SUCCESSION
Legend:
T Senator Tolentino comments
B Professor Balane comments
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
- jann -
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. 1012. In order that the State may take possession of the property
mentioned in the preceding article, the pertinent provisions of the
Rules of Court must be observed. (958a)
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. (915)
Art. 1013. After the payment of debts and charges, the personal
property shall be assigned to the municipality or city where the
deceased last resided in the Philippines, and the real estate to the
municipalities or cities, respectively, in which the same is situated.
Art. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children of
brothers or sisters, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the
estate.
Such estate shall be for the benefit of public schools, and public
charitable institutions and centers, in such municipalities or cities.
The court shall distribute the estate as the respective needs of each
beneficiary may warrant.
Art. 1010. The right to inherit ab intestato shall not extend beyond the
fifth degree of relationship in the collateral line.(955a)
The State
Art. 1011. In default of persons entitled to succeed in accordance
with the provisions of the preceding Sections, the State shall inherit
the whole estate. (956a)
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.
- jann -
3. Capacity to Succeed
The general rule is any person may succeed by law or by
will unless excluded by law.
Requisites of capacity to succeed: a) that there be general
civil capacity of the person, whether natural or artificial, according to
law; and b) that here be no incapacity to succeed under express
provision of law.
a.
Determination
- jann -
- jann -
- jann -
Art. 776. The inheritance includes all the property, rights and
obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death.
It is evident from this article that the inheritance does not include
everything that belongs to the deceased at the time of his death. It is
limited to the property, rights, and obligations not extinguish by his
death. Including those transmissible rights and property accruing
thereto from that time pertain to the heir.
The following are the rights and obligations extinguished by death:
those arising from marriage
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
d.
8.
right of usufruct
9.
e.
C. Object of Succession
1.
(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;
f.
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.
10. rights arising from agency not the effects already executed
11. criminal responsibility
2.
3.
b.
c.
The heirs of the deceased are no longer liable for the debts he may
leave at the time of his death. Such debts are chargeable against the
property or assets left by the deceased. In other words, the heirs are
no longer liable personally for the debts of the deceased ; such debts
must be collected only from the property left upon his death, and if
this should not be sufficient to cover all of them, the heirs cannot be
made to pay the uncollectible balance.
Prescription of Action
- jann -
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.
When the object of the contract is not a part of the inheritance, the
prohibition does not apply, even if delivery of such object is
dependent upon the death of one of the contracting parties. Thus, life
insurance contracts, and stipulations providing for reversion of
property donated in marriage settlements in the event of the death of
the donee, are valid. Likewise, if the right of the party over the thing
is not by virtue of succession, but as creditor, the contract does not
fall within the prohibition of this article. It has been held that in a
contract of purchase by co-owners, it is valid to stipulate that in the
event of death of any of them, those who survive will acquire the
share of the predeceased.
- jann -
After the death of the person, however, the properties and rights left
by him by way of inheritance can be the subject matter of a contract
among or by his heirs, even before a partition thereof has been
made, because the rights of the heirs are transmitted to them from
the death of the predecessor.
- jann -
Art. 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes,
including the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea
voyage, or an aeroplane which is missing, who has not
been heard of for four years since the loss of the
vessel or aeroplane;
(2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in
war, and has been missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under
other circumstances and his existence has not been
known for four years. (n)
Art. 84. If the future spouses agree upon a regime other than the
absolute community of property, they cannot donate to each
other in their marriage settlements more than one-fifth of their
present property. Any excess shall be considered void.
Donations of future property shall be governed by the
provisions on testamentary succession and the formalities of
wills. (130a)
These donations, unlike donations of present property which take
effect upon the celebration of the marriage, take effect upon the
death of the donor spouse. It cannot be made in the marriage
settlement but in a will or testament. Its limits are governed by the
rules of testamentary succession provided by the Civil Code. Since a
will can be revoked by the testator at any time before his death the
donation propter nuptias of future property may be so revoked.
Persons other than the affianced parties cannot give donations
propter nuptial of future property.
2.
3.
- jann -
Ratio: the will of man is changeable. Even just before the moment of
his death he may change his mind. A person who accepts from a
living person an inheritance accepts or repudiates nothing at all. If a
person is uncertain of his right to inherit then his acceptance or
repudiation is ineffective.
Art. 1044. Any person having the free disposal of his property
may accept or repudiate an inheritance.
(3) If he renounces it for a price in favor of all his coheirs indiscriminately; but if this renunciation should
be gratuitous, and the co-heirs in whose favor it is
made are those upon whom the portion renounced
should devolve by virtue of accretion, the inheritance
shall not be deemed as accepted. (1000)
- jann -
2.
10
4.
2.
3.
4.
Exceptions:
2.
3.
Art. 1057. Within thirty days after the court has issued an order
for the distribution of the estate in accordance with the Rules of
Court, the heirs, devisees and legatees shall signify to the court
having jurisdiction whether they accept or repudiate the
inheritance.
If they do not do so within that time, they are deemed to have
accepted
the
inheritance.
(n)
1.
CASES:
2.
3.
- jann -
Maria Uson was the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda who upon his
death in 1945 left the lands involved in this litigation. Faustino
Nebreda left no other heir except his widow Maria Uson. However,
plaintiff claims that when Faustino Nebreda died in 1945, his
common- law wife Maria del Rosario took possession illegally of said
lands thus depriving her of their possession and enjoyment.
