Art. 774.

Succession 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 through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.
Art. 712. Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual creation.
Ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by donation, by estate and intestate succession, and in consequence of
certain contracts, by tradition.
They may also be acquired by means of prescription.
Art. 1311. Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract
are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property he received from the
decedent.
If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he may demand its fulfillment provided he communicated his acceptance to the
obligor before its revocation. A mere incidental benefit or interest of a person is not sufficient. The contracting parties must have clearly and deliberately
conferred a favor upon a third person.
Basis of Law of Succession
The law of succession is based partly on the law of family relations, and partly on the law of property.Sanchez Roman: Succession aims to make possible
and effective the orderly enjoyment by thehuman species of the essential elements of physical life, giving
a note of subsistence andperpetuity of the patrimony which cannot be maintained without the transmissibility of theproperty constituting it.
Law on Family Relations
1. Donat: God has united us to the family to which we are born; family ties create rights and obligations, and the successional right is nothing more than a
right founded upon a duty.
2. Laurent: Succession springs from natural law. The individual, during life, seeks toaccumulate wealth in order to perform his duty of service and
assistance to the members of his family. The knowledge that, upon death, the products of his effort and work will be enjoyed by those who are the natural
objects of his affection within the family furnishes the greatest incentives to his initiative, industry, and thrift.
Law of Property
1. Navarro Amandi: Succession is but a corollary to the right of property; without it, the right of ownership would be an imperfect thing.
2. Sanchez Roman:
Characteristics of Production of Wealth
a.Individuality: prevent stagnation of wealth
b.Inequality: A product of the independence and freedom of human activities, through labor and the peculiar qualities of each one
c.Transmissibility: A salient feature of the right of property, which is incomplete without the right to transmit the
same. The Code Commission followed the prevailing tendency towards a new concept of legal order, which pursues the socialization of ownership, not in
the sense of socialism but in the sense of effectivity adapting property to the needs of society. In retrospect, the Old Civil Code was drafted when the
prevailing philosophy was that of extreme individualism in the law of property and of succession
Law Governing Form
As to time of Execution
Art. 1311. Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract
are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property he received from the
decedent.
If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he may demand its fulfillment provided he communicated his acceptance to the
obligor before its revocation. A mere incidental benefit or interest of a person is not sufficient. The contracting parties must have clearly and deliberately
conferred a favor upon a third person.
As to place of Execution
Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities
established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have, for their object, public order, public policy and good customs shall not be
rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
Art. 810. A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no
other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.
Art. 815. When a Filipino is in a foreign country, he is authorized to make a will in any of the forms established by the law of the country in which he may be.
Such will may be probated in the Philippines. (n)
Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he
resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes. (n)
Art. 817. A will made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another country, which is executed in accordance with the law of the country of which he is
a citizen or subject, and which might be proved and allowed by the law of his own country, shall have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of
the Philippines. (n)
Art. 818. Two or more persons cannot make a will jointly, or in the same instrument, either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third
person. (669)
Art. 819. Wills, prohibited by the preceding article, executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid in the Philippines, even though authorized by
the laws of the country where they may have been executed.
In re: Will of Rev Abadia
FACTS:
Fr Abadia executed a document (Exhibit A) purportedly his Last Will and Testament. He died Jan14, 1943, and left properties estimated at Php8k. One of the
legatees, Enriquez, filed a petition for its probate before CFI Cebu. Some cousins and nephews, who would inherit had there been no will, opposed.
Two of the 3 witnesses already died. The remaining witness testified that in his presence and the other 2 co-witnesses, Fr Abadia wrote out in long hand in
Spanish said will; that Fr Abad spoke and understood.; that he signed on the left hand margin of the front page of each of the 3folios and numbered the
same with Arabic numerals; all this in the presence of the 3 attesting witnesses who signed their names on the last page after the attestation clause I his
presence and in the presence of each other. The oppositors did not submit any evidence. CFI Cebu declared said document as a holographic will and was
admitted to probate. It was in the handwriting of the testator. At the time of execution, and at the time of testators death, holographic wills were not permitted
by law. At the time case was decided, New Civil Code already in force, allowing holographic wills. The trial court also the controlling factor, which is
the intention of the testator, over rides any defect in form. Oppositors appeal involved questions of law, thus certified to the Supreme Court
ISSUE: WON Fr Abadias holographic will maybe admitted to probate

HELD:
Order appealed from is reversed. Exhibit A is denied probate. The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time
it is made. From the day of the death of the testator, if he leaves a will, the title of the legatees and devisees under it becomes a vested right, protected
under the due process clause of the constitution against a subsequent change in the statute adding new legal requirements of execution of wills which would
invalidate such a will. Although the will operates upon and after the death of the testator, the wishes of the testator about the disposition of his estate among
his heirs and among the legatees is given solemn expression at the time the will is executed, and in reality, the legacy or bequest then becomes a
completed act. This ruling has been laid down by this court in the case of In re Will of Riosa, 39Phil., 23. It is a wholesome doctrine and should be followed.
