lifetime of the
legatee, if the testator has not otherwise provided. ARTICLE 951. The thing bequeathed shall be
If the testator has not fixed the amount of such delivered with all its accessions and accessories and in
legacies, it shall be fixed in accordance with the social the condition in which it may be upon the death of the
standing and the circumstances of the legatee and the testator. (883a)
value of the estate.
If the testator during his lifetime used to give the ARTICLE 952. The heir, charged with a legacy or
legatee a certain sum of money or other things by way of devise, or the executor or administrator of the estate,
support, the same amount shall be deemed bequeathed, must deliver the very thing bequeathed if he is able to
unless it be markedly disproportionate to the value of the do so and cannot discharge this obligation by paying its
estate. (879a) value.
Legacies of money must be paid in cash, even
ARTICLE 945. If a periodical pension, or a certain annual, though the heir or the estate may not have any.
monthly, or weekly amount is bequeathed, the legatee The expenses necessary for the delivery of the thing
may petition the court for the first installment upon the bequeathed shall be for the account of the heir or the
death of the testator, and for the following ones which shall estate, but without prejudice to the legitime. (886a)
be due at the beginning of each period; such payment
shall not be returned, even though the legatee should die ARTICLE 953. The legatee or devisee cannot take
before the expiration of the period which has commenced. possession of the thing bequeathed upon his own
(880a) authority, but shall request its delivery and possession of
the heir charged with the legacy or devise, or of the
ARTICLE 946. If the thing bequeathed should be subject executor or administrator of the estate should he be
to a usufruct, the legatee or devisee shall respect such right authorized by the court to deliver it. (885a)
until it is legally extinguished. (868a)
ARTICLE 954. The legatee or devisee cannot accept
ARTICLE 947. The legatee or devisee acquires a right to a part of the legacy or devise and repudiate the other, if
the pure and simple legacies or devises from the death of the latter be onerous.
the testator, and transmits it to his heirs. (881a) Should he die before having accepted the legacy
or devise, leaving several heirs, some of the latter may
accept and the others may repudiate the share
ARTICLE 948. If the legacy or devise is of a specific and
respectively belonging to them in the legacy or devise.
determinate thing pertaining to the testator, the legatee or
(889a)
devisee acquires the ownership thereof upon the death of
the testator, as well as any growing fruits, or unborn

ARTICLE 955. The legatee or devisee of two legacies or legal succession shall take place only with respect to
devises, one of which is onerous, cannot renounce the the property of which the testator has not disposed;
onerous one and accept the other. If both are onerous or (3) If the suspensive condition attached to the
gratuitous, he shall be free to accept or renounce both, or institution of heir does not happen or is not
to renounce either. But if the testator intended that the two fulfilled, or if the heir dies before the testator, or
legacies or devises should be inseparable from each other, repudiates the inheritance, there being no
the legatee or devisee must either accept or renounce substitution, and no right of accretion takes place;
both. (4) When the heir instituted is incapable of succeeding,
Any compulsory heir who is at the same time a legatee except in cases provided in this Code. (912a)
or devisee may waive the inheritance and accept the
legacy or devise, or renounce the latter and accept the TESTATE ESTATE OF RIGOR vs. RIGOR
former, or waive or accept both. (890a) April 30, 1979
ARTICLE 956. If the legatee or devisee cannot or is FACTS: Father Rigor bequeathed the ricelands to
unwilling to accept the legacy or devise, or if the legacy or anyone of his nearest male relatives who would pursue
devise for any reason should become ineffective, it shall be an ecclesiastical career until his ordination as a priest. If
merged into the mass of the estate, except in cases of there is no qualified devisee or the testator's nephew
substitution and of the right of accretion. (888a) became a priest and he was excommunicated, the
administration of the ricelands would be under the
responsibility of the incumbent parish priest of Victoria
ARTICLE 957. The legacy or devise shall be without
and his successors.
effect:
HELD: The bequest refers to the testator's nearest male
(1) If the testator transforms the thing bequeathed in such
relative living at the time of his death and not to any
a manner that it does not retain either the form or the
indefinite time thereafter.
denomination it had;
The parish priest of Victoria could become a trustee
(2) If the testator by any title or for any cause alienates the
only when the testator's nephew living at the time of his
thing bequeathed or any part thereof, it being
death, who desired to become a priest, had not yet
understood that in the latter case the legacy or devise
entered the seminary or, having been ordained a priest,
shall be without effect only with respect to the part thus
he was excommunicated. Those two contingencies did
alienated. If after the alienation the thing should
not arise.
again belong to the testator, even if it be by reason of
There being no substitution nor accretion as to the
nullity of the contract, the legacy or devise shall not
said ricelands the same should be distributed among
thereafter be valid, unless the reacquisition shall have
the testator's legal heirs. The effect is as if the testator
been effected by virtue of the exercise of the right of
had made no disposition as to the said ricelands.
repurchase;
(3) If the thing bequeathed is totally lost during the lifetime
of the testator, or after his death without the heir's fault. ARTICLE 961. In default of testamentary heirs, the law
Nevertheless, the person obliged to pay the legacy or vests the inheritance, in accordance with the rules
devise shall be liable for eviction if the thing bequeathed hereinafter set forth, in the legitimate and illegitimate
should not have been determinate as to its kind, in relatives of the deceased, in the surviving spouse, and in
accordance with the provisions of Article 928. (869a) the State. (913a)
ARTICLE 962. In every inheritance, the relative nearest

ARTICLE 958. A mistake as to the name of the thing
bequeathed or devised, is of no consequence, if it is in degree excludes the more distant ones, saving the
possible to identify the thing which the testator intended to right of representation when it properly takes place.
Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal
bequeath or devise. (n)
shares, subject to the provisions of article 1006 with
respect to relatives of the full and half blood, and of
ARTICLE 959. A disposition made in general terms in article 987, paragraph 2, concerning division between
favor of the testator's relatives shall be understood to be in the paternal and maternal lines. (921a)
favor of those nearest in degree. (751)
BAGUNU vs. PIEDAD
CHAPTER 3 DECEMBER 8, 2000
Legal or Intestate Succession FACTS: Augusto died without direct descendants or
SECTION 1 ascendants. Pastora (3rd degree) is his maternal aunt,
General Provisions while Ofelia (5th degree) is the daughter of the 1 st cousin
of Augusto.
ARTICLE 960. Legal or intestate succession takes place: HELD: Ofelia cannot inherit alongside a Pastora.
(1) If a person dies without a will, or with a void will, or one The rule on proximity is a concept that favors the
which has subsequently lost its validity; nearest relatives nearest in degree to the decedent and
(2) When the will does not institute an heir to, or dispose of excludes the more distant ones except when and to the
all the property belonging to the testator. In such case, extent that the right of representation can apply.

Among collateral relatives, except only in the case of
nephews and nieces of the decedent concurring with their ARTICLE 969. If the inheritance should be repudiated
uncles or aunts, the rule of proximity, expressed in Article by the nearest relative, should there be one only, or by
962, is an absolute rule. all the nearest relatives called by law to succeed, should
Thus, Pastora excludes Ofelia from succeeding ab there be several, those of the following degree shall
intestate to the estate of Augusto. In fine, a maternal aunt inherit in their own right and cannot represent the
can inherit equally with a first cousin of the half blood but person or persons repudiating the inheritance. (923)
an uncle or an aunt, being a 3 rd degree relative, excludes
the cousins of the decedent, being in the 4 th degree in SUBSECTION 2
relationship, the latter in turn would have priority in Right of Representation
succession to a 5th degree relative.
SUBSECTION 1
ARTICLE 970. Representation is a right created by
Relationship fiction of law, by virtue of which the representative is
raised to the place and the degree of the person
ARTICLE 963. Proximity of relationship is determined by represented, and acquires the rights which the latter
the number of generations. Each generation forms a would have if he were living or if he could have
degree. (915) inherited. (924a)
ARTICLE 964. A series of degrees forms a line, which may BAGUNU vs. PIEDAD
be either direct or collateral. DECEMBER 8, 2000
A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees
among ascendants and descendants. HELD: By right of representation, a more distant blood
A collateral line is that constituted by the series of relative of a decedent is, by operations of law, raised to
degrees among persons who are not ascendants and the same place and degree of relations as that of a
descendants, but who come from a common ancestor. closer blood relative of the same decedent. The
(916a) representative thereby steps into the shoes of the person
he represents and succeeds, not from the latter, but
ARTICLE 965. The direct line is either descending or from the person to whose estate the person represented
ascending. would have succeeded.
The former unites the head of the family with those who The right of representation does not apply to
descend from him. other collateral relatives within the fifth civil degree.
The latter binds a person with those from whom he
descends. (917) INTESTATE ESTATE OF PETRA ROSALES vs. ROSALES
FEBRUARY 27, 1987
ARTICLE 966. In the line, as many degrees are counted
as there are generations or persons, excluding the FACTS: Petra died and was survived by her husband
progenitor. and 2 children Magna and Antonio. Carterio, another
In the direct line, ascent is made to the common child, predeceased her, leaving behind a child,
ancestor. Thus, the child is one degree removed from the Macikequerox, and his widow, Irenea. Irenea insisted in
parent, two from the grandfather, and three from the getting a share of the estate in her capacity as the
great-grandparent. surviving spouse of Carterio, claiming that she is a
In the collateral line, ascent is made to the common compulsory heir of her mother-in-law together with her
ancestor and then descent is made to the person with son.
whom the computation is to be made. Thus, a person is two
degrees removed from his brother, three from his uncle, HELD: The widow whose husband predeceased his
who is the brother of his father, four from his first cousin, and mother cannot inherit from her mother-in-law. There is
no provision in the Civil Code which states that a widow
so forth. (918a)
(surviving spouse) of an intestate heir of her mother-in-
law.
ARTICLE 967. Full blood relationship is that existing The essence and nature of the right of
between persons who have the same father and the same representation is explained by Articles 970 and 971 of
mother. the Civil Code.
Half blood relationship is that existing between persons
who have the same father, but not the same mother, or the
ARTICLE 971. The representative is called to the
same mother, but not the same father. (920a)
succession by the law and not by the person
represented. The representative does not succeed the
ARTICLE 968. If there are several relatives of the same person represented but the one whom the person
degree, and one or some of them are unwilling or represented would have succeeded. (n)
incapacitated to succeed, his portion shall accrue to the
others of the same degree, save the right of representation INTESTATE ESTATE OF PETRA ROSALES vs. ROSALES
when it should take place. (922) FEBRUARY 27, 1987