Defendants in their answer set up as special defense that on
February 21, 1931, Maria Uson and her husband, the late Faustino
Nebreda, executed a public document whereby they agreed to
separate as husband and wife and, in consideration of their
separation, Maria Uson was given a parcel of land by way of alimony
and in return she renounced her right to inherit any other property
that may be left by her husband upon his death (Exhibit 1). After trial,
11
The claim of the defendants that Maria Uson had relinquished her
right over the lands in question because she expressly renounced to
inherit any future property that her husband may acquire and leave
upon his death in the deed of separation they had entered into on
February 21, 1931, cannot be entertained for the simple reason that
future inheritance cannot be the subject of a contract nor can it be
renounced (1 Manresa, 123, sixth edition; Tolentino on Civil Code, p.
12; Osorio vs. Osorio and Ynchausti Steamship Co., 41 Phil., 531).
But defendants contend that, while it is true that the four minor
defendants are illegitimate children of the late Faustino Nebreda and
under the old Civil Code are not entitled to any successional rights,
however, under the new Civil Code which became in force in June,
1950, they are given the status and rights of natural children and are
entitled to the successional rights which the law accords to the latter
(Article 2264 and article 287, new Civil Code), and because these
successional rights were declared for the first time in the new code,
they shall be given retroactive effect even though the event which
gave rise to them may have occurred under the prior legislation
(Article 2253, new Civil Code).
There is no merit in this claim. Article 2253 above referred to
provides indeed that rights which are declared for the first time shall
have retroactive effect even though the event which gave rise to
them may have occurred under the former legislation, but this is so
only when the new rights do not prejudice any vested or
acquired right of the same origin. Thus, said article provides that
"if a right should be declared for the first time in this Code, it shall be
effective at once, even though the act or event which gives rise
thereto may have been done or may have occurred under the prior
legislation, provided said new right does not prejudice or impair any
vested or acquired right, of the same origin." As already stated in the
early part of this decision, the right of ownership of Maria Uson over
the lands in question became vested in 1945 upon the death of her
late husband and this is so because of the imperative provision of
the law which commands that the rights to succession are
transmitted from the moment of death (Article 657, old Civil Code).
The new right recognized by the new Civil Code in favor of the
illegitimate children of the deceased cannot, therefore, be asserted
to the impairment of the vested right of Maria Uson over the lands in
dispute.
As regards the claim that Maria Uson, while her deceased husband
was lying in state, in a gesture of pity or compassion, agreed to
assign the lands in question to the minor children for the reason that
they were acquired while the deceased was living with their mother
and Maria Uson wanted to assuage somewhat the wrong she has
done to them, this much can be said; apart from the fact that this
claim is disputed, we are of the opinion that said assignment, if any,
partakes of the nature of a donation of real property, inasmuch as it
involves no material consideration, and in order that it may be valid it
shall be made in a public document and must be accepted either in
the same document or in a separate one (Article 633, old Civil
- jann -
12
- jann -
13
- jann -
14
E. Kinds of Succesion
Art. 778. Succession may be:
2.
3.
4.
(1) Testamentary;
(2) Legal or intestate; or
- jann -
Art. 130. The future spouses may give each other in their
marriage settlements as much as one-fifth of their present
property, and with respect to their future property, only in the
event of death, to the extent laid down by the provisions of this
Code referring to testamentary succession.
Art. 1347. All things which are not outside the commerce of
men, including future things, may be the object of a contract. All
rights which are not intransmissible may also be the object of
contracts.
No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except
in cases expressly authorized by law.
15
Art. 84. If the future spouses agree upon a regime other than the
absolute community of property, they cannot donate to each
other in their marriage settlements more than one-fifth of their
present property. Any excess shall be considered void.
Donations of future property shall be governed by the
provisions on testamentary succession and the formalities of
wills. (130a)
These donations, unlike donations of present property which take
effect upon the celebration of the marriage, take effect upon the
death of the donor spouse. It cannot be made in the marriage
settlement but in a will or testament. Its limits are governed by the
rules of testamentary succession. Since a will can be revoked by the
testator at any time before his death the donation propter nuptias of
future property may be so revoked. Persons other than the affianced
parties cannot give donations propter nuptias of future property.
There is no more contractual succession by virtue of the the repeal
of Article 130 of the Old Civil Code which was amended under Article
84 of the Family Code. In mandating the applicability of the rules on
Succession to donation of future property between spouses, the law,
therefore, eliminated this kind of succession. Hence, by implication
such type of succession under Article 84 is considered an ordinary
testamentary succession.
TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION
II. WILLS
A. Definition
Art. 783. A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the
formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the
disposition of this estate, to take effect after his death. (667a)
Better definition:
- jann -
Balane:
9. individual (Art. 818)
10. executed with animus testandi (Art. 783)
11. Statutory (Art. 783)
Art. 783. A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the
formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the
disposition of this estate, to take effect after his death. (667a)
B: The word Act is too broad and should have been limited to a
more specific term such as instrument or document in view of Art.
804 that every will must be in writing.
The requirement of form prescribed respectively for attested and
holographic wills.