At the time that Exhibit "A" was executed in 1923 and at the time that Father Abadia died in1943, holographic wills were not permitted, and the law at the
time imposed certain requirements for the execution of wills, such as numbering correlatively each page (not folio or sheet) in letters and signing on the
left hand margin by the testator and by the three attesting witnesses, requirements which were not complied with in Exhibit "A" because the back pages
of the first two folios of the will were not signed by any one, not even by the testator and were not numbered, and as to the three front pages, they were
signed only by the testator
Fleumer vs. Hix54 Phil 610
Facts:The petitioner is a special administrator of the estate of Edward Hix. He alleged that the latters will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia on
November 3, 1925 by Hix who had his residence in that jurisdiction, and that the laws of that state govern. To this end, the petitioner submitted a copy of
Section 3868 of Acts 1882, c.84 as found in West Virginia Code, annotated by Hogg, Charles E., vol.2 1914, p. 1690 andas certified to by the Director of
National Library.The Judge of the First Instance however denied the probate of the will on the grounds that Sec 300 and301 of the Code of Civil Procedure
were not complied with. Hence, this appeal.Issue:Is it necessary to prove in this jurisdiction the existence of such law in West Virginia as a prerequisiteto the
allowance and recording of said will.Held: Yes. The laws of the foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. The courts of thePhilippine Islands
are not authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of the various states of theAmerican Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. Here the requirements
of the law were not met.There was no showing that the book from which an extract was taken was printed or published under the authority of the state of
West Virginia, as provided in Sec 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor wasthe extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of
the original, under theseal of the State of West Virginia as provided in Sec 301. No evidence was introduced showing that theextract from the laws of West
Virginia was in force at the time alleged will was executed.The court therefore did not err in denying the probate of the will. The existence of such law in
WestVirginia must be proved.
GR No. L-4113 June 30, 1952
Probate of the late William R. Giberson. LELA G. DALTON, Applicant-Appellant
-versus- SPRING Giberson, opposition-appealed.
PAUL, J. :
Lela G. Dalton present 'on February 10, 1949 an application in the Court of First Instance of Cebupidiendo the legalization of a document that, according to
claims she is holographic will of William R. Giberson, otorgadoen April 29, 1920 in San Francisco, California, that Giberson was a citizen of the state of
Illinois, United States, and a resident of Cebu, and died on August 6, 1943 in the concentration camp at the University of Sto , Tomas, Manila, Philippines.
Giberson Spring, legitimate son of William R. Giberson, presented an opposition alleging that the will is apocryphal, it does not represent the true will of the
late Giberson: and has not been OTOR gado according to the law.
In 1. July 1949, the opponent filed a mocionpidiendo the dismissal of the application, arguing that, before a will made in country extranjeropueda be
legalized in the Philippines, will be demonstrated that this had been legalized previamenteen that country according to Article 1 of Rule 78, that the request
does not allege that the will had already been legalized in California.
The applicant objected to the motion to dismiss. On June 20, 1950 the judge dismissed the application, stating: "... under our existing rules only wills Those
That have Previously been proved Please and allowed in the United States, or any state or territory thereof, or any foreign country, According Such to the
laws of state, territory, or country, May be allowed, filed or recorded in the proper court of first instance in the Philippines .... " Against this order the applicant
appealed.
The opposition, in support of his theory, argues that Article 635 of the Civil Procedure Code was repealed by Rule 78 under Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution. This article 635 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads: A will made out of the Philippines, which may authenticate and legalized under the laws
of the state or country where it was granted, could authenticate, legalize and register in the Philippines, and will have the same efficiency quesi has been
granted in accordance with the laws of these Islands.
This article and has been applied in the case of Babcock Templeton against Rider Babcock, 52 Phil., 134, in which it was stated that the will made in
California and could legalized in that state, may be legalized in the Philippines. In Case of Varela Varela against Calderon, 57 Phil., 291, is legalized will
made in Paris, France, by the late Dr. Francisco Varela Calderon because it was a testament that podiaser legalized in accordance with the laws of France.
A person may dispose of his property to his death after by will. Testamentoes The granting of a legal act that can be performed in the Philippines or abroad,
if given in a foreign country, you have to be in accordance with the laws of that country, which is universally adopted rule.
The alien may have to after his death of his property in the Philippines by will and is not forced to grant the Philippines, you can do it in your own country or
another, but according to the laws of the country in which it is awarded. The article 635 of the Code of Civil Procedure respecting the freedom of the testator
to give his will anywhere, has the will to be legalized in a foreign country in accordance with the laws of that country may legalizsarse also in the
Philippines. That provision is substantive, creates the rights of beneficiaries of the will: they are assured to legalize wills Philippine Islands otorgadosfuera if
they can be legalized in the country in which they were granted, giving them pedirjudicialmente cause of action for compliance with the latest testator's will
regardless of the place of execution. Sinesa quedaria disposal the power to test truncated.
By amending this Court the Code of Civil Procedure, only amended the procedural part, but not the substantive part. "The law can not be enmendadapor
substantive rules of procedure." (Reyes v. Widow of Light, * 16 Lawyer Journal, 623.) For both, there is still subsisting as the articulo635 substantive law of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
And Article 637 reads: "Wills authenticated and legalized in the United States, or any state or territory thereof, or a state or paisextranjero, in accordance
with the laws of that state, territory or country, may be legalized yarchivados recorded in the Court of First Instance of the testator hath provinciaen property,
or properties efectados by such wills. "This articulono is in conflict with Article 635, in fact more than its corollary noes. If a will made in a foreign country can
be authenticated in accordance with the laws of that country may also legalized in the Philippines, with more reason legalizadosen wills and foreign
countries in accordance with the laws of these countries may also legalized in the Philippines.