ARTICLE 976. A person may represent him whose
HELD: Article 971 explicitly declares that Macikequerox is inheritance he has renounced. (928a)
called to succession by law because of his blood
relationship. He does not succeed his father, Carterio , but
ARTICLE 977. Heirs who repudiate their share may not
Petra whom his father would have succeeded. Irenea
be represented. (929a)
cannot assert the same right of representation as she has
no filiation by blood with her mother-in-law.
SECTION 2
Order of Intestate Succession
ARTICLE 972. The right of representation takes place in SUBSECTION 1
the direct descending line, but never in the ascending. Descending Direct Line
In the collateral line, it takes place only in favor of the
children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full or
ARTICLE 978. Succession pertains, in the first place, to
half blood. (925)
the descending direct line. (930)
ARTICLE 973. In order that representation may take

ARTICLE 979. Legitimate children and their
place, it is necessary that the representative himself be
descendants succeed the parents and other
capable of succeeding the decedent. (n)
ascendants, without distinction as to sex or age, and
even if they should come from different marriages.
ARTICLE 974. Whenever there is succession by An adopted child succeeds to the property of the
representation, the division of the estate shall be made per adopting parents in the same manner as a legitimate
stirpes, in such manner that the representative or child. (931a)
representatives shall not inherit more than what the person
they represent would inherit, if he were living or could
ARTICLE 980. The children of the deceased shall
inherit. (926a)
always inherit from him in their own right, dividing the
inheritance in equal shares. (932)
ARTICLE 975. When children of one or more brothers or
sisters of the deceased survive, they shall inherit from the
ARTICLE 981. Should children of the deceased and
latter by representation, if they survive with their uncles or
descendants of other children who are dead, survive,
aunts. But if they alone survive, they shall inherit in equal
the former shall inherit in their own right, and the latter
portions. (927)
by right of representation. (934a)
BICOMONG vs. ALMANZA
November 29, 1977 ARTICLE 982. The grandchildren and other
descendants shall inherit by right of representation, and
FACTS: Simeon was married to Sisenanda and they had 3 if any one of them should have died, leaving several
children. When Sisenanda died, Simeon remarried to heirs, the portion pertaining to him shall be divided
Silvestra and they had 2 children. The plaintiffs are the among the latter in equal portions. (933)
grandchildren of Simeon with his children in his first
marriage. Respondents are the heirs of the children of ARTICLE 983. If illegitimate children survive with
Simeon in his second marriage. legitimate children, the shares of the former shall be in
the proportions prescribed by article 895. (n)
HELD: It appearing that Maura Bagsic, child of the 2 nd
marriage in which her share is in dispute, died intestate ARTICLE 984. In case of the death of an adopted
without an issue, and her husband and all her ascendants child, leaving no children or descendants, his parents
had died ahead of her, she is succeeded by the surviving and relatives by consanguinity and not by adoption,
collateral relatives, namely the daughter of her sister of full shall be his legal heirs. (n)
blood and the 10 children of her brother and 2 sisters of half
blood in accordance with the provision of Art. 975 of the SUBSECTION 2
New Civil Code. Ascending Direct Line
By virtue of said provision, the aforementioned
nephews and nieces are entitled to inherit in their own right.
ARTICLE 985. In default of legitimate children and
Nephews and nieces alone do not inherit by right of
descendants of the deceased, his parents and
representation (that is per stirpes) unless concurring with
ascendants shall inherit from him, to the exclusion of
brothers or sisters of the deceased.
collateral relatives. (935a)
Article 975 makes no qualification as to whether the
nephews or nieces are on the maternal or paternal line and
without preference as to whether their relationship to the ARTICLE 986. The father and mother, if living, shall
deceased is by whole or half blood, the sole niece of whole inherit in equal shares.
blood of the deceased does not exclude the ten nephews Should one only of them survive, he or she shall
and 2 sisters of half blood. succeed to the entire estate of the child. (936)

ARTICLE 987. In default of the father and mother, the HELD: Eligio is a legitimate child but petitioners are his
ascendants nearest in degree shall inherit. illegitimate children. Petitioners cannot represent their
Should there be more than one of equal degree father Eligio in the succession of the latter to the
belonging to the same line they shall divide the inheritance intestate estate of the decedent Andres, full blood
per capita; should they be of different lines but of equal brother of their father. The term "illegitimate" refers to
degree, one-half shall go to the paternal and the other half both natural and spurious.
to the maternal ascendants. In each line the division shall
be made per capita. (937) CORPUS vs. ESTATE OF YANGCO
OCTOBER 23, 1978
SUBSECTION 3
Illegitimate Children HELD: Legitimate daughter cannot inherit ab intestato
from illegitimate daughter of the deceased because of
ARTICLE 988. In the absence of legitimate descendants barrier under Article 992. The son of the legitimate
or ascendants, the illegitimate children shall succeed to the daughter cannot participate in the said intestate estate.
entire estate of the deceased. (939a) The rule is premised on the theory that the legitimate
family looks down on the illegitimate family, and the
latter hates and resents the former. To avoid further
ARTICLE 989. If, together with illegitimate children, there
grounds of resentment, the law prefers to ignore the
should survive descendants of another illegitimate child
existing blood tie.
who is dead, the former shall succeed in their own right and
the latter by right of representation. (940a)
ARTICLE 993. If an illegitimate child should die without
issue, either legitimate or illegitimate, his father or mother
ARTICLE 990. The hereditary rights granted by the two shall succeed to his entire estate; and if the child's
preceding articles to illegitimate children shall be filiation is duly proved as to both parents, who are both
transmitted upon their death to their descendants, who living, they shall inherit from him share and share alike.
shall inherit by right of representation from their deceased (944a)
grandparent. (941a)
ARTICLE 994. In default of the father or mother, an
ARTICLE 991. If legitimate ascendants are left, the illegitimate child shall be succeeded by his or her
illegitimate children shall divide the inheritance with them, surviving spouse, who shall be entitled to the entire
taking one-half of the estate, whatever be the number of estate.
the ascendants or of the illegitimate children. (942, 841a) If the widow or widower should survive with brothers
and sisters, nephews and nieces, she or he shall inherit
ARTICLE 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit one-half of the estate, and the latter the other half.
ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his (945a)
father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in
the same manner from the illegitimate child. (943a)
HEIRS of SANDEJAS vs. LINA
DIAZ, et al vs. IAC, et al February 6, 2001
JUNE 17, 1987
HELD: Succession laws and jurisprudence require that
HELD: Article 992 provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it when a marriage is dissolved by the death of the
prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the husband or the wife, the decedent’s entire estate –
illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives under the concept of conjugal properties of gains --
of the father or mother of said legitimate child. They may must be divided equally, with one half going to the
have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by surviving spouse and the other half to the heirs of the
law. deceased. After the settlement of the debts and
Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate obligations, the remaining half of the estate is then
family, there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism distributed to the legal heirs, legatees and devices.
and incompatibility.
SUBSECTION 4
PASCUAL vs. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA Surviving Spouse
March 25, 1992
ARTICLE 995. In the absence of legitimate
FACTS: Petitioners Olivia and Hermes are the descendants and ascendants, and illegitimate children
acknowledged natural children of the late Eligio, the latter and their descendants, whether legitimate or
being the full blood brother of the decedent Don Andres. illegitimate, the surviving spouse shall inherit the entire
Don Andres was survived by his spouse, the children of his estate, without prejudice to the rights of brothers and
brothers, including the acknowledged natural children of sisters, nephews and nieces, should there be any, under
Eligio . Article 1001. (946a)