The testators power of disposition is limited by the rules on
legitimes.
Will making is purely statutory being defined as permitted.
Art. 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the following
cases:
(1) If the formalities required by law have not been
complied with;
(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally
incapable of making a will, at the time of its execution;
(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or
the influence of fear, or threats;
(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure
and influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of some
other person;
(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by
fraud;
(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend
that the instrument he signed should be his will at the
time of affixing his signature thereto. (n)
B: This is an exclusive enumeration for the causes of disallowance of
a will. These are matters involved in the formal validity. A probate
16
Art. 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the
moment of the death of the decedent. (657a)
If any of these grounds is proved the will is void. A will is either valid
or void. If none of the defects are present the will is valid; if any
defect is present the will is void. The issue on formal validity is what
the probate proceedings will determine. There is no such thing as a
voidable will.
Art. 828. A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before
his death. Any waiver or restriction of this right is void. (737a)
T: During the life of the testator the will is said to be ambulatory and
may be altered, revoked, or superseded at any time. Its is of no
possible effect as a will while the maker lives.
A will may be revoked at pleasure. Revocation is an act of the mind,
terminating the potential capacity of the will to operate at the death of
the testator, manifested by some outward and visible act or sign,
symbolic thereof.
Revocation
vs.
1. act of testator
2. presupposes a valid act
3. inter vivos
4. testator cannot renounce
Nullity
1. proceeds from law
2. inherent from the will
3. invoked After death
4. can be disregarded by heirs
- jann -
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
17
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
C. Interpretation of Wills
Art. 788. If a testamentary disposition admits of different
interpretations, in case of doubt, that interpretation by which
the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred. (n)
T: The presumption is that the testator intended a lawful rather than
an unlawful thing, and courts will not seek an interpretation that will
nullify his will or any part thereof.That construction must be followed
which will sustatn and uphold the will in all its parts, if it can be done
consistently with the established rules of law. If the will is susceptible
of two interpretations , the doubt must be resolved in favor of the
construction which will give effect to the will, rather than the one
which will defeat it.
Art. 789. When there is an imperfect description, or when no
person or property exactly answers the description, mistakes
and omissions must be corrected, if the error appears from the
context of the will or from extrinsic evidence, excluding the oral
declarations of the testator as to his intention; and when an
uncertainty 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 consideration
the circumstances under which it was made, excluding such
oral declarations. (n)
T: The first part of this article pertains to patent or extrinsic ambiguity
which appears upon the face of the instrument such as when the
testator gives a devise or legacy to SOME of the six children of his
cousin Juan
- jann -
18
- jann -
possessed in his name until his death, having declared the property
for taxation as his own and collected the income therefrom for
himself.
As may also be seen Leandro Serrano named his son Simeon
Serrano, as executor of his will and that he directed him to put all of
his property in order and to separate that which came from his
deceased grandmother Maria Solla, which he gives to his said son
Simeon Serrano and orders that same be disposed of exclusively in
conformity with the wishes of his said grandmother, not forgetting the
souls of all of his grandmother's relatives and of his own for whose
repose nine masses were to be said annually during nine days, with
a solemn mass on the first and last days.
In order to determine the testator's intention, the court should place
itself as near as possible in his position, and hence, where the
language of the will is ambiguous or doubtful, should take into
consideration the situation of the testator and the facts and
circumstances surrounding him at the time the will was executed. (40
Cyc., 1392.) Where the testator's intention is manifest from the
context of the will and surrounding circumstances, but is obscured by
inapt and inaccurate modes of expression, the language will be
subordinated to the intention, and in order to give effect to such
intention, as far as possible, the court may depart from the strict
wording and read a word or phrase in a sense different from that
which is ordinarily attributed to it, and for such purpose may mould or
change the language of the will, such as restricting its application or
supplying omitted words or phrases. (40 Cyc., 1399.)
In the present case, it clearly appearing that it was Maria Solla's
intention, in ordering her universal heir Leandro Serrano in her will at
the hour of his death, to insist upon the compliance of her orders by
his heirs, that the latter should comply with her pious orders and that
she did not mean her orders concerning her legacies, the compliance
of which she had entrusted to Leandro Serrano, we are authorized to
restrict the application of the words "all that I have here ordered"
used by the said Maria Solla and the words "all her orders" used by
Leandro Serrano in their respective wills limiting them to the pious
orders and substituting the phrase "in regard to the annual masses"
after the words used by both testators, respectively.
The trial court, therefore, committed an error in interpreting the order
of Leandro Serrano mentioned in his will as applicable to the
provisions of Maria Solla's will relative to the legacies and not to the
pious bequests exclusively.
D. Law Governing Form
Art. 795. The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the
observance of the law in force at the time it is made. (n)
The general rule is that given in the present article, that the validity of
the execution of a will is controlled by the statute in force at the time
of execution; and a statute enacted subsequent to the execution and
prior to the death of the testator, changing the rules respecting the
form of the instrument, the capacity of the testator, and the like, has
no retrospective effect.
However, the intrinsic validity of the will, although executed in the
Philippines, is governed by the laws of the state or country of which
the testator was a citizen or subject at the time of his death. The
place of execution has no effect whatever upon the validity of the
provisions of the will.