Article 1 of Rule 78 is not more than a transplantation of Article 637 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reproduce the two provisions:
RULE 78 - SECTION 1. Wills proved Please Philippines May be allowed outside here . - Wills proved Product and allowed in a foreign country, According to
the laws of Such country, May be allowed, filed, and recorded by the proper Court of First Instance in the Philippines.
SEC. 637. Wills proved Please islands outside May be allowed here . - Wills proved Product and allowed in the United States, or any State or Territory
thereof, or in a foreign state or country, According to the laws of Such State, Territory, or country, May be allowed, filed, and recorded in the Court of First
Instance of the province in Which the testator has real or estate on Which Such personnel will operate May .
The underlined words in the second disposition is not listed in the first.
Article 1 of Rule 78 can not prevent a testament Philippines legalized granted in a foreign country, if it can be legalized in accordance with the laws of that
country, not previously required to be legalized in this country. Is untenable, therefore, the theory of the opposition.
It reverses the order appealed from with costs against the appellee.
Paras, CJ Fair, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, MM., are satisfied.

Dela Cerna v. Potot Digest

Facts:
1. The spouses Bernabe Dela Serna and Gerasisa Rebabca executed a joint will where they gave two (2) parcels of land to manuela Rebaca, a niece, as
they didn't have their own child. When Bernabe died, the said will was probated in 1939.
2. Another petition for probate of the same will insofar as Gervasia was concerned was filed in 1952 but due to the failure of the petitioner (Manuela) to
appears, the same was dismissed in 1954.
3. The CFI held the petition (Bernabe probate) to be null and void as it is contrary to law. While the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the decree of
probate in 1939 was issued by a court of probate jurisdiction and conclusive as to the due execution of the will. Hence this appeal.
Issue: Whether or not the will is valid
RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision and held that Once a decree of probate becomes final in accordance with the rules of procedure, it is
res judicata. The final decree of probate entered in 1939 in the CFI of Cebu is conclusive as to the last will of Bernabe despite the fact that even then the
Civil Code already decreed the invalidity of joint wills. (There was an error on the court but the decree has now become final.)
The probate court committed an error of law which should have been corrected on appeals but which did not affect the jurisdiction of the probate court, nor
the conclusive effect of its final decision. A decision which is binding upon the whole world.
Nevertheless, the probate in 1939 only affected the share of Bernabe and could not include the disposition of the share of his wife which was still alive then,
her properties were still not within the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, the validity of the will with respect to her, must be on her death, be re-examined and
adjudicated de novo -- since a joint will is considered a separate will of each testator.
Paula DE LA CERNA, et al., petitioners, vs. Manuela REBACA-POTOT, et al., and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
G.R. No. L-20234, December 23, 1964
FACTS:
Spouses Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca, executed a joint last will and testament whereby they willed that their two parcels of land acquired
during their marriage together with all improvements thereon shall be given to Manuela Rebaca, their niece. Bernabe died and the will was probated in 1939
after due publication as required by law and there being no opposition. Upon the death of Gervasia Rebaca, another petition for the probate of the same will
insofar as Gervasia was concerned was filed by Manuela but the court dismissed it for failure of Manuela to appear.
Paula de la Cerna questioned for the nullity of the joint will of Bernabe being prohibited in the Philippine law. The Court of First Instance ordered the petition
heard and declared the testament null and void, for being executed contrary to the prohibition of joint wills in the Civil Code but on appeal by the
testamentary heir, the Court of Appeals reversed, on the ground that the decree of probate in 1939 was issued by a court of probate jurisdiction and
conclusive on the due execution of the testament. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not an error of law affects the conclusive effect of its decision.
2. Whether or not the joint will is valid as to the share of Gervasia who died later than Bernabe.
RULING:
The appealed decision correctly held that the final decree of probate, entered in 1939 by the Court of First Instance of Cebu (when the testator, Bernabe de
la Cerna, died), has conclusive effect as to his last will and testament despite the fact that even then the Civil Code already decreed the invalidity of joint
wills, whether in favor of the joint testators, reciprocally, or in favor of a third party (Art. 669, old Civil Code). A final judgment rendered on a petition for the
probate of a will is binding upon the whole world.
The probate decree in 1989 could only affect the share of the deceased husband, Bernabe de la Cerna. It could not include the disposition of the share of
the wife, Gervasia Rebaca, who was then still alive, and over whose interest in the conjugal properties the probate court acquired no jurisdiction, precisely
because her estate could not then be in issue. Be it remembered that prior to the new Civil Code, a will could not be probated during the testator's lifetime. It
follows that the validity of the joint will, in so far as the estate of the wife was concerned, must be, on her death, reexamined and adjudicated de novo, since
a joint will is considered a separate will of each testator. Therefore, the undivided interest of Gervasia Rebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs
intestate, and not exclusively to the testamentary heir, unless some other valid will in her favor is shown to exist, or unless she be the only heir intestate of
said Gervasia.

LAWS GOVERNING CONTENT

Art. 2263. Rights to the inheritance of a person who died, with or without a will, before the effectivity of this Code, shall be governed by the Civil Code of
1889, by other previous laws, and by the Rules of Court. The inheritance of those who, with or without a will, die after the beginning of the effectivity of this
Code, shall be adjudicated and distributed in accordance with this new body of laws and by the Rules of Court; but the testamentary provisions shall be
carried out insofar as they may be permitted by this Code. Therefore, legitimes, betterments, legacies and bequests shall be respected; however, their
amount shall be reduced if in no other manner can every compulsory heir be given his full share according to this Code.