CALISTERIO vs. CALISTERIO ARTICLE 1000. If legitimate ascendants, the surviving
APRIL 6, 2000 spouse, and illegitimate children are left, the ascendants
shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the
FACTS: Teodorico died intestate and was survived by his other half shall be divided between the surviving spouse
wife, Marietta. Teodorico was the 2nd husband of Marietta and the illegitimate children so that such widow or
who had been previously married to James, who widower shall have one-fourth of the estate, and the
disappeared without a trace. Teodorico and Marietta illegitimate children the other fourth. (841a)
were married without having secured a court declaration
that James was presumptively dead. Antonia, surviving DEL ROSARIO vs. CONANAN
sister of Teodorico, claiming to be sole surviving heir of MARCH 30, 1977
Teodorico, alleged that the marriage between Teodorico
and Marieta was bigamous and thus, null and void. FACTS: The deceased died intestate leaving his wife, his
legitimate mother and an adopted daughter.
HELD: The 2nd marriage, having been contracted during
the regime of the Civil Code, is valid notwithstanding the HELD: Wife gets ¼, the adopted daughter gets ¼ and
absence of a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the legitimate mother gets ½. The adopted child gets
James. the rights of an acknowledged natural child
The conjugal property of Teodorico and Marietta, no (illegitimate), not that of a legitimate child, otherwise,
evidence having been adduced to indicate another the legitimate ascendant (the mother) would be
property regime between the spouses, pertains to them in excluded. The presence of the adopted child does not
common. Upon the dissolution with the death of exclude the legitimate parent or ascendant.
Teodorico, the property should be divided into 2 equal
portions: one portion to the surviving spouse and the other ARTICLE 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their
portion to the estate of the deceased spouse. The children survive with the widow or widower, the latter
successional right in intestacy of a surviving spouse over the shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the
net estate of the deceased, concurring with the legitimate brothers and sisters or their children to the other half.
brothers and sisters or nephews and nieces (the latter by (953, 837a)
right of representation), is ½ of the inheritance, the brother
and sisters or nephews and nieces, being entitled to the
other half. Brothers and sisters exclude nephews and ARTICLE 1002. In case of a legal separation, if the
surviving spouse gave cause for the separation, he or
nieces except only in representation by the latter of their
she shall not have any of the rights granted in the
parents who predeceased or are incapacitated to
succeed. preceding articles. (n)
SUBSECTION 5
ARTICLE 996. If a widow or widower and legitimate
children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in Collateral Relatives
the succession the same share as that of each of the
children. (834a) ARTICLE 1003. If there are no descendants,
ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse,
the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate
ARTICLE 997. When the widow or widower survives with
of the deceased in accordance with the following
legitimate parents or ascendants, the surviving spouse shall
articles. (946a)
be entitled to one-half of the estate, and the legitimate
parents or ascendants to the other half. (836a)
BARANDA vs. BARANDA
MAY 20, 1987
ARTICLE 998. If a widow or widower survives with
illegitimate children, such widow or widower shall be FACTS: Paulina died intestate without leaving any direct
entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the illegitimate descendants, ascendants or compulsory heirs. She was
children or their descendants, whether legitimate or survived by her 2 brothers and several nephews and
illegitimate, to the other half. (n) nieces, including private respondents as well as
petitioners who are children of 2 deceased brothers and
ARTICLE 999. When the widow or widower survives with a sister.
legitimate children or their descendants and illegitimate
children or their descendants, whether legitimate or HELD: As heirs, petitioners have the legal standing to
illegitimate, such widow or widower shall be entitled to the challenge the deeds of sale purportedly signed by
same share as that of a legitimate child. (n) Paulina, for otherwise, property claimed to belong to her
estate, will be excluded therefrom to their prejudice.
Their claims are not merely contingent or expectant.
While they are not compulsory heirs, they are
nonetheless legitimate heirs and so, since they stand to
be benefited or injured by the judgment or suit, and are

thus, entitled to protect their share of a successional right.
There being no pending special proceeding for the
settlement of the Paulina’s estate, the petitioners, as SUBSECTION 6
intestate heirs, had the right to sue for the reconveyance of The State
the disputed properties, not to them, but to the estate itself
of the decedent, for the distribution later in accordance ARTICLE 1011. In default of persons entitled to
with law. succeed in accordance with the provisions of the
preceding Sections, the State shall inherit the whole
ARTICLE 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and estate. (956a)
sisters of the full blood, they shall inherit in equal shares.
(947) ARTICLE 1012. In order that the State may take
possession of the property mentioned in the preceding
ARTICLE 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together article, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court must
with nephews and nieces, who are the children of the be observed. (958a)
descendant's brothers and sisters of the full blood, the
former shall inherit per capita, and the latter per stirpes. ARTICLE 1013. After the payment of debts and
(948) charges, the personal property shall be assigned to the
municipality or city where the deceased last resided in
ARTICLE 1006. Should brothers and sisters of the full blood the Philippines, and the real estate to the municipalities
survive together with brothers and sisters of the half blood, or cities, respectively, in which the same is situated.
the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the If the deceased never resided in the Philippines, the
latter. (949) whole estate shall be assigned to the respective
municipalities or cities where the same is located.
BICOMONG vs. ALMANZA Such estate shall be for the benefit of public schools,
NOVEMBER 29, 1977 and public charitable institutions and centers, in such
municipalities or cities. The court shall distribute the
FACTS: The deceased had a sister of the full blood and a estate as the respective needs of each beneficiary may
brother and 2 sisters of the half-blood, all of whom had warrant.
predeceased her. Surviving were: (a) a daughter of her The court, at the instance of an interested party, or
sister of the full blood, and (b) 10 children of her brother on its own motion, may order the establishment of a
and 2 sisters of the half-blood. permanent trust, so that only the income from the
property shall be used. (956a)
HELD: The niece of the whole blood gets a share double of
that of each of the nephews and nieces of the half-blood. ARTICLE 1014. If a person legally entitled to the estate
All of them inherit in their own right, and not by the right of of the deceased appears and files a claim thereto with
representation because the nephews and nieces here do the court within five years from the date the property
not concur with any brother or sister of the deceased. The was delivered to the State, such person shall be entitled
relative of the full blood does not exclude the relatives of to the possession of the same, or if sold, the municipality
the half-blood. or city shall be accountable to him for such part of the
proceeds as may not have been lawfully spent. (n)
ARTICLE 1007. In case brothers and sisters of the half
blood, some on the father's and some on the mother's side, CHAPTER 4
are the only survivors, all shall inherit in equal shares without Provisions Common to Testate and Intestate Successions
distinction as to the origin of the property. (950) SECTION 1
Right of Accretion
ARTICLE 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half
blood shall succeed per capita or per stirpes, in ARTICLE 1015. Accretion is a right by virtue of which,
accordance with the rules laid down for brothers and sisters when two or more persons are called to the same
of the full blood. (915) inheritance, devise or legacy, the part assigned to the
one who renounces or cannot receive his share, or who
ARTICLE 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters, died before the testator, is added or incorporated to
nor children of brothers or sisters, the other collateral that of his co-heirs, co-devisees, or co-legatees. (n)
relatives shall succeed to the estate.
The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or ARTICLE 1016. In order that the right of accretion may
preference among them by reason of relationship by the take place in a testamentary succession, it shall be
whole blood. (954a) necessary:
(1) That two or more persons be called to the same
ARTICLE 1010. The right to inherit ab intestato shall not inheritance, or to the same portion thereof, pro
extend beyond the fifth degree of relationship in the indiviso; and
collateral line. (955a)

(2) That one of the persons thus called die before the
testator, or renounce the inheritance, or be TESTATE ESTATE OF RIGOR vs. RIGOR
incapacitated to receive it. (982a) April 30, 1979
HELD: The said bequest refers to the testator's nearest

ARTICLE 1017. The words "one-half for each" or "in equal
male relative living at the time of his death and not to
shares" or any others which, though designating an aliquot
any indefinite time thereafter.
part, do not identify it by such description as shall make
each heir the exclusive owner of determinate property,
shall not exclude the right of accretion. ARTICLE 1026. A testamentary disposition may be
In case of money or fungible goods, if the share of made to the State, provinces, municipal corporations,
each heir is not earmarked, there shall be a right of private corporations, organizations, or associations for
accretion. (983a) religious, scientific, cultural, educational, or charitable
purposes.
All other corporations or entities may succeed under
ARTICLE 1018. In legal succession the share of the person
a will, unless there is a provision to the contrary in their
who repudiates the inheritance shall always accrue to his
charter or the laws of their creation, and always subject
co-heirs. (981)
to the same. (746a)
ARTICLE 1019. The heirs to whom the portion goes by the

ARTICLE 1027. The following are incapable of
right of accretion take it in the same proportion that they
succeeding:
inherit. (n)
(1) The priest who heard the confession of the testator
during his last illness, or the minister of the gospel who
ARTICLE 1020. The heirs to whom the inheritance accrues extended spiritual aid to him during the same
shall succeed to all the rights and obligations which the heir period;
who renounced or could not receive it would have had. (2) The relatives of such priest or minister of the gospel
(984) within the fourth degree, the church, order,
chapter, community, organization, or institution to
ARTICLE 1021. Among the compulsory heirs the right of which such priest or minister may belong;
accretion shall take place only when the free portion is left (3) A guardian with respect to testamentary dispositions
to two or more of them, or to any one of them and to a given by a ward in his favor before the final
stranger. accounts of the guardianship have been approved,
Should the part repudiated be the legitime, the other even if the testator should die after the approval
co-heirs shall succeed to it in their own right, and not by the thereof; nevertheless, any provision made by the ward in
right of accretion. (985) favor of the guardian when the latter is his
ascendant, descendant, brother, sister, or spouse,
ARTICLE 1022. In testamentary succession, when the right shall be valid;
of accretion does not take place, the vacant portion of the (4) Any attesting witness to the execution of a will, the
instituted heirs, if no substitute has been designated, shall spouse, parents, or children, or any one claiming under
pass to the legal heirs of the testator, who shall receive it such witness, spouse, parents, or children;
with the same charges and obligations. (986) (5) Any physician, surgeon, nurse, health officer or
druggist who took care of the testator during his
last illness; a
ARTICLE 1023. Accretion shall also take place among (6) Individuals, associations and corporations not
devisees, legatees and usufructuaries under the same permitted by law to inherit. (745, 752, 753, 754a)
conditions established for heirs. (987a)
ARTICLE 1028. The prohibitions mentioned in article