The law may be changed after the will has been made. The
provisions may be valid at the time it was made but may be contrary
to the law at the time of the death of the testator. In such case, the
law at the time of the death of the testator will apply. It is the law at
the time when the succession opens which must determine the
intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, because it is at this time
that the rights are transmitted to the heirs, devisees, or legatees.
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.
19
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
The article follows the general rule that the law governing the formal
vailidity of wills is the law of the place where it is executed. Yet a
Filipino may make will in a foreigh country in conformity with our laws
and not of the place of execution. Article 816 and 817 shall govern.
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)
If an alien executes a will in the Philippines, not in conformity with our
law, but in conformity with the law of his own state or country, the will
can be probated in the Philippines.
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)
A joint will is one where the same instrument is made the will of two
or more persons and is jointly signed by them. Such will may be
- jann -
It is the theory of the petitioner that the alleged 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 West Virginia
govern. To this end, there was 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, and as certified to by the
Director of the National Library. But this was far from a compliance
with the law. The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove
themselves in our courts. The courts of the Philippine Islands are not
authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of the various States of
the American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. (In re
Estate of Johnson [1918], 39 Phil., 156.) 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 section 300 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor was the extract from the law
attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original,
under the seal of the State of West Virginia, as provided in section
301 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No evidence was introduced to
show that the extract from the laws of West Virginia was in force at
the time the alleged will was executed.
While the appeal was pending submission in this court, the attorney
for the appellant presented an unverified petition asking the court to
accept as part of the evidence the documents attached to the
petition. One of these documents discloses that a paper writing
purporting to be the last will and testament of Edward Randolph Hix,
deceased, was presented for probate on June 8, 1929, to the clerk of
Randolph County, State of West Virginia, in vacation, and was duly
proven by the oaths of Dana Wamsley and Joseph L. Madden, the
subscribing witnesses thereto, and ordered to be recorded and filed.
It was shown by another document that, in vacation, on June 8,
1929, the clerk of court of Randolph County, West Virginia, appointed
20
1. As to time
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). The error thus committed by the probate court was an
error of law, that should have been corrected by appeal, but which
did not affect the jurisdiction of the probate court, nor the conclusive
effect of its final decision, however erroneous. A final judgment
rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is binding upon the
whole world (Manalo vs. Paredes, 47 Phil. 938; In re Estate of
Johnson, 39 Phil. 156); and public policy and sound practice demand
that at the risk of occasional errors, judgment of courts should
become final at some definite date fixed by law. Interest rei publicae
ut finis sit litium (Dy Cay vs. Crossfield, 38 Phil. 521, and other cases
cited in 2 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court 1963 Ed., p. 322).
- jann -
The decisive fact which gives origin to the right of heirs, devisees
and legatees is the death of the decedent. This is the basis of the
present article. Thus, the provisions of the new code relaxing the
rigidity of the rules of the old code regarding proof or recognition of
natural children, were held inapplicable to one claiming recognition
and a share in the estate of the alleged natural father who died
before the new code went into effect.
2. As to successional rights
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. (10a)
The distribution of the estate is governed by the law of the nation of
the deceased; the present article applies in such case. It may involve
various questions such as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
21
"Art. 1039.
Capacity to succeed is governed by
the law of the nation of the decedent."
- jann -
22
2.
3.
- jann -
B. Supervening Incapacity
23
2. if the insertion was after execution with the consent of testator, the
will remains valid but the insertion void;
3. if insertion was after execution and validated by testator by his
signature, the entire will is void because it is not wholly written by the
testator himself;
4. if insertion is contemporaneous to the execution the effect same
as no. 3.
As to date, the day, month, and year on which the will was made
should be indicated therein. The day and the month, however, may
be indicated by implication, so long as the designation leaves no
room for doubt as to exact date.
The validity of the holographic will is defeated by the fact that part of
the date is printed. Such as that written on a daily planner though the
contents are entirely written by the hand but the testator relied on the
date indicated on the planner, the same is still extrinsically void.
Signatures of witnesses to a HW will not invalidate the will, but will be
disregarded as a mere surplusage.
B. Notarial Wiils
1. General Requirements
Art. 804. Every will must be in writing and executed in a
language or dialect known to the testator. (n)
Our law does not recognize nuncupative wills, which is one that is
not written, but orally declared by the testator in his last illness, in
contemplation of death, and before a sufficient number of competent
witnesses.
The above requirement applies to both holographic and notarial. In
notarial wills it is immaterial who performs the mechanical act writing
the will, so long as the testator signs it or has somebody sign his
name in his presence upon his direction.
As to the language or dialect, when a will is executed in a certain
province or locality, in the dialect currently used in such province or
locality, there arises a presumption that the testator knew the dialect
so used, in the absence of contrary evidence. It is not required that
the will express that the language is known by the testator it is a fact
which may be proved by evidence aliunde.
The attestation clause of an ordinary will does not have to be written
in a language or dialect known to the testator. It is not part of the
testamentary disposition. The language used in the attestation
clause does not even have to be known to the witness; it should,
however, be translated to them.