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic
validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the
nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
BELLIS VS. BELLIS 20 SCRA 258
Facts:
Amos G. Bellis was a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his death. Before he died, he made two wills, one disposing his Texas properties, the other
disposing his Philippine properties. In both wills, the recognized illegitimate children were not given any share. Texas has no conflict rule (Rule of Private
International Law) governing successional rights. Furthermore, under Texas law, there are no compulsory heirs.
Issue: Whether or not such illegitimate children of Bellis be entitled to successional rights.
Held: The said illegitimate children are not entitled to their legitimes. Under Texas law, there are no legitimes. Even if the other will was executed in the
Philippines, his national law, still, will govern the properties for succession even if it is stated in his testate that it shall be governed by the Philippine law.
Cayetano vs. Leonides 129 SCRA 522
On January 31, 1977, Adoracion C. Campos died, leaving her father, petitioner Hermogenes Campos and her sisters, private respondent Nenita C. Paguia,
Remedios C. Lopezand Marieta C. Medina as the surviving heirs. AsHermogenes Campos was the only compulsory heir, heexecuted an Affidavit of
Adjudication under Rule 74, Section Iof the Rules of Court whereby he adjudicated unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of the deceased
AdoracionCampos. Eleven months after, on November 25, 1977, Nenita C.Paguia filed a petition for the reprobate of a will of thedeceased, Adoracion
Campos, which was allegedly executed in the United States and for her appointment as administratrix of the estate of the deceased testatrix. In her petition,
Nenita alleged that the testatrix was an
American citizen at the time of her death and was apermanent resident of 4633 Ditman Street, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that the testatrix died in M
anila onJanuary 31, 1977 while temporarily residing with her sister at2167 Leveriza, Malate, Manila; that during her lifetime, the testatrix made her last will
and testament on July 10, 1975,according to the laws of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., nominating Wilfredo Barzaga of New Jersey as executor; that after the
testatrix' death, her last will and testament was presented, probated, allowed, and registered with the Registry of Wills at
the County of Philadelphia, U.S.A., that Clement L. McLaughlin, the administrator who was appointed after
Dr.Barzaga had declined and waived his appointment asexecutor in favor of the former, is also a resident of Philadelphia, U.S.A., and that therefore, there is
an urgent need for the appointment of an administratrix to administer and eventually distribute the properties of the estate located in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, on June 6, 1982, petitioner Hermogenes Campos died and left a will, which, incidentally has been questioned by the respondent, his children
and forced heirs as, on its face patently null and void, and a fabrication, appointing Polly Cayetano as the executrix of his last will and testament. Cayetano,
therefore, filed a motion to substitute herself as petitioner in the instant case which was granted by the court on September 13, 1982.ISSUE: Whether or not
a compulsory heir may be validly excluded by a will executed by a foreign testator? HELD: YESRATIO: Although on its face, the
will appeared to havepreterited the petitioner and thus, the respondent judgeshould have denied its reprobate outright, the privaterespondents have sufficien
tly established that Adoracionwas, at the time of her death, an American citizen and apermanent resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.Therefore,
under Article 16 par. (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code which respectively provide
B. Subjects of Succession
1. Who are the subjects?
Article 775, NCC Decedents and Testators
1. Decedent: a person whose property is transmitted through succession (generallyspeaking, as he/she may or may not have left a will)
2.Testator: a decedent who left a will.
1. Who are the subjects?
The Decedent (testator)
Art. 775. In this Title, "decedent" is the general term applied to the person whose property is transmitted through succession, whether or not he left a will. If
he left a will, he is also called the testator.
Devisee to those who, real property is given in a will
Legatee to those who, personal property is given in a will
Heir those who inherit in the general sense.
Is a devisee an heir? Is an heir a devisee? Not necessarily the same. An heir has an obligation to pay the credits as to the value of the inheritance.
Article 782, NCC Concept of Heir (General)
Anyone who succeeds to the whole or to a portion or fraction of the inheritance (understood as the indeterminate mass or totality of the transmissible
property, rights, and obligations of the deceased), whether by virtue of a will or by intestacy.1.includes all relatives who succeed by virtue of the laws of
intestate succession2.includes all persons, whether relatives or not, who take what might be called the residuary estate under a will
Kinds of Heirs
1.Compulsory heirs
a. Those who succeed by force of law to some portion of the inheritance, in an amount predetermined by law, of which they cannot be deprived by the
testator, except by a valid disinheritance. b. Succeeds regardless of the will of the decedent
2.Voluntary or testamentary heirs
a. Those who are instituted by the testator in his will, to succeed to the inheritance or the portion thereof of which the testator can freely
dispose; their right to the succession depends entirely upon the will b. Succeeds by reason of a will
3.Legal or Intestate heirs
a. Those who succeed to the estate of the decedent who dies without a valid will, or to the portion of such estate not disposed of by will b. Succeeds in the
absence of a will
Legatees and Devisees
1.Legatees: one who is given a gift of personal property by will2.Devisee: one to whom real property is one to whom real property is given by will There are
devisee(s) and/or legatee(s) only in testamentary succession The devisee or legatee, by express disposition of the testator, succeeds him in a determinate
or individualized thing or quantity, without continuing his personality
Importance of the difference between heir(s) and legatee(s)

Although the difference between heir and legatee (or devisee), which is transcendental in the Spanish law, has lost much of its importance in Philippine
jurisdiction it does not mean that the distinction has been entirely abolished so as to render the provisions of the Code regarding institution of heirs useless
or superfluous.