SECTION 2
739, concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to
Capacity to Succeed by Will or by Intestacy
testamentary provisions. (n)
ARTICLE 1024. Persons not incapacitated by law may
succeed by will or ab intestato. ARTICLE 1029. Should the testator dispose of the whole
The provisions relating to incapacity by will are equally or part of his property for prayers and pious works for the
applicable to intestate succession. (744, 914) benefit of his soul, in general terms and without
specifying its application, the executor, with the court's
approval shall deliver one-half thereof or its proceeds to
ARTICLE 1025. In order to be capacitated to inherit, the the church or denomination to which the testator may
heir, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the belong, to be used for such prayers and pious works,
succession opens, except in case of representation, when it and the other half to the State, for the purposes
is proper. mentioned in article 1013. (747a)
A child already conceived at the time of the death of
the decedent is capable of succeeding provided it be
born later under the conditions prescribed in article 41. (n) ARTICLE 1030. Testamentary provisions in favor of the
poor in general, without designation of particular

persons or of any community, shall be deemed limited to and in the case falling under No. 4, the expiration of the
the poor living in the domicile of the testator at the time of month allowed for the report.
his death, unless it should clearly appear that his intention If the institution, devise or legacy should be
was otherwise. conditional, the time of the compliance with the
The designation of the persons who are to be condition shall also be considered. (758a)
considered as poor and the distribution of the property shall
be made by the person appointed by the testator for the ARTICLE 1035. If the person excluded from the
purpose; in default of such person, by the executor, and inheritance by reason of incapacity should be a child or
should there be no executor, by the justice of the peace, descendant of the decedent and should have children
the mayor, and the municipal treasurer, who shall decide or descendants, the latter shall acquire his right to the
by a majority of votes all questions that may arise. In all legitime.
these cases, the approval of the Court of First Instance shall The person so excluded shall not enjoy the usufruct
be necessary. and administration of the property thus inherited by his
The preceding paragraph shall apply when the testator children. (761a)
has disposed of his property in favor of the poor of a
definite locality. (749a)
ARTICLE 1036. Alienations of hereditary property, and
acts of administration performed by the excluded heir,
ARTICLE 1031. A testamentary provision in favor of a before the judicial order of exclusion, are valid as to the
disqualified person, even though made under the guise of third persons who acted in good faith; but the co-heirs
an onerous contract, or made through an intermediary, shall have a right to recover damages from the
shall be void. (755) disqualified heir. (n)
ARTICLE 1032. The following are incapable of succeeding ARTICLE 1037. The unworthy heir who is excluded from
by reason of unworthiness: the succession has a right to demand indemnity for any
(1) Parents who have abandoned their children or expenses incurred in the preservation of the hereditary
induced their daughters to lead a corrupt or immoral life, property, and to enforce such credits as he may have
or attempted against their virtue; against the estate. (n)
(2) Any person who has been convicted of an attempt
against the life of the testator, his or her spouse,
ARTICLE 1038. Any person incapable of succession,
descendants, or ascendants;
who, disregarding the prohibition stated in the
(3) Any person who has accused the testator of a crime for
preceding articles, entered into the possession of the
which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or
hereditary property, shall be obliged to return it together
more, if the accusation has been found groundless;
with its accessions.
(4) Any heir of full age who, having knowledge of the
He shall be liable for all the fruits and rents he may
violent death of the testator, should fail to report it to an
have received, or could have received through the
officer of the law within a month, unless the
exercise of due diligence. (760a)
authorities have already taken action; this
prohibition shall not apply to cases wherein, according
to law, there is no obligation to make an accusation; ARTICLE 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by
(5) Any person convicted of adultery or concubinage with the law of the nation of the decedent. (n)
the spouse of the testator;
(6) Any person who by fraud, violence, intimidation, or ARTICLE 1040. The action for a declaration of
undue influence should cause the testator to make a will incapacity and for the recovery of the inheritance,
or to change one already made; devise or legacy shall be brought within five years from
(7) Any person who by the same means prevents another the time the disqualified person took possession thereof.
from making a will, or from revoking one already made, It may be brought by any one who may have an interest
or who supplants, conceals, or alters the latter's will; in the succession. (762a)
(8) Any person who falsifies or forges a supposed will of the
decedent. (756, 673, 674a) SECTION 3
Acceptance and Repudiation of the Inheritance
ARTICLE 1033. The causes of unworthiness shall be without
effect if the testator had knowledge thereof at the time he ARTICLE 1041. The acceptance or repudiation of the
made the will, or if, having known of them subsequently, he inheritance is an act which is purely voluntary and free.
should condone them in writing. (757a) (988)
ARTICLE 1034. In order to judge the capacity of the heir, ARTICLE 1042. The effects of the acceptance or
devisee or legatee, his qualification at the time of the repudiation shall always retroact to the moment of the
death of the decedent shall be the criterion. death of the decedent. (989)
In cases falling under Nos. 2, 3, or 5 of article 1032, it
shall be necessary to wait until final judgment is rendered,

ARTICLE 1043. No person may accept or repudiate an ARTICLE 1050. An inheritance is deemed accepted:
inheritance unless he is certain of the death of the person (1) If the heirs sells, donates, or assigns his right to a
from whom he is to inherit, and of his right to the stranger, or to his co-heirs, or to any of them;
inheritance. (991) (2) If the heir renounces the same, even though
gratuitously, for the benefit of one or more of his co-
INTESTATE ESTATE OF BORROMEO vs. BORROMEO heirs;
July 23, 1987 (3) If he renounces it for a price in favor of all his co-
heirs indiscriminately; but if this renunciation should
HELD: The prevailing jurisprudence on waiver of hereditary be gratuitous, and the co-heirs in whose favor it is
rights is that the properties included in an existing made are those upon whom the portion renounced
inheritance cannot be considered as belonging to third should devolve by virtue of accretion, the
persons with respect to the heirs, who by fiction of law inheritance shall not be deemed as accepted. (1000)
continue the personality of the former. Nor do such
properties have the character of future property, because ARTICLE 1051. The repudiation of an inheritance shall
the heirs acquire a right to succession from the moment of be made in a public or authentic instrument, or by
the death of the deceased. petition presented to the court having jurisdiction over
the testamentary or intestate proceedings. (1008)
ARTICLE 1044. Any person having the free disposal of his
property may accept or repudiate an inheritance. IMPERIAL vs. CA
Any inheritance left to minors or incapacitated persons OCTOBER 8, 1999
may be accepted by their parents or guardians. Parents or
guardians may repudiate the inheritance left to their wards FACTS: Leoncio sold his land to his natural son. But it
only by judicial authorization. was alleged that the sale was in fact a donation. 2
The right to accept an inheritance left to the poor shall years after the donation, Leoncio filed a complaint for
belong to the persons designated by the testator to annulment of the said Deed of Absolute Sale on the
determine the beneficiaries and distribute the property, or ground that he was deceived into signing the said
in their default, to those mentioned in article 1030. (992a) document. But said dispute was resolved through a
compromise agreement. Pending execution of the said
ARTICLE 1045. The lawful representatives of corporations, judgment, Leoncio died, leaving only 2 heirs – his natural
associations, institutions and entities qualified to acquire son and an adopted son, Victor. In 1962, Victor was
property may accept any inheritance left to the latter, but substituted in place of Leoncio in the said case and it
in order to repudiate it, the approval of the court shall be was he who moved for execution of judgment. 15 years
necessary. (993a) thereafter, Victor died single and without issue, survived
only by his natural father, Ricardo. 4 years after, Ricardo
died, leaving as his only heirs 2 children, Cesar and
ARTICLE 1046. Public official establishments can neither
accept nor repudiate an inheritance without the approval Teresa. Both filed a complaint seeking to nullify the
Deed of Absolute Sale alleging that the conveyance of
of the government. (994)
said property impaired the legitimate of Victor, their
natural brother and predecessor-in-interest. When
ARTICLE 1047. A married woman of age may repudiate Leoncio died, it was only Victor who was entitled to
an inheritance without the consent of her husband. (995a) question the donation. But instead of filing an action to
contest the donation, Victor asked to be substituted as
ARTICLE 1048. Deaf-mutes who can read and write may plaintiff and even moved for the execution of the
accept or repudiate the inheritance personally or through judgment.
an agent. Should they not be able to read and write, the
inheritance shall be accepted by their guardians. These ISSUE: Whether or not Victor was deemed to have
guardians may repudiate the same with judicial approval. renounced his legitime
(996a)
HELD: No renunciation of legitimate may be presumed
ARTICLE 1049. Acceptance may be express or tacit. from the foregoing acts. At the time of the substitution,
An express acceptance must be made in a public or the judgment approving the compromise agreement
private document. has already been rendered. Victor merely participated
A tacit acceptance is one resulting from acts by which in the execution of the compromise judgment. He was
the intention to accept is necessarily implied, or which one not a party to the compromise agreement.
would have no right to do except in the capacity of an Our law on succession does not countenance tacit
heir. repudiation of inheritance. It requires an express act on
Acts of mere preservation or provisional administration the part of the heir. Victor’s act of moving for execution
do not imply an acceptance of the inheritance if, through of the compromise judgment cannot be considered an
such acts, the title or capacity of an heir has not been act of renunciation of his legitime. He was, therefore,
assumed. (999a) not precluded or estopped form subsequently seeking
the reduction of the donation. Nor are Victor’s heirs,