Agapito and Nenita begot a child named Lilia who became a medical
technologist and went abroad. Agapito also became a soldier. He
was disabled and his wife Nenita was appointed as his guardian in
1953 when he was declared an incompetent in Special Proceedings
- jann -
24
On April 24, Nenita filed in the testate case an omnibus petition "to
set aside proceedings, admit opposition with counter-petition of
administration and preliminary injunction." Nenita in that motion
reiterated her allegation that Marilyn was a stranger to Marcelina,
that the will was not duly executed and attested, that it was procured
by means of undue influence employed by Marina and Marilyn and
that the thumb marks of the testatrix were procured by fraud or trick.
Signed by Testator
In the opening paragraph of the will, it was stated that English was a
language "understood and known" to the testatrix. But in its
concluding paragraph, it was stated that the will was read to the
testatrix "and translated into Filipino language." (p. 16, Record of
testate case) That could only mean that the will was written in a
language not known to the illiterate testatrix and, therefore, it is void
because of the mandatory provision of Article 804 of the Civil Code
- jann -
25
witnesses certify that the instrument has been executed before them,
and the manner of execution.
The attestation clause duly signed is the best evidence as to date of
signing
2.
3.
the witnesses need not even know the contents of the will because
what they attest to is the due execution and the signing of the
testator.
It is presumed that a witness has the qualifications prescribed by law,
unless the contrary is established. His credibility depends upon the
appreciation of his testimony and arises from the belief and
appreciation of the court that he is telling the truth. His competency
arise or is required to exist at the time of execution of the will.
As to order of signing, there are two views:
Strict approach; The general rule has been, that everything required
to be done by the testator in the execution of a will shall precede in
point of time the subscription by the attesting witness, and if the
signatures of the latter precede the signing by the testator there is no
proper attestation, and the will is void, for until the testator has
signed, there is no will and nothing to attest.
Liberal approach; where the witnesses and the testator all sign in the
presence of one another, it is not essential that the testator sign first,
if the signing and the attestation be parts of the same transaction; in
such case, where the acts are substantially contemporaneous, it
cannot be said that there is any substantial priority.
The latter view is upheld by most courts. In the absence of proof to
the contrary, it will be presumed that the testator signed first.
Purpose of requiring presence of each other:
1.
2.
3.
When testator is blind; when witness subscribe his will in the same
room or within reasonable close proximity and within his hearing,
they subscribe in his presence. Evidently, the rule is that they should
be within the cognizance of his remaining senses, such that he
knows what is being done.
The testator and witnesses must sign on the left margin of every
page, the failure of all of them to sign the left margin is a fatal defect
1.
- jann -
26
3.
the testator or his agent must sign every page except the
last, on the left margin in the presence of the witnesses;
4.
the witnesses must sign every page except last, on the left
margin in the presence of the testator and of one another;
5.
6.
7.
a.
number of pages;
b.
c.
(Sgd.)
(Sgd.)
The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who
wrote the name of Antero Mercado, followed below by "A ruego del
testador" and the name of Florentino Javier. Antero Mercado is
alleged to have written a cross immediately after his name. The
Court of Appeals, reversing the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Ilocos Norte, ruled that the attestation clause failed (1) to
certify that the will was signed on all the left margins of the three
pages and at the end of the will by Atty. Florentino Javier at the
express request of the testator in the presence of the testator and
each and every one of the witnesses; (2) to certify that after the
signing of the name of the testator by Atty. Javier at the former's
request said testator has written a cross at the end of his name and
on the left margin of the three pages of which the will consists and at
the end thereof; (3) to certify that the three witnesses signed the will
in all the pages thereon in the presence of the testator and of each
other.
In our opinion, the attestation clause is fatally defective for failing to
state that Antero Mercado caused Atty. Florentino Javier to write the
- jann -
"NUMERIANO EVANGELISTA
ROSENDO CORTES
BIBIANA ILLEGIBLE"
It is not here pretended that the cross appearing on the will is the
usual signature of Antero Mercado or even one of the ways by which
he signed his name. After mature reflection, we are not prepared to
liken the mere sign of a cross to a thumbmark, and the reason is
obvious. The cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of
a thumbmark.
(Sgd.)
27
- jann -
"NUMERIANO EVANGELISTA
ROSENDO CORTES
BIBIANA ILLEGIBLE"
(Sgd.)
The will appears to have been signed by Atty. Florentino Javier who
wrote the name of Antero Mercado, followed below by "A ruego del
testador" and the name of Florentino Javier. Antero Mercado is
alleged to have written a cross immediately after his name. The
Court of Appeals, reversing the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Ilocos Norte, ruled that the attestation clause failed (1) to
certify that the will was signed on all the left margins of the three
pages and at the end of the will by Atty. Florentino Javier at the
express request of the testator in the presence of the testator and
each and every one of the witnesses; (2) to certify that after the
signing of the name of the testator by Atty. Javier at the former's
request said testator has written a cross at the end of his name and
on the left margin of the three pages of which the will consists and at
28
- jann -
29
- jann -
prepared the documents; that the will and its duplicate were
executed in Tagalog, a language known to and spoken by both the
testator and the witnesses, and read to and by the testatrix and Atty.
Fermin Samson, together before they were actually signed; that the
attestation clause is also in a language known to and spoken by the
testatrix and the witnesses. The opinion of expert for oppositors, Mr.