Article 887, NCC Compulsory and Intestate heirs distinguished
COMPULSORY HEIRS INTESTATE HEIRS Called to succession by operation of law Called to succession by operation of law
Succeeds to his legitime even when the testator has so disposed of his property by will Succeeds only when the deceased has not disposed of his property
by will* an heir of whatever classification is absolutely free to accept or renounce the inheritance
Law on Legitime explained
the law on legitime is a restriction, not on the freedom to the heir to accept or repudiate the inheritance, but on the freedom of the testator to dispose of his
property
the fact of being a compulsory heir imposes no obligation to accept or receive the legitime
Kinds of Compulsory Heirs1.Primary
a. Those who have precedence over and exclude the other compulsory heirs b .Legitimate children and descendants (legitimate, legitimated, adopted)
2.Secondary a. Those who succeed only in the absence of primary heirs b. The legitimate parents and ascendants
3.Concurring a. Those who succeed together with the primary or the secondary heirs b. The illegitimate children, and the surviving spouse
Primary Compulsory Heirs 4
1.Legitimate Children and Descendants
a. Rationale: Since the law on legitime flows from natural law, it follows that relatives in the direct line should receive preference in the succession; and since
in the ordinary course of nature, the father or mother should die ahead of the child, the law confers preferential legitimary rights upon the children and
descendants.
b. Application: if there are children, all of them living and with capacity to succeed and none of them has been disinherited, only such children succeed to
the exclusion of the other descendants who may be existing at the time of the testators
death. Thus, the nearest in degree exclude the more remote, except in cases whererepresentation is proper (
incapacity).
2. Legitimated Children (children legitimated by subsequent marriage of the parents) have the same position as legitimate children and descendants.
a. Article 272,NCC: Children who are legitimated by subsequent marriage shall enjoy the same rights as legitimate children
b. Article 274,NCC: The legitimation of children who died before the celebration of the marriage shall benefit their descendants.
3. Adopted Children. Have the same successional rights, in relation to the adopting parents, as those of the legitimate child in relation to its parents
a. Article 189 (1), FC: For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopters and both shall acquire the reciprocal rights
and obligations arising from the relationship of parent and child, including the right of the adopted to use the surname of the adopters.
Parents and Ascendants1.Legitimate and Legitimated (Secondary Compulsory Heirs)
a. Entitled to legitime only when the deceased does not have legitimate children and
descendantsb.Concurrence of illegitimate children and their descendants with parents orascendants of the deceased is not an obstacle to the
forced succession of the parents and ascendants because the share of the illegitimate children are taken from the free portion and do not affect the legitime
of the parents and ascendants
2.Illegitimate parents (Compulsory heir to the extent provided by Article 903)
a. Article ___, NCC: the legitime of the parents who have an illegitimate child,
whensuch chilled leaves neither legitimate descendants, nor a surviving spouse, norillegitimate children, is one-half of the hereditary estate of such
illegitimate child. If only legitimate or illegitimate children are left, the parents are not entitled to any legitime whatsoever. If only the widow or widower
survives with parents of the illegitimate child, the legitime of the parents is one-fourth of the hereditary estate of the child, and that of the surviving spouse
also one-fourth of the estate. b. Compulsory heirs only in the absence of legitimate, or illegitimate children of the decedent
3.Adopting parents (not a Compulsory heir, according to Tolentino, as the law is silent)
a. Article 342, NCC omitted by FC (impliedly repealed): the adopter shall not be a legal heir of the adopted person, whose parents by nature shall inherit
from him
b. Article 190, FC: legal or intestate succession to the estate of the adopted shall be governed by the following rules:
i. Legitimate and illegitimate children and descendants and the survivingspouse of the adopted shall inherit from the adopted in accordance with the ordinary
rules of legal or intestate succession; ii. When the parents, legitimate or illegitimate, or the legitimate descendants of the adopted concur with the adopters,
they shall divide the entire estate, one-half to be inherited by the parents or ascendants and the other half, by the
adopters;iii.When the surviving spouse or the illegitimate children and the survivingspouse of the adopted, they shall divide the entire estate in equal shares,
one-third to be inherited by the illegitimate children, one-third by the surviving spouse, and one-third by the adopters; iv. When only the adopters
survive, they shall inherit the entire estate; and v. When only collateral blood relatives of the adopted survive, then the ordinary rules of legal or intestate
succession shall apply.
c. Article 189 (1), FC: For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopters and both shall acquire the reciprocal rights
and obligations arising from the relationship of parent and child, including the right of the adopted to use the surname of the adopters
Difference of heirs (782) in general sense.