upon his death, precluded from doing so, as their right to which expressly disinherited her husband because of
do so is expressly recognized. concubinage.
If the heir should die without having accepted or Rowena, Dolores’ niece and executrix, filed a
repudiated the inheritance, his right shall be transmitted to petition for probate and for the appointment of Nenita
his heirs. as administrator since she (Rowena) is presently
employed in New York City. Romarico, the husband,
ARTICLE 1052. If the heir repudiates the inheritance to the filed an opposition and prayed that he be appointed as
prejudice of his own creditors, the latter may petition the special administrator because the special administratrix
court to authorize them to accept it in the name of the heir. is not related to the heirs and has no interest to be
The acceptance shall benefit the creditors only to an protected.
extent sufficient to cover the amount of their credits. The
excess, should there be any, shall in no case pertain to the HELD: The SC held that Nenita should be appointed as
renouncer, but shall be adjudicated to the persons to Special Administrator. The executrix's choice of Special
whom, in accordance with the rules established in this Administrator, considering her own inability to serve and
Code, it may belong. (1001) the wide latitude of discretion given her by the testatrix
in her Will is entitled to the highest consideration.
Objections to Nenita's appointment on grounds of
ARTICLE 1053. If the heir should die without having
accepted or repudiated the inheritance his right shall be impracticality and lack of kinship are over-shadowed by
the fact that justice and equity demand that the side of
transmitted to his heirs. (1006)
the deceased wife and the faction of the surviving
husband be represented in the management of the
ARTICLE 1054. Should there be several heirs called to the decedent's estate.
inheritance, some of them may accept and the others may It is apropos to remind the Special Administrators
repudiate it. (1007a) that while they may have respective interests to protect,
they are officers of the Court subject to the supervision
ARTICLE 1055. If a person, who is called to the same and control of the Probate Court and are expected to
inheritance as an heir by will and ab intestato, repudiates work for the best interests of the entire estate, its smooth
the inheritance in his capacity as a testamentary heir, he is administration, and its earliest settlement.
understood to have repudiated it in both capacities.
Should he repudiate it as an intestate heir, without
knowledge of his being a testamentary heir, he may still ARTICLE 1059. If the assets of the estate of a decedent
accept it in the latter capacity. (1009) which can be applied to the payment of debts are not
sufficient for that purpose, the provisions of articles 2239
ARTICLE 1056. The acceptance or repudiation of an to 2251 on Preference of Credits shall be observed,
inheritance, once made, is irrevocable, and cannot be provided that the expenses referred to in article 2244,
impugned, except when it was made through any of the No. 8, shall be those involved in the administration of the
causes that vitiate consent, or when an unknown will decedent's estate. (n)
appears. (997)
ARTICLE 1060. A corporation or association authorized
ARTICLE 1057. Within thirty days after the court has issued to conduct the business of a trust company in the
an order for the distribution of the estate in accordance Philippines may be appointed as an executor,
with the Rules of Court, the heirs, devisees and legatees administrator, guardian of an estate, or trustee, in like
shall signify to the court having jurisdiction whether they manner as an individual; but it shall not be appointed
accept or repudiate the inheritance. guardian of the person of a ward. (n)
If they do not do so within that time, they are deemed
to have accepted the inheritance. (n) SECTION 5
Collation
SECTION 4
Executors and Administrators ARTICLE 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds
with other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of
ARTICLE 1058. All matters relating to the appointment, the estate any property or right which he may have
powers and duties of executors and administrators and received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the
concerning the administration of estates of deceased latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in
persons shall be governed by the Rules of Court. (n) order that it may be computed in the determination of
the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the
CORONA vs. CA partition. (1035a)
August 30, 1982
VDA. DE TUPAS vs. RTC OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
FACTS: Dolores died leaving two wills: a holographic will OCTOBER 3, 1986
dated October 3, 1980, which excluded her husband as
one of her heirs, and a formal will dated October 24, 1980,

FACTS: Tupas Foundation, Inc. being a stranger and not a BUHAY DE ROMA vs. CA
compulsory heir, alleged that the donation inter vivos JULY 23, 1987
made in its favor was not subject to collation.
HELD: There is nothing in the provisions expressly
HELD: An inofficious donation is collationable, i.e. its value is prohibiting the collation of the donated properties. The
imputable into the hereditary estate of the donor at the phrase “sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay na di na
time of his death for the purpose of determining the mababawing muli” merely described the donation as
legitime of the forced or compulsory heirs and the freely “irrevocable” and should not be construed as an
disposable portion of the estate. This is true as well of express prohibition against collation. The fact that a
donation to strangers as of gifts to compulsory hers, donation is irrevocable does not necessarily exempt the
although the language of Article 1061 of the Civil Code subject thereof from the collation required under Article
would seem to limit collation to the latter class of donations. 1061. The intention to exempt from collation should be
Collationable gifts should include gifts made not only in expressed plainly and unequivocally as an exception to
favor of the forced heirs, but even those made in favor of the general rule announced in Article 1062. The
strangers, so that in computing the legitimates, the value of suggestion that there was an implied prohibition
the property donated should be considered part of the because the properties donated were imputable to the
donor’s estate. free portion of the decedent’s estate merits little
Deducting the legitimes from the net value of the consideration. Imputation is not the question here, nor is
hereditary estate leaves the freely disposable portion by it claimed that the disputed donation is officious. The
which the donation in question here must be measured. If sole issue is whether or not there was an express
the value of the donation at the time it was made does not prohibition to collate, and there was none. Given the
exceed that difference, then, it must be allowed to stand. precise language of the deed of donation, the
But if it does, the donation is inofficious as to the excess and decedent-donor would have included an express
must be reduced by the amount of said excess. In this prohibition to collate, if that had been the donor’s
case, if any excess be shown, it shall be returned or intention.
reverted to the sole compulsory heir of the deceased
Tupas. ARTICLE 1063. Property left by will is not deemed
subject to collation, if the testator has not otherwise
ZARAGOZA vs. CA provided, but the legitime shall in any case remain
SEPTEMEBER 29, 2000 unimpaired. (1037)
FACTS: The father, during his lifetime, partitioned his

ARTICLE 1064. When grandchildren, who survive with
properties to his children – Gloria, Zacariaz, and Florentino,
their uncles, aunts, or cousins, inherit from their
by way of Deeds of Absolute Sale except that in respect to
grandparents in representation of their father or mother,
daughter Alberta because of her marriage, she became
they shall bring to collation all that their parents, if alive,
an American citizen and was prohibited to acquire lands in would have been obliged to bring, even though such
the Philippines, except by hereditary succession. After the grandchildren have not inherited the property.
father died without a will, Alberta sued Florentino for the They shall also bring to collation all that they may
delivery of her inheritance, consisting of Lots 871 and 943. have received from the decedent during his lifetime,
Florentino claimed that Lot 871 is still registered in their unless the testator has provided otherwise, in which case
father’s name while Lot 943 was sold to him for a valuable his wishes must be respected, if the legitime of the co-
consideration.
heirs is not prejudiced. (1038)
HELD: The partition done during the lifetime of the father is
valid as long as it is done without impairing the legitime of ARTICLE 1070. Wedding gifts by parents and
compulsory heirs. Such legitime is determined after ascendants consisting of jewelry, clothing, and outfit,
collation by compulsory heirs of what they received during shall not be reduced as inofficious except insofar as they
the lifetime of the deceased by way of donation or any may exceed one-tenth of the sum which is disposable
other gratuitous title. by will. (1044)
In this case, however, collation could not be done
because the other compulsory heirs were not impleaded in ARTICLE 1065. Parents are not obliged to bring to
the case. The SC dismissed the case without prejudice to collation in the inheritance of their ascendants any
the institution of a new proceeding where all the property which may have been donated by the latter to
indispensable parties are present for the rightful their children. (1039)
determination of their respective legitime and if the
partitioning inter vivos prejudiced the legitimes. ARTICLE 1066. Neither shall donations to the spouse of
the child be brought to collation; but if they have been
ARTICLE 1062. Collation shall not take place among given by the parent to the spouses jointly, the child shall
compulsory heirs if the donor should have so expressly be obliged to bring to collation one-half of the thing
provided, or if the donee should repudiate the inheritance, donated. (1040)
unless the donation should be reduced as inofficious. (1036)

ARTICLE 1067. Expenses for support, education, medical the preservation of the property donated to him, though
attendance, even in extraordinary illness, apprenticeship, they may not have augmented its value.
ordinary equipment, or customary gifts are not subject to The donee who collates in kind an immovable,
collation. (1041) which has been given to him, must be reimbursed by his
co-heirs for the improvements which have increased the
value of the property, and which exist at the time the
ARTICLE 1068. Expenses incurred by the parents in giving
partition is effected.
their children a professional, vocational or other career shall
As to works made on the estate for the mere
not be brought to collation unless the parents so provide, or
pleasure of the donee, no reimbursement is due him for
unless they impair the legitime; but when their collation is
them; he has, however, the right to remove them, if he
required, the sum which the child would have spent if he
had lived in the house and company of his parents shall be can do so without injuring the estate. (n)
deducted therefrom. (1042a)
ARTICLE 1077. Should any question arise among the
co-heirs upon the obligation to bring to collation or as to
ARTICLE 1069. Any sums paid by a parent in satisfaction
of the debts of his children, election expenses, fines, and the things which are subject to collation, the distribution
of the estate shall not be interrupted for this reason,
similar expenses shall be brought to collation. (1043a)
provided adequate security is given. (1050)
ARTICLE 1071. The same things donated are not to be