Felipe Logan, that the signatures of the testatrix appearing in the
duplicate original were not written by the same had which wrote the
signatures in the original will leaves us unconvinced, not merely
because it is directly contradicted by expert Martin Ramos for the
proponents, but principally because of the paucity of the standards
used by him to support the conclusion that the differences between
the standard and questioned signatures are beyond the writer's
range of normal scriptural variation. The expert has, in fact, used as
standards only three other signatures of the testatrix besides those
affixed to the original of the testament (Exh. A); and we feel that with
so few standards the expert's opinion and the signatures in the
duplicate could not be those of the testatrix becomes extremely
hazardous. This is particularly so since the comparison charts Nos. 3
and 4 fail to show convincingly that the are radical differences that
would justify the charge of forgery, taking into account the advanced
age of the testatrix, the evident variability of her signatures, and the
effect of writing fatigue, the duplicate being signed right the original.
These, factors were not discussed by the expert.
Nor do we find adequate evidence of fraud or undue influence. The
fact that some heirs are more favored than others is proof of neither
(see In re Butalid, 10 Phil. 27; Bugnao vs. Ubag, 14 Phil. 163;
Pecson vs. Coronal, 45 Phil. 216). Diversity of apportionment is the
usual reason for making a testament; otherwise, the decedent might
as well die intestate. The testamentary dispositions that the heirs
should not inquire into other property and that they should respect
the distribution made in the will, under penalty of forfeiture of their
shares in the free part do not suffice to prove fraud or undue
influence. They appear motivated by the desire to prevent prolonged
litigation which, as shown by ordinary experience, often results in a
sizeable portion of the estate being diverted into the hands of nonheirs and speculators. Whether these clauses are valid or not is a
matter to be litigated on another occassion. It is also well to note that,
as remarked by the Court of Appeals in Sideco vs. Sideco, 45 Off.
Gaz. 168, fraud and undue influence are mutually repugnant and
exclude each other; their joining as grounds for opposing probate
shows absence of definite evidence against the validity of the will.
On the question of law, we hold that the inadvertent failure of one
witness to affix his signature to one page of a testament, due to the
simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing, is not per
se sufficient to justify denial of probate. Impossibility of substitution of
this page is assured not only the fact that the testatrix and two other
witnesses did sign the defective page, but also by its bearing the
coincident imprint of the seal of the notary public before whom the
testament was ratified by testatrix and all three witnesses. The law
should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the
testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over
whose conduct she had no control, where the purpose of the law to
guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is
sufficiently attained, no intentional or deliberate deviation existed,
and the evidence on record attests to the full observance of the
statutory requisites. Otherwise, as stated in Vda. de Gil. vs.
Murciano, 49 Off. Gaz. 1459, at 1479 (decision on reconsideration)
"witnesses may sabotage the will by muddling or bungling it or the
attestation clause".
This would not be the first time that this Court departs from a strict
and literal application of the statutory requirements, where the
purposes of the law are otherwise satisfied. Thus, despite the literal
tenor of the law, this Court has held that a testament, with the only
page signed at its foot by testator and witnesses, but not in the left
margin, could nevertheless be probated (Abangan vs. Abangan, 41
Phil. 476); and that despite the requirement for the correlative
lettering of the pages of a will, the failure to make the first page either
by letters or numbers is not a fatal defect (Lopez vs. Liboro, 81 Phil.
429). These precedents exemplify the Court's policy to require
satisfaction of the legal requirements in order to guard against fraud
30
- jann -
31
Art. 820. Any person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen
years or more, and not bind, deaf or dumb, and able to read and
write, may be a witness to the execution of a will mentioned in
Article 805 of this Code. (n)
T: these are witnesses under an ordinary will.
- jann -
2.
32
are
disqualified
from
being
(2)
Those who have been convicted of falsification
of a document, perjury or false testimony.
Under the law, there is no mandatory requirement that the witness
testify initially or at any time during the trial as to his good standing in
the community, his reputation for trustworthiness and reliableness,
his honesty and uprightness in order that his testimony may be
believed and accepted by the trial court. It is enough that the
qualifications enumerated in Article 820 of the Civil Code are
complied with, such that the soundness of his mind can be shown by
or deduced from his answers to the questions propounded to him,
that his age (18 years or more) is shown from his appearance,
testimony, or competently proved otherwise, as well as the fact that
he is not blind, deaf or dumb and that he is able to read and write to
the satisfaction of the Court, and that he has none of the
disqualifications under Article 821 of the Civil Code. We reject
petitioner's contention that it must first be established in the record
the good standing of the witness in the community, his reputation for
trustworthiness and reliableness, his honesty and uprightness,
because such attributes are presumed of the witness unless the
contrary is proved otherwise by the opposing party.
- jann -
supervening incompetency
33
- jann -
34
- jann -
Substantial compliance
2.
35
4.
All these are facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or even
omissions concerning them in the attestation clause can be safely
disregarded. But the total number of pages, and whether all persons
required to sign did so in the number of pages, and whether all
required to sign did so in the presence of each other must
substantially appear in the attestation clause being the only check
against perjury in probate proceedings.
C. Holographic Wills
1.
General requirements.
As to date, the day, month, and year on which the will was made
should be indicated therein. The day and the month,however, may be
indicated by implication, so long as the designation leaves no room
for doubt as to exact date.