Specific heirs instituted by a will; Devisee an heir in the specific sense
Article 940 par 2 if the heir, legatee or devisee, who may have been given the choice, dies before making it, this right shall pass to the respective heirs
CLASSIFICATION OF HEIRS
1. Compulsory Heirs
a. Primary Compulsory Heir (PCH) only legitimate children and decedents; adopted children (only have similar rights as that of legitimate children; they
have no right of representation (iron curtain rule) cannot inherit from grandparents)*to be a compulsory heir must they be related by blood? Not
necessarily- because of adoption (adopted children has no right of representation they cannot inherit from grandparents).- Spouse (not blood related
[blood related can be married only beyond the 4th degree (2nd degree cousins)]Are all decedents compulsory heirs? No, only legitimate children
b. Secondary Compulsory Heir (SCH) legitimate parents and ascendants (will only inherit in default of PCH)
Illegitimate parents (parents of illegitimate children) are compulsory heirs (secondary compulsory heirs)
c. Concurring Compulsory Heir (CCH) surviving spouse; illegitimate children2. Voluntary Heirs
Only natural persons may be voluntary heirs? No, even juridical persons may be voluntary heirs (based on CC -1026 & 782)3. Legal Heirs
WHO ARE LEGAL HEIRS? (All compulsory heirs, collateral relatives, the state)
The Heir, devisee, Legatee (All compulsory heirs)Is there a limitation (like the collateral relatives) in the direct line to be able to inherit? Say, up to the 10 th
civil degree? No limitation provided by law but it is humanly impossible
a person may be considered compulsory heir but it does not necessarily mean that he will inherit he may be disinherited, etc. (tagapagmana vs.
magmamana)
Art. 782. An heir is a person called to the succession either by the provision of a will or by operation of law. Devisees and legatees are persons to whom
gifts of real and personal property are respectively given by virtue of a will.
Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants; (PCH)

(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and descendants; (SCH)
(3) The widow or widower; (CCH)
(4) Acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction; (CCH)
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287. (CCH) Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2;
neither do they exclude one another. In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved. The father or mother of illegitimate children of the
three classes mentioned, shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code. (807a) (SCH)
The Collateral Relatives (not necessarily legal heirs must be within the 5th civil degree) 2nd cousins are heirs? No, because they are 6th degree removed
from the decedent 1st cousins 4th degrees removed Nieces & nephews, aunts & uncles (from cousins), brother of great grandfather 5 degrees removed
Art. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of
the deceased in accordance with the following articles. (946a)Art. 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of the full blood, they shall inherit
in equal shares. (947)Art. 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together with nephews and nieces, who are the children of the descendant's brothers
and sisters of the full blood, the former shall inherit per capita, and the latter per stirpes. In relation to Article 975 which states Art. 975. When children of one
or more brothers or sisters of the deceased survive, they shall inherit from the latter by representation, if they survive with their uncles or aunts. But if they
alone survive, they shall inherit in equal portions.
Division per capita entails a division of the estate into as many equal parts as there are persons to succeed. If there are three children, for instance, each
will receive, per capita, one third of the estate. Division per capita is the general rule.
Division per stirpes is made when a sole descendant or a group of descendants represent a person in intestate succession. The sole representative or
groups of representatives are counted as one head. Thus, should a father be survived by a son and four children of another son who predeceased him,
then, the estate is divided per stirpes. The first half is given to the surviving son and the other half shall be divided among the four grandchildren.
Art. 1006. Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and sisters of the half blood, the former shall be entitled to a share
double that of the latter. (949)Art. 1007. In case brothers and sisters of the half blood, some on the father's and some on the mother's side, are the only
survivors, all shall inherit in equal shares without distinction as to the origin of the property. (950)Art. 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood
shall succeed per capita or per stirpes, in accordance with the rules laid down for the brothers and sisters of the full blood.
SUBSECTION 1. - Relationship
Art. 963. Proximity of relationship is determined by the number of generations. Each generation forms a degree. (915)
Art. 964. A series of degrees forms a line, which may be either direct or collateral.
A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants.
A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons who are not ascendants and descendants, but who come from a common
ancestor. (916a)
Art. 965. The direct line is either descending or ascending.
The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from him.
The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends. (917)
Art. 966. In the line, as many degrees are counted as there are generations or persons, excluding the progenitor.
In the direct line, ascent is made to the common ancestor. Thus, the child is one degree removed from the parent, two from the grandfather, and three from
the great-grandparent.
In the collateral line, ascent is made to the common ancestor and then descent is made to the person with whom the computation is to be made. Thus, a
person is two degrees removed from his brother, three from his uncle, who is the brother of his father, four from his first cousin, and so forth. (918a)
Art. 967. Full blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father and the same mother.
Half blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father, but not the same mother, or the same mother, but not the same
father. (920a)
Art. 968. If there are several relatives of the same degree, and one or some of them are unwilling or incapacitated to succeed, his portion shall accrue to the
others of the same degree, save the right of representation when it should take place. (922)
Art. 969. If the inheritance should be repudiated by the nearest relative, should there be one only, or by all the nearest relatives called by law to succeed,
should there be several, those of the following degree shall inherit in their own right and cannot represent the person or persons repudiating the inheritance.
Art. 1034. In order to judge the capacity of the heir, devisee or legatee, his qualification at the time of the death of the decedent shall be the criterion.
In cases falling under Nos. 2, 3, or 5 of Article 1032, it shall be necessary to wait until final judgment is rendered, and in the case falling under No. 4, the
expiration of the month allowed for the report.
If the institution, devise or legacy should be conditional, the time of the compliance with the condition shall also be considered.
Art. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic
validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the
nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
SECTION 2. - Capacity to Succeed by Will of by Intestacy
Art. 1024. Persons not incapacitated by law may succeed by will or ab intestato.
The provisions relating to incapacity by will are equally applicable to intestate succession. (744, 914)
Art. 1025. In order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens, except in case of
representation, when it is proper.
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)
Art. 1026. A testamentary disposition may be made to the State, provinces, municipal corporations, private corporations, organizations, or associations for
religious, scientific, cultural, educational, or charitable purposes.