SECTION 6
brought to collation and partition, but only their value at
Partition and Distribution of the Estate
the time of the donation, even though their just value may
SUBSECTION 1
not then have been assessed.
Partition
Their subsequent increase or deterioration and even
their total loss or destruction, be it accidental or culpable,
shall be for the benefit or account and risk of the donee. ARTICLE 1078. Where there are two or more heirs, the
whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition,
(1045a)
owned in common by such heirs, subject to the
payment of debts of the deceased. (n)
ARTICLE 1072. In the collation of a donation made by
both parents, one-half shall be brought to the inheritance
NOCEDA vs. CA
of the father, and the other half, to that of the mother. That
September 2, 1999
given by one alone shall be brought to collation in his or her
HELD: In this case, the source of co-ownership among
inheritance. (1046a)
the heirs was intestate succession. Partition, in general, is
the separation, division and assignment of a thing held
ARTICLE 1073. The donee's share of the estate shall be in common among those to whom it may belong. The
reduced by an amount equal to that already received by purpose of partition is to put an end to co-ownership.
him; and his co-heirs shall receive an equivalent, as much And one way of effecting a partition of the decedent's
as possible, in property of the same nature, class and estate is by the heirs themselves extrajudicially.
quality. (1047) The heirs of the late Celestino entered into an
extrajudicial settlement of the estate on August 17, 1981
ARTICLE 1074. Should the provisions of the preceding and agreed to adjudicate among themselves the
article be impracticable, if the property donated was property left by their predecessor-in-interest.
immovable, the co-heirs shall be entitled to receive its The areas allotted to each heir are specifically
equivalent in cash or securities, at the rate of quotation; delineated in the survey plan. There is no co-ownership
and should there be neither cash nor marketable securities where portion owned is concretely determined and
in the estate, so much of the other property as may be identifiable, though not technically described, or that
necessary shall be sold at public auction. said portions are still embraced in one and the same
If the property donated was movable, the co-heirs shall certificate of title does not make said portions less
only have a right to select an equivalent of other personal determinable or identifiable, or distinguishable, one from
property of the inheritance at its just price. (1048) the other, nor that dominion over each portion less
exclusive, in their respective owners. A partition legally
ARTICLE 1075. The fruits and interest of the property made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership
subject to collation shall not pertain to the estate except of the property adjudicated to him.
from the day on which the succession is opened.
For the purpose of ascertaining their amount, the fruits ARTICLE 1079. Partition, in general, is the separation,
and interest of the property of the estate of the same kind division and assignment of a thing held in common
and quality as that subject to collation shall be made the among those to whom it may belong. The thing itself
standard of assessment. (1049) may be divided, or its value. (n)
ARTICLE 1076. The co-heirs are bound to reimburse to the HEIRS OF TEVES vs. CA
donee the necessary expenses which he has incurred for 316 SCRA 632

HELD: The extrajudicial settlements executed by the heirs of respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime
Joaquin Teves and Marcelina Cimafranca are legally valid of the compulsory heirs.
and binding. The extrajudicial settlement of a decedent’s A parent who, in the interest of his or her family,
estate is authorized by Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of desires to keep any agricultural, industrial, or
Court. For a partition to be valid, the following conditions manufacturing enterprise intact, may avail himself of the
must concur: (1) the decedent left no will; (2) the decedent right granted him in this article, by ordering that the
left no debts, or if there were debts left, all had been paid; legitime of the other children to whom the property is
(3) the heirs are all of age, or if they are minors, the latter not assigned, be paid in cash. (1056a)
are represented by their judicial guardian or legal
representatives; (4) the partition was made by means of a ZARAGOZA vs. CA
public instrument or affidavit duly filed with the Register of September 29, 2000
Deeds.
Although Cresenciano, Ricardo’s predecessor-in- HELD: A partition inter vivos may be done for as long as
interest, was not a signatory to the extrajudicial settlements, legitimes are not prejudiced. Article 1080 is clear on this.
the partition of Lot 769-A among the heirs was made in The legitime of the compulsory heirs is determined after
accordance with their intestate shares under the law. Oral collation. Unfortunately, collation cannot be done in this
partition is valid. The non-registration of an extrajudicial case where the original petition for delivery of
settlement does not affect its intrinsic validity when there inheritance share only impleaded one of the other
are no creditors or the rights of the creditors are not compulsory heirs. The petition must be dismissed without
affected. prejudice to the institution of a new proceedings
wherein all the indispensable parties are present for the
HEIRS of SERASPI vs. CA rightful determination of their respective legitime and if
April 28, 2000 the legitimes were prejudiced by the partitioning inter
vivos.
FACTS: Marcelino contracted 3 marriages. At the time of
his death in 1943, he had 15 children from his 3 marriages. ARTICLE 1081. A person may, by an act inter vivos or
In 1948, his intestate estate was partitioned into 3 parts by mortis causa, intrust the mere power to make the
his heirs, each part corresponding to the share of the heirs partition after his death to any person who is not one of
in each marriage. the co-heirs.
In the same year, Patronicio, representing the heirs of The provisions of this and of the preceding article
the 1st marriage, sold the share of the heirs in the estate to shall be observed even should there be among the co-
Dominador, an heir of the 2nd marriage. Dominador then heirs a minor or a person subject to guardianship; but
sold said share to Quirico and Purficacion Seraspi. They the mandatory, in such case, shall make an inventory of
then obtained a loan but failed to pay it. As such, the the property of the estate, after notifying the co-heirs,
lands were sold to Kalibo Rural Bank and then subsequently the creditors, and the legatees or devisees. (1057a)
sold to Manuel. Rata allowed Quirico to administer the
property.
ARTICLE 1082. Every act which is intended to put an
Simeon, Marcelino’s child by his third wife, taking
end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or
advantage of the illness of Quirico, ho had been paralyzed
devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it should
due to a stroke, forcibly entered the lands in question and
purport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, or
took possession thereof.
any other transaction. (n)
The Seraspis purchased the lands from Manuel Rata
and afterwards filed a complaint against Simeon for
recovery of possession of the lands.
HELD: Simeon cannot base his ownership on succession for

the property was not part of those distributed to the heirs of CRUCILLO vs. IAC
the third marriage, to which he belongs. In the partition of 317 SCRA 351
the intestate estate of Marcelino, the properties were
divided into 3 parts, each part being reserved for each HELD: The heirs of Balbino Crucillo agreed to orally
group of heirs belonging to one of the 3 marriages partition the estate among themselves, as evinced by
Marcelino entered into. Since the contested parcels of land their possession of the inherited premises, their
were adjudicated to the heirs of the first and second construction of the improvement thereon, and their
marriages, it follows that private respondent, as heir of the having declared in their names for tax purposes their
3rd marriage, has no right over the parcels of land. While, as respective shares. These are indications that the said
heir to the intestate estate of his father, private respondent heirs agreed to divide the subject estate among
was co-owner of all of his father’s properties, such co- themselves. It is certainly foolhardy for the petitioners to
ownership rights were effectively dissolved by the partition claim that no oral partition was made when their acts
agreed upon by the heirs of Marcelino. showed otherwise. Moreover, it is unbelievable that the
possession of the heirs was by mere tolerance, judging
from the introduction of the improvement thereon and
ARTICLE 1080. Should a person make a partition of his
the length of time that such improvements have been in
estate by an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall be