The validity of the holographic will is defeated by the fact that part of
the date is printed. Such as that written on a daily planner though the
contents are entirely written by the hand but the testator relied on the
date indicated on the planner, the same is still extrinsically void.
Signatures of witnesses to a HW will not invalidate the will, but will be
disregarded as a mere surplusage.
A person can make a HW in the form of a letter in which he states his
testamentary dispositions giving it a character of a will but the
animus testatandi must be present.
- jann -
36
- jann -
37
ROSA's position was that the holographic Will, as first written, should
be given effect and probated so that she could be the sole heir
thereunder.
From that Order, GREGORIO moved for reconsideration arguing that
since the alterations and/or insertions were made by the testatrix, the
denial to probate of her holographic Will would be contrary to her
right of testamentary disposition. Reconsideration was denied in an
Order, dated November 2, 1973, on the ground that "Article 814 of
the Civil Code being clear and explicit, (it) requires no necessity for
interpretation."
From that order, dated September 3, 1973, denying probate, and the
Order dated November 2, 1973 denying reconsideration, ROSA filed
this Petition for Review on Certiorari on the sole legal question of
whether or not the original unaltered text after subsequent alterations
and insertions were voided by the Trial Court for lack of
authentication by the full signature of the testatrix, should be
probated or not, with her as sole heir.
Ordinarily, when a number of erasures, corrections, and
interlineations made by the testator in a holographic Will have not
been noted under his signature, . . . the Will is not thereby
invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the particular
words erased, corrected or interlined. 1 Manresa gave an identical
commentary when he said "la omision de la salvedad no anula el
testamento, segun la regla de jurisprudencia establecida en la
sentencia de 4 de Abril de 1895." 2
However, when as in this case, the holographic Will in dispute had
only one substantial provision, which was altered by substituting the
original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the
requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the
effect must be that the entire Will is voided or revoked for the simple
reason that nothing remains in the Will after that which could remain
valid. To state that the Will as first written should be given efficacy is
to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. But that
change of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to
authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full
signature.
The ruling in Velasco, supra, must be held confined to such
insertions, cancellations, erasures or alterations in a holographic Will,
which affect only the efficacy of the altered words themselves but not
the essence and validity of the Will itself. As it is, with the erasures,
cancellations and alterations made by the testatrix herein, her real
intention cannot be determined with certitude. WHEREFORE, this
Petition is hereby dismissed and the Decision of respondent Judge,
dated September 3, 1973, is hereby affirmed in toto. No costs
V. INCORPORATION OF DOCUMENT BY REFERENCE
Art. 827. If a will, executed as required by this Code,
incorporates into itself by reference any document or paper,
such document or paper shall not be considered a part of the
will unless the following requisites are present:
(1) The document or paper referred to in the will must
be in existence at the time of the execution of the will;
(2) The will must clearly describe and identify the
same, stating among other things the number of pages
thereof;
(3) It must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof
as the document or paper referred to therein; and
(4) It must be signed by the testator and the witnesses
on each and every page, except in case of voluminous
books of account or inventories. (n)
- jann -
Definitions of revocation
38
Art. 828. A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before
his death. Any waiver or restriction of this right is void. (737a)
T: During the life of the testator the will is said to be ambulatory and
may be altered, revoked, or superseded at any time. Its is of no
possible effect as a will while the maker lives.
A will may be revoked at pleasure. Revocation is an act of the mind,
terminating the potential capacity of the will to operate at the death of
the testator, manifested by some outward and visible act or sign,
symbolic thereof.
Revocation
vs.
1. act of testator
2. presupposes a valid act
3. inter vivos
4. testator cannot renounce
Nullity
1. proceeds from law
2. inherent from the will
3. invoked After death
4. can be disregarded by heirs
A.
B.
1.
a)
b)
2.
a)
b)
c)
1.
2.
D. Modes of Revocation
Art. 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:
(1) By implication of law; or
(2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as
provided in case of wills; or
- jann -
39
On October 20, 1963, Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece
and nephews, the petitioners Aldina Maloto-Casiano and Constancio
Maloto, and the private respondents Panfilo Maloto and Felino
Maloto. Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will
and testament, these four heirs commenced on November 4, 1963
an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunt's estate. The
case was instituted in the then Court of First Instance of Iloilo and
was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 1736. However, while the
case was still in progress, or to be exact on February 1, 1964, the
parties Aldina, Constancio, Panfilo, and Felino executed an
agreement of extrajudicial settlement of Adriana's estate. The
agreement provided for the division of the estate into four equal parts
among the parties. The Malotos then presented the extrajudicial
settlement agreement to the trial court for approval which the court
did on March 21, 1964. That should have signalled the end of the
controversy, but, unfortunately, it had not.
Three years later, or sometime in March 1967, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, a
former associate of Adriana's counsel, the late Atty. Eliseo Hervas,
discovered a document entitled "KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBULUT-AN
(Testamento)," dated January 3, 1940, and purporting to be the last
will and testament of Adriana. Atty. Palma claimed to have found the
testament, the original copy, while he was going through some
materials inside the cabinet drawer formerly used by Atty. Hervas.
