Ate ito nap o yung research ko para sa practicum.. Bryan Bautista po..at ate isali niyo daw po si Mr.

. Mac Roger Madayag..sabi po ni maamThank you God Bless

Defenses: First, the compulsory heir of the dead spouse and mother are the father and the children. According to Art. 777of the New Civil Code says that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. It is true that death transfers the rights to the succession but only if the following conditions are present, namely: (a) that indeed there has been a death (b) that the rights or properties are indeed (c) that the transferee is still alive (no predecease),willing (no repudiation), is capacitated to inherit. These are also called the requisites for succession mortis causa. In Gabila v. Perez G.R.No. L-29541 the Supreme Court held that: The rights to the succession are transmitted to the heirsfrom the moment of death of their predecessor. In Maria Vda. de Reyes, et al. v. CA GR 92436, July 26, 1991 the Supreme Court held that: The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. Second, The Property in question is the family home and according to Article 154 of the Family Code, the beneficiaries of a family home are: (1) The husband and wife, or an unmarried person who is the head of a family; and (2) Their parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters, whether the relationship be legitimate or illegitimate, who are living in the family home and who depend upon the head of the family for legal support. Third, The donation made by the father to the concubine is a void donation because according to Article 739: Donations made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation is void.

In Erlinda Agapay v., Herminia Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 116668 the Supreme Court ruled that: In the nature of an afterthought, said added assertion was intended to exclude their case from the operation of Article 148 of the Family Code. Proof of the precise date when they commenced their adulterous cohabitation not having been adduced, we cannot state

definitively that the riceland was purchased even before they started living together. In any case, even assuming that the subject property was bought before cohabitation, the rules of co-ownership would still apply and proof of actual contribution would still be essential. Since petitioner failed to prove that she contributed money to the purchase price of the riceland in Binalonan, Pangasinan, we find no basis to justify her co-ownership with Miguel over the same. Consequently, the riceland should, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, revert to the conjugal partnership property of the deceased Miguel and private respondent Carlina Palang. The transaction was properly a donation made by Miguel to Erlinda, but one which was clearly void and inexistent by express provision of law because it was made between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation, under Article 739 of the Civil Code. Moreover, Article 87 of the Family Code expressly provides that the prohibition against donations between spouses now applies to donations between persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, for otherwise, the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal union. In Sicad v. CA G.R. No. 125888 the Supreme Court held that: this Court also observed that "the fact that the donation is given in consideration of love and affection is not a characteristic of donations inter vivos(solely) because transfers mortis causa may also be made for the same reason." In Maramag v Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation, G.R.No. 181132 the Supreme Court ruled that : Any person who is forbidden from receiving any donation under Article 739 cannot be named beneficiary of a life insurance policy of the person who cannot make any donation to him, according to said article (Art. 2012, Civil Code).