existence. After exercising acts of ownership over their act, and prejudicial to the other possible heirs and
respective portions of the contested estate, petitioners are creditors who may have a valid claim against the estate
stopped from denying or contesting the existence of an oral of the deceased.
partition. The oral agreement for the partition of the
property owned in common is valid, binding and ARTICLE 1083. Every co-heir has a right to demand the
enforceable on the parties. division of the estate unless the testator should have
expressly forbidden its partition, in which case the period
PADA-KILARIO vs. CA of indivision shall not exceed twenty years as provided in
January 19, 2000 article 494. This power of the testator to prohibit division
applies to the legitime.
HELD: The extrajudicial partition of the estate of Jacinto Even though forbidden by the testator, the co-
Pada among his heirs made in 1951 is valid, albeit executed ownership terminates when any of the causes for which
in an unregistered private document. No law requires partnership is dissolved takes place, or when the court
partition among heirs to be in writing and registered in order finds for compelling reasons that division should be
to be valid. The requirement in Section 1, Rule 74 of the ordered, upon petition of one of the co-heirs. (1051a)
Revised Rules of Court that partition be put in a public
document and registered is for the protection of creditors SANTOS vs. SANTOS
and the heirs themselves against tardy claims. It follows October 12, 2000
then that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed with
the prescribed formalities is not undermined when no FACTS: Ladislao filed a complaint against his brother,
creditors are involved. Without creditors to consider, it is Eliseo, and the latter’s son Phillip. Ladislao averred that
competent for the heirs to enter into an agreement for the when his and Eliseo’s sister, Isidra, died, they inherited her
distribution of the estate in a manner and upon a plan parcel of land. A parcel of land left by Isidra was
different from those provided by the rules from which conveyed by Eliseo to Virgilio, who from infancy had
nothing can be inferred that a writing or other formality is been under the care of Isidra. Virgilio executed a Deed
essential for the partition to be valid. The partition of of Absolute Sale in favor of Philip, his brother and a Tax
inherited property need not be embodied in a public Declaration was issued in favor of Philip. Philip and the
document so as to be effective as regards the heirs that heirs of Eliseo aver that acquired Isidra’s property by
participated therein. acquisitive prescription.
Statute of Frauds does not apply because partition HELD: Prescription, as a mode of terminating a relation
among heirs is not legally deemed a conveyance of real of co-ownership, must have been preceded by
property but rather a confirmation or ratification of title or repudiation of the co-ownership. The act of repudiation
right of property that an heir is renouncing in favor of is subject to certain conditions;
another heir who accepts and receives the inheritance. 1. A co-owner repudiates the co-ownership
2. Such an act of repudiation is clearly made known to
HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES vs. CA the other co-owners
October 13, 1999 3. The evidence is clear and conclusive
4. He has been in possession through open,
HELD: An oral partition of a decedent’s estate is valid and continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of
the non-registration of an extrajudicial settlement does not the property for the period required by law.
affect its intrinsic validity when there are no creditors or the There was no showing that Eliseo had complied with
rights of creditors are not affected. these requisites. Acts of possessory character executed
in virtue of license or tolerance of the owners shall not
UNION BANK vs. SANTIBAÑEZ be available for the purposes of possession.
February 23, 2005 Filipino family ties being close and well-knit as they
are, and considering that Virgilio was the ward of Isidra
HELD: The probate proceeding already acquired ever since when Virgilio was still an infant, it was but
jurisdiction over all the properties of the deceased, natural that Ladislao did not interpose any objection to
including the 3 tractors. To dispose of them in any way the continued stay of Virgilio and his family on the
without the probate court’s approval is tantamount to property and even acquiesced thereto. Ladislao must
divesting it with jurisdiction which the SC cannot allow. In have assumed too, that his brother, Eliseo, allowed his
executing any joint agreement which appears to be in the son to occupy the property and use the same for the
nature of an extra-judicial partition, court approval is time being. Hence, such possession by Virgilio and Philip
imperative and the heirs cannot just divest the court of its of the property did not constitute a repudiation of the
jurisdiction over that part of the estate. It is within the co-ownership by Eliseo and of his privies for that matter.
jurisdiction of the probate court to determine the identity of Penultimately, the action for partition is not barred by
the heirs of the decedent. In the instant case, there is no laches. Each co-owner may demand at any time the
showing that the signatories in the joint agreement were partition of the common property.
the only heirs of the decedent. When it was executed, the
probate court has to determine yet who the heirs of the
ARTICLE 1084. Voluntary heirs upon whom some
decedent were. Thus, for Edmund and Florence to condition has been imposed cannot demand a partition
adjudicate unto themselves the 3 tractors was a premature until the condition has been fulfilled; but the other co-

heirs may demand it by giving sufficient security for the as exacted by the Code, to remove all uncertainty as to
rights which the former may have in case the condition the sale, its terms and its validity, and to quiet any doubt
should be complied with; and until it is known that the that the alienation is not definitive. The law not having
condition has not been fulfilled or can never be complied provided for any alternative method of notifications
with, the partition shall be understood to be provisional. remains exclusive, thought the Code does not
(1054a) prescribed any particular form of written notice nor any
distinctive method for written notification of redemption.
ARTICLE 1085. In the partition of the estate, equality shall
be observed as far as possible, dividing the property into BAYLON vs. AMADOR
lots, or assigning to each of the co-heirs things of the same February 9, 2004
nature, quality and kind. (1061)
HELD: The requirement of a written notice is mandatory.
The SC has long established the rule that,
ARTICLE 1086. Should a thing be indivisible, or would be
notwithstanding actual knowledge of a co-owner, the
much impaired by its being divided, it may be adjudicated
latter is still entitled to a written notice from the selling
to one of the heirs, provided he shall pay the others the
co-owner in order to remove all uncertainties about the
excess in cash.
sale, its terms and conditions as wells as its efficacy and
Nevertheless, if any of the heirs should demand that the
status.
thing be sold at public auction and that strangers be
Private respondent was never given such written
allowed to bid, this must be done. (1062)
notice. He thus still has the right to redeem said 1/3
portion of the subject property. On account of the lack
ARTICLE 1087. In the partition the co-heirs shall reimburse of written notice of the sale by the other co-heirs, the 30-
one another for the income and fruits which each one of day period never commenced.
them may have received from any property of the estate,
for any useful and necessary expenses made upon such Exception (case where the SC held otherwise):
property, and for any damage thereto through malice or
neglect. (1063) ALONZO vs. IAC
159 SCRA 259
ARTICLE 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary
rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co- HELD: Actual knowledge was considered an equivalent
heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by to a written notice of sale because the right of legal
reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do redemption was invoked more than 13 years after the
so within the period of one month from the time they were sales were concluded.
notified in writing of the sale by the vendor. (1067a)
SC rules that written notice is mandatory, as a general
GARCIA vs. CALALIMAN rule:
April 17, 1989
PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORP. vs. SPS. VALENCIA
FACTS: Respondents claim that the 30-day period August 19, 2003
prescribed in Article 1088 for petitioners to exercise the right
to legal redemption had already elapsed and that the HELD: The 30-day period of redemption had yet to
requirement of Article 1088 that notice must be in writing is commence when private respondent Rosales sought to
deemed satisfied because written notice would be exercise the right of redemption on March 31, 1987, a
superfluous, the purpose of the law having been fully day after she discovered the sale from the Office of the
served when petitioner Garcia went to the Office of the City Treasurer of Butuan City or when the case was
Register of Deeds and was for himself, read and understood initiated on October 16, 1987, before the trial court.
the contents of the Deeds of Sale. The written notice is mandatory. The SC has long
HELD: The Court took note of the fact that the registration established the rule that notwithstanding the actual
of the deed of sale as sufficient notice of sale under the knowledge of a co-owner, the latter is still entitled to a
provision of Section 51 of Act No. 496 applies only to written notice form the selling co-owner in order to
registered lands and has no application whatsoever to a remove all uncertainties about the sale, its terms and
case where the property involved is unregistered land. conditions, as well as its efficacy and status. Even in
If the intention of the law had been to include Alonzo vs. IAC, relied upon by the petitioner in
verbal notice or nay other means of information as contending that actual knowledge should be an
sufficient to give the effect of this notice, then there would equivalent to a written notice of sale, the SC made it
have been no necessity or reasons to specify in Article 1088 clear that it was not reversing the prevailing
that the said notice be made in writing for, under the old jurisprudence. The SC simply adopted an exception to
law, a verbal notice or information was sufficient. In the the general rule in view of the peculiar circumstances of
interpretation of a related provision (Article 1623) written this case. In Alonzo, the right of legal redemption was
notice is indispensable, actual knowledge of the sale invoked several years, not just days or months, after the
acquired in some other manners by the redemptioner, consummation of the contracts of sale but more than 13
notwithstanding. He or she is still entitled to written notice, years after the sales were concluded.

liable for his part in the same proportion, deducting the
part corresponding to the one who should be
ARTICLE 1089. The titles of acquisition or ownership of indemnified.
each property shall be delivered to the co-heir to whom Those who pay for the insolvent heir shall have a
said property has been adjudicated. (1065a) right of action against him for reimbursement, should his
financial condition improve. (1071)
ARTICLE 1090. When the title comprises two or more
pieces of land which have been assigned to two or more ARTICLE 1094. An action to enforce the warranty
co-heirs, or when it covers one piece of land which has among co-heirs must be brought within ten years from
been divided between two or more co-heirs, the title shall the date the right of action accrues. (n)
be delivered to the one having the largest interest, and
authentic copies of the title shall be furnished to the other ARTICLE 1095. If a credit should be assigned as
co-heirs at the expense of the estate. If the interest of each collectible, the co-heirs shall not be liable for the
co-heir should be the same, the oldest shall have the title. subsequent insolvency of the debtor of the estate, but
(1066a) only for his insolvency at the time the partition is made.
The warranty of the solvency of the debtor can only
SUBSECTION 2 be enforced during the five years following the partition.
Effects of Partition Co-heirs do not warrant bad debts, if so known to,
and accepted by, the distributee. But if such debts are
ARTICLE 1091. A partition legally made confers upon not assigned to a co-heir, and should be collected, in
each heir the exclusive ownership of the property whole or in part, the amount collected shall be
adjudicated to him. (1068) distributed proportionately among the heirs. (1072a)
HEIRS OF JOAQUIN TEVES vs. CA ARTICLE 1096. The obligation of warranty among co-
October 13, 1999 heirs shall cease in the following cases:
(1) When the testator himself has made the partition,
HELD: The extrajudicial settlements executed by the heirs of unless it appears, or it may be reasonably presumed,
Joaquin Teves and Marcelina Cimafranca are legally valid that his intention was otherwise, but the legitime
and binding. The extrajudicial settlement of a decedent’s shall always remain unimpaired;
estate is authorized by Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of (2) When it has been so expressly stipulated in the
Court. For a partition pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 74 to be agreement of partition, unless there has been bad
valid, the following conditions must concur: faith;
1. The decedent left no will (3) When the eviction is due to a cause subsequent to
2. The decedent left no debts, or if there were debts the partition, or has been caused by the fault of the
left, all had been paid distributee of the property. (1070a)
3. The heirs are all of age, or if they are minors, the
latter are represented by their judicial guardian or SUBSECTION 3
legal representatives Rescission and Nullity of Partition
4. The partition was made by means of a public
instrument or affidavit duly filed with the Register of ARTICLE 1097. A partition may be rescinded or
Deeds annulled for the same causes as contracts. (1073a)
Although Cresenciano, Ricardo’s predecessor-in-
interest, was not a signatory to the extrajudicial settlements,
ARTICLE 1098. A partition, judicial or extra-judicial, may
the partition of the Lot 769-A among the heirs was made in
also be rescinded on account of lesion, when any one
accordance with their intestate shares under the law. The
of the co-heirs received things whose value is less, by at
extrajudicial settlements covering Lot 769-A were never
least one-fourth, than the share to which he is entitled,
registered. However, an oral partition of a decedent’s
considering the value of the things at the time they were
estate is valid and the non-registration of an extrajudicial
adjudicated. (1074a)
settlement does not affect its intrinsic validity when there
are no creditors or the rights of creditors are not affected.
ARTICLE 1099. The partition made by the testator
cannot be impugned on the ground of lesion, except
when the legitime of the compulsory heirs is thereby
ARTICLE 1092. After the partition has been made, the co- prejudiced, or when it appears or may reasonably be
heirs shall be reciprocally bound to warrant the title to, and presumed, that the intention of the testator was
the quality of, each property adjudicated. (1069a) otherwise. (1075)
ARTICLE 1093. The reciprocal obligation of warranty ARTICLE 1100. The action for rescission on account of
referred to in the preceding article shall be proportionate lesion shall prescribe after four years from the time the
to the respective hereditary shares of the co-heirs, but if any partition was made. (1076)
one of them should be insolvent, the other co-heirs shall be