The document was submitted to the office of the clerk of the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo on April 1, 1967. Incidentally, while Panfilo and
Felino are still named as heirs in the said will, Aldina and Constancio
are bequeathed much bigger and more valuable shares in the estate
of Adriana than what they received by virtue of the agreement of
extrajudicial settlement they had earlier signed. The will likewise
gives devises and legacies to other parties, among them being the
petitioners Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and
Purificacion Miraflor.
There is no doubt as to the testamentary capacity of the testatrix and
the due execution of the will. The heart of the case lies on the issue
as to whether or not the will was revoked by Adriana. The provisions
of the new Civil Code pertinent to the issue can be found in Article
830.
Art. 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:
(1)
By implication of law; or
(2)
By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided
in case of wills: or
(3)
By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with
the intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or by
some other person in his presence, and by his express
direction. If burned, torn, cancelled, or obliterated by some
other person, without the express direction of the testator,
the will may still be established, and the estate distributed
in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due execution,
and the fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or
obliteration are established according to the Rules of
Court. (Emphasis Supplied.)
It is clear that the physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in
this case, does not per se constitute an effective revocation, unless
the destruction is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the
testator. It is not imperative that the physical destruction be done by
the testator himself. It may be performed by another person but
under the express direction and in the presence of the testator. Of
course, it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be
the will itself.
The respondent appellate court in assessing the evidence presented
by the private respondents as oppositors in the trial court, concluded
that the testimony of the two witnesses who testified in favor of the
will's revocation appear "inconclusive." We share the same view.
Nowhere in the records before us does it appear that the two
witnesses, Guadalupe Vda. de Corral and Eladio Itchon, both
illiterates, were unequivocably positive that the document burned
was indeed Adriana's will. Guadalupe, we think, believed that the
papers she destroyed was the will only because, according to her,
Adriana told her so. Eladio, on the other hand, obtained his
information that the burned document was the will because
Casiano vs. CA
- jann -
40
- jann -
2.
it must be false;
3.
4.
5.
41
Granting for the sake of argument that the earlier will was voluntarily
destroyed by the testator after the execution of the second will, which
revoked the first, could there be any doubt, under this theory, that
said earlier will was destroyed by the testator in the honest belief that
it was no longer necessary because he had expressly revoked it in
his will of 1939? In other words, can we not say that the destruction
of the earlier will was but the necessary consequence of the
testator's belief that the revocatory clause contained in the
subsequent will was valid and the latter would be given effect? If
such is the case, then it is our opinion that the earlier will can still be
admitted to probate under the principle of "dependent relative
revocation".
"This doctrine is known as that of dependent relative
revocation, and is usually applied where the testator
cancels or destroys a will or executes an instrument
intended to revoke a will with a present intention to make a
new testamentary disposition as a substitute for the old,
and the new disposition is not made or, if made, fails of
effect for some reason. The doctrine is not limited to the
existence of some other document, however, and has
been applied where a will was destroyed as a
consequence of a mistake of law . . .." (68 C. J. p. 799).
"The rule is established that where the act of destruction is
connected with the making of another will so as fairly to
raise the inference that the testator meant the revocation
of the old to depend upon the efficacy of the new
disposition intended to be substituted, the revocation will
be conditional and dependent upon the efficacy of the new
disposition; and if, for any reason, the new will intended to
be made as a substitute is inoperative, the revocation fails
and the original will remains in full force." (Gardner, pp.
232, 233.)
"This is the doctrine of dependent relative revocation. The
failure of the new testamentary disposition, upon whose
validity the revocation depends, is equivalent to the nonfulfillment of a suspensive condition, and hence prevents
the revocation of the original will. But a mere intent to
make at some time a will in place of that destroyed will not
render the destruction conditional. It must appear that the
revocation is dependent upon the valid execution of a new
will." (1 Alexander, p. 751; Gardner, p. 233.)
- jann -
Disallowance
1. by decree of court
42
B. Necessity of Probate
A final decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution and
formal validity of a will, hence, probate is necessary to determine the
following:
1. testator was of sound mind
2. consent was not vitiated
3. will was signed by the required number of witnesses
4. it is genuine and authentic
In sum it involves:
a. Testatmentary Capacity
b. due execution thereof
c. genuineness
6. De Borja vs. De Borja
It is uncontested that Francisco de Borja, upon the death of his wife
Josefa Tangco on 6 October 1940, filed a petition for the probate of
her will which was docketed as Special Proceeding No. R-7866 of
the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch I. The will was probated
on 2 April 1941. In 1946, Francisco de Borja was appointed executor
and administrator: in 1952, their son, Jose de Borja, was appointed
co-administrator. When Francisco died, on 14 April 1954, Jose
became the sole administrator of the testate estate of his mother,
Jose Tangco While a widower Francisco de Borja allegedly took unto
himself a second wife, Tasiana Ongsingco. Upon Francisco's death,
Tasiana instituted testate proceedings in the Court of First Instance
of Nueva Ecija, where, in 1955, she was appointed special
administratrix. The validity of Tasiana's marriage to Francisco was
questioned in said proceeding.
The relationship between the children of the first marriage and
Tasiana Ongsingco has been plagued with several court suits and
counter-suits; including the three cases at bar, some eighteen (18)
cases remain pending determination in the courts. The testate estate
of Josefa Tangco alone has been unsettled for more