All other corporations or entities may succeed under a will, unless there is a provision to the contrary in their charter or the laws of their creation, and always
subject to the same. (746a)
Art. 1027. The following are incapable of succeeding:
(1) The priest who heard the confession of the testator during his last illness, or the minister of the gospel who extended spiritual aid to him during the same
period;
(2) The relatives of such priest or minister of the gospel within the fourth degree, the church, order, chapter, community, organization, or institution to which
such priest or minister may belong;
(3) A guardian with respect to testamentary dispositions given by a ward in his favor before the final accounts of the guardianship have been approved, even
if the testator should die after the approval thereof; nevertheless, any provision made by the ward in favor of the guardian when the latter is his ascendant,
descendant, brother, sister, or spouse, shall be valid;
(4) Any attesting witness to the execution of a will, the spouse, parents, or children, or any one claiming under such witness, spouse, parents, or children;

(5) Any physician, surgeon, nurse, health officer or druggist who took care of the testator during his last illness;
(6) Individuals, associations and corporations not permitted by law to inherit. (745, 752, 753, 754a)
Art. 1028. The prohibitions mentioned in article 739, concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary provisions. (n)
Art. 1029. Should the testator dispose of the whole or part of his property for prayers and pious works for the 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 the church or denomination to which
the testator may belong, to be used for such prayers and pious works, and the other half to the State, for the purposes mentioned in Article 1013.(747a)
Art. 1030. Testamentary provisions in favor of the poor in general, without designation of particular persons or of any community, shall be deemed limited to
the poor living in the domicile of the testator at the time of his death, unless it should clearly appear that his intention was otherwise.
The designation of the persons who are to be considered as poor and the distribution of the property shall be made by the person appointed by the testator
for the purpose; in default of such person, by the executor, and should there be no executor, by the justice of the peace, the mayor, and the municipal
treasurer, who shall decide by a majority of votes all questions that may arise. In all these cases, the approval of the Court of First Instance shall be
necessary. The preceding paragraph shall apply when the testator has disposed of his property in favor of the poor of a definite locality.
PARISH PRIEST OF VICTORIA V. RIGOR (CIVIL)
The will of the testator is the first and principal law in the matter of testaments. When his intention is clearly and precisely expressed, any interpretation must
be in accord with the plain and literal meaning of his words, except when it may certainly appear that his contention was different from that literally
expressed.
The intent of the testator is the cardinal rule in the construction of wills. It is the greatest rule in giving effect to a will.
From the testamentary provisions, it may be deduced that the testator intended to devise the ricelands to his nearest male relative who would become a
priest, who was forbidden to sell the ricelands, who would lose the devise if he discontinued his studies for the priesthood, or having been ordained a priest,
he was excommunicated, and who would be obligated to say masses for the repose of the souls of the testator and his parents.
On the other hand, it is clear that the parish priest of Victoria would administer the ricelands only in two situations: (a) during the interval of time that no
nearest male relative of the testator was studying for priesthood; and (b) in case the testator's nephew became a priest and he was excommunicated.
Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest, the unavoidable conclusion is that the bequest in question was ineffectual
or inoperative. Therefore, the administration of the ricelands by the parish priest of Victoria as envisaged in the will was likewise inoperative.
The appellant in contending that a public charitable trust was constituted by the testator in his favor assumes that he was a trustee or a substitute devisee.
The contention is untenable. A reading of the testamentary provisions does not support the view that the parish priest was a trustee or a substitute devisee
in the event that the testator was not survived by a nephew who became a priest.
The CA correctly rules that this case is covered by Article 956 of the Civil Code which provides that if "the bequest for any reason should be inoperative, it
shall be merged into the estate, except in cases of substitution and those in this the right of accretion exists."
This case is also covered by Article 960(2) which provides "legal succession takes place when the will does not dispose of all the belongings to the testator."
There being no substitution nor accretion as to the said ricelands, the same should be distributed among the legal heirs. The effect is as if the testator had
made no disposition as to the said ricelands.
The Civil Code recognizes that a person may die partly testate and partly intestate, or that there may be mixed succession. If a conditional legacy does not
take effect, there will be intestate succession as to the property recovered by the said legacy.
PARISH PRIEST OF VICTORIA v RIGOR 89 SCRA 493AQUINO, April 30, 1979
FACTS
- Father Rigor, the parish priest of Pulilan, Bulacan, died in 1935, leaving a will which was probated by the CFI of Tarlac. Named as devisees in the will were
the testator's nearest relatives: his 3 sisters and a cousin.- In addition, the will contained a controversial bequest: a devise of rice lands with a total area of
around 44 hectares in favor of his nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood. The parish priest of Victoria would administer the rice lands
during the interval of time that no nearest male relative of the testator was studying for the priesthood.- Inasmuch as no nephew of the testator claimed the
devise and as the administratrix and the legal heirs believed that the parish priest of Victoria had no right to
administerthe rice lands, the same were not delivered to that ecclesiastic. The testateproceeding remained pending.