ARTICLE 1101. The heir who is sued shall have the option prescribed since it has been more than 18 years after
of indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss, or consenting to a the execution of the document they seek to annul. The
new partition. lower court ruled that the action is barred by
Indemnity may be made by payment in cash or by the prescription.
delivery of a thing of the same kind and quality as that HELD: The dismissal of the action is erroneous. The
awarded to the plaintiff. question if it is void requires a legal inquiry into the legal
If a new partition is made, it shall affect neither those status of Severino.
who have not been prejudiced nor those have not Should the petitioners be able to substantiate their
received more than their just share. (1077a) contention that Severino is an illegitimate son of
Guillerma, he is not a legal heir of Teodoro. The right of
representation is denied by law to an illegitimate child
ARTICLE 1102. An heir who has alienated the whole or a
who is disqualified to inherit ab intestato from the
considerable part of the real property adjudicated to him
cannot maintain an action for rescission on the ground of legitimate children and relatives of his father. On this
lesion, but he shall have a right to be indemnified in cash. supposition, the subject deed of extra-judicial partition is
(1078a) one that included a person who is not an heir of the
ARTICLE 1103. The omission of one or more objects or descendant whose estate is being partitioned. Such a
securities of the inheritance shall not cause the rescission of deed is governed by Article 1105 of the Civil Code. The
the partition on the ground of lesion, but the partition shall Supreme Court ordered the respondent judge to try the
be completed by the distribution of the objects or securities case on the merits and render the corresponding
judgment thereon.
which have been omitted. (1079a)
MENDOZA vs. IAC
ARTICLE 1104. A partition made with preterition of any of July 30, 1987
the compulsory heirs shall not be rescinded, unless it be
proved that there was bad faith or fraud on the part of the FACTS: The extra-judicial settlement of the estate of
other persons interested; but the latter shall be Evaristo executed between Buenaventura and Modesta
proportionately obliged to pay to the person omitted the was sought to be annulled. The lower court ruled that
share which belongs to him. (1080) such settlement is void as to as the shares of Modesta
are concerned. Nicolasa and Teresa predeceased
NON vs. CA Buenaventura. Modesta is the illegitimate child of
February 15, 2000 Nicolasa. Buenaventura then died. It was prayed that
HELD: The exclusion of Delia, alleged to be a retardate, Modesta be declared the legal heir of Buenaventura.
from the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement verily had the HELD: The only document presented by Modesta to
effect of preterition. This kind of preterition, however, in the prove that she was recognized by her mother was the
absence of proof of fraud and bad faith, does not justify a certificate of birth and baptism signed by the parish
collateral attack on the Transfer Certificate of Title. priest. Canonical certificate of baptism is not sufficient
The relief rests on Article 1104 to the effect that where to prove recognition. Neither could the alleged
the preterition is not attended by bad faith and fraud, the continuous possession by Modesta Gabuya of the status
partition shall not be rescinded but the preterited heir shall of a natural child improve her condition.
be paid the value of the share pertaining to her. Modesta Gabuya, not having been acknowledged
The appellate court has acted properly in ordering the in the manner provided by law by her mother, Nicolasa,
remand of the case for further proceedings to make the was not entitled to succeed the latter. The extrajudicial
proper valuation of the property and the ascertainment of settlement of the estate of Evaristo, therefore, null and
the amount due to Delia. void insofar as Modesta Gabuya is concerned per
Article 1105 of the New Civil Code.
ARTICLE 1105. A partition which includes a person
believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY vs. CA
with respect to such person. (1081a) March 7, 2000
LANDAYAN vs. BACANI FACTS: Private respondents set up the defense of

September 30, 1982 ownership and questioned the title of Aznar to the
subject lot, alleging that the Extrajudicial Partition with
FACTS: An extra-judicial partition was entered into by Deed of Absolute Sale upon which petitioner bases its
Maxima, wife of the deceased Teodoro, and Severino. title is null and void for being fraudulently made.
Petitioners contended that they are the legal heirs of Private respondents claim that not all the known
the deceased since they are the children of Guillerma, who heirs of Crisanta participated in the extrajudicial partition
was the only child of the deceased and his first wife and that 2 person who participated and were made
Florencia. They averred that Severino is an illegitimate child parties thereto were not heirs of Crisanta.
of Guillerma. HELD: Under Article 1104, partition made with preterition
But Severino alleged that he is the acknowledged shall not be rescinded unless it be proved that there was
natural child of Teodoro and Florencia. Private respondents bad faith or fraud. In this case, there was no evidence
also alleged that the action of the petitioners had of bad faith or fraud.

As to the 2 parties to the deed who were allegedly not
heirs, Article 1105 is applicable. The participation of non-
heirs does not render the partition void in its entirety but
only to the extent corresponding them.
FERNANDEZ vs. FERNANDEZ

August 28, 2001
FACTS: Rodolfo was adopted by the late spouses Jose and

Generosa. When Jose died, a Deed of Extra-judicial
Partition was executed between Rodolfo and Generosa.
After learning the transaction, the nephews and nieces of
Jose filed an action to declare the Deed of Extra-judicial
Partition void ab initio.
HELD: While one’s legitimacy can be questioned only in a
direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, this
doctrine has no application in the instant case considering
that respondents’ claim was that petitioner Rodolfo was not
born to the deceased spouses Jose and Generosa
Fernandez. We do not have a situation wherein they
(respondents) deny that Rodolfo was a child of their uncle’s
wife.
Rodolfo failed to prove his filiation with the deceased
spouses Fernandez. Such is a factual issue which has been
thoroughly passed upon and settled both by the trial court
and the appellate court. There is no record of the birth of
Rodolfo.
The Application for Recognition of Back Pay Rights is a
public document but it was not executed to admit the
filiation of Jose with Rodolfo. The public document
contemplated in Article 172 of the Family Code refer to the
written admission of filiation embodied in a public
document purposely executed as an admission of filiation
and not as obtaining in this case wherein the public
document was executed as an application for the
recognition of rights to back pay. Possession of status of a
child does not in itself constitute an acknowledgment; it is
only a ground for a child to compel recognition by his
assumed parent. While baptismal certificates may be
considered public documents, they are evidence only to
prove the administration of the sacraments on the dates
therein specified, but not the veracity of the statements or
declarations made therein with respect to his kinsfolk.
Rodolfo is not a child by nature of the spouses
Fernandez and not a legal heir of Dr. Jose Fernandez , thus
the subject deed of extra-judicial settlement of the estate
of Dr. Jose Fernandez between Generosa vda. de
Fernandez and Rodolfo is null and void insofar as Rodolfo is
concerned.

Succession Case Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Succession Case Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Fraternal Order of St.

Thomas More Wills and Succession (2012-2013)

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 1 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

LA HU NIU vs. COLLECTOR

HELD: The right of children of resident foreigner to gain

HELD: Property right in an insurance policy is not

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 2 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 3 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 4 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 5 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

HELD: Respondent city court has jurisdiction over the case.

BONILLA vs. BARCENA

FACTS: On March 31, 1975 Fortunata Barcena, mother of

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 6 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 7 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 8 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

ISSUE: WON the will is valid.

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 9 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 10 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

FACTS: Leonard died in June 1946 leaving his surviving

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 11 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

MICIANO vs. BRIMO

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 12 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 13 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 14 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 15 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

INDICATIONS OF AN NOT INDICATIVE OF AN

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 16 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 17 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 18 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 19 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 20 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 21 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 22 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 23 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 24 of 73

TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU

FACTS: The 1st page of the will contains the entire

Prepared by: Jennifer Kristine Yanto Page 25 of 73