SUCCESSION A2010
- In 1957 the parish priest filed a petition for the delivery of the rice lands to the church as trustee. The intestate heirs of Father Rigor countered with a
petition praying that the bequest he declared inoperative and that they be adjudged as the persons entitled to the said rice lands since no nearest male
relative of the testator has ever studied for the priesthood. The lower court declared the bequest inoperative and adjudicated the rice lands to the testator's
legal's heirs. The parish priest filed two motions for reconsideration. The second MR was granted on the ground that the testator had a grandnephew named
Edgardo Cunanan (his cousins grandson who appears to have been born after his death) who was a seminarian in the San Jose Seminary of the Jesuit
Fathers in QC. The administrator was directed to deliver the ricelands to the parish priest of Victoria as trustee. (While the case was pending, in 1961,
Edgardo ceased to be a seminarian.)- The CA reversed that order. It held that Father Rigor had created a testamentary trust for his nearest male relative
who would take the holy orders but that such trust could exist only for 20 years because to enforce it beyond that period would violate "the rule against
perpetuities". It ruled that since no legatee claimed the rice lands within 20 after the testator's death, the same should pass to his legal heirs, citing Arts888
and 912(2) of the old CC and Art 870 of the new CC.
ISSUE
WON the testator contemplated only his nearest male relative at the time of his death and not any of his nearest male relatives at any time after his death?
HELD
YES. Only his nearest male relative at the time of his death. In order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment
the succession opens, except in case of representation, when it is proper.
Reasoning
The said testamentary provisions should be sensibly or reasonably construed. To construe them as referring to the testator's nearest male relative at
anytime after his death would render the provisions difficult to apply and create uncertainty as to the disposition of his estate. That could not have been his
intention.- Had the testator intended to include indefinitely anyone of his nearest male relatives born after his death he could have so specified in his will. He
must have known that such a broad provision would suspend for an unlimited period of time the efficaciousness of his bequest. The reasonable view is that
he was referring to a situation whereby his nephew living at the time of his death, who would like to become a priest, was still in grade school or in high
school or was not yet in the Seminary. In that case, the parish priest of Victoria would administer the rice lands before the nephew entered the seminary. But
the moment the testator's nephew entered the seminary, he would be entitled to enjoy and administer the rice lands and receive the fruits. In that event,
the trusteeship would be terminated.- Following that interpretation of the will, the inquiry would be whether at the time Father Rigor died he had a nephew
who was studying for the priesthood or who had manifested his desire to follow the ecclesiastical career. That query is categorically answered in paragraph
4 of appellant priest's petitions. He unequivocally alleged therein that no nearest male relative of the late Father Rigor has ever studied for the priesthood.Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest, the unavoidable conclusion is that the bequest in question was ineffectual
or inoperative. Therefore, the administration of the rice lands by the parish priest of Victoria, as envisaged in the will, was likewise inoperative.- This case is
covered by Art 912(2) of the old CC, now Art 960(2), which provides that legal succession takes piece when the will "does not dispose of all that belongs to
the testator." There being no substitution or accretion as to the said rice lands, it should be distributed among the testator's legal heirs. The effect is as if the
testator had made no disposition as to the said rice lands
Art. 1031. A testamentary provision in favor of a disqualified person, even though made under the guise of an onerous contract, or made through an
intermediary, shall be void. (755)

Art. 1032. The following are incapable of succeeding by reason of unworthiness:

(1) Parents who have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to lead a corrupt or immoral life, or attempted against their virtue;
(2) Any person who has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or ascendants;
(3) Any person who has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation has been found
groundless;
(4) Any heir of full age who, having knowledge of the violent death of the testator, should fail to report it to an officer of the law within a month, unless the
authorities have already taken action; this prohibition shall not apply to cases wherein, according to law, there is no obligation to make an accusation;
(5) Any person convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
(6) Any person who by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence should cause the testator to make a will or to change one already made;
(7) Any person who by the same means prevents another from making a will, or from revoking one already made, or who supplants, conceals, or alters the
latter's will;
(8) Any person who falsifies or forges a supposed will of the decedent.(756, 673, 674a)
Art. 1033. The cause of unworthiness shall be without effect if the testator had knowledge thereof at the time he made the will, or if, having known of them
subsequently, he should condone them in writing. (757a)
Art. 1034. In order to judge the capacity of the heir, devisee or legatee, his qualification at the time of the death of the decedent shall be the criterion.
In cases falling under Nos. 2, 3, or 5 of Article 1032, it shall be necessary to wait until final judgment is rendered, and in the case falling under No. 4, the
expiration of the month allowed for the report.
If the institution, devise or legacy should be conditional, the time of the compliance with the condition shall also be considered. (758a)
Art. 1035. If the person excluded from the inheritance by reason of incapacity should be a child or descendant of the decedent and should have children or
descendants, the latter shall acquire his right to the legitime.
The person so excluded shall not enjoy the usufruct and administration of the property thus inherited by his children. (761a)
Art. 1036. Alienations of hereditary property, and acts of administration performed by the excluded heir, before the judicial order of exclusion, are valid as to
the third persons who acted in good faith; but the co-heirs shall have a right to recover damages from the disqualified heir. (n)
Art. 1037. The unworthy heir who is excluded from the succession has a right to demand indemnity or any expenses incurred in the preservation of the
hereditary property, and to enforce such credits as he may have against the estate. (n)
Art. 1038. Any person incapable of succession, who, disregarding the prohibition stated in the preceding articles, entered into the possession of the
hereditary property, shall be obliged to return it together it its accessions.
He shall be liable for all the fruits and rents he may have received, or could have received through the exercise of due diligence. (760a)
Art. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent. (n)
Art. 1040. The action for a declaration of incapacity and for the recovery of the inheritance, devise or legacy shall be brought within five years from the time
the disqualified person took possession thereof. It may be brought by any one who may have an interest in the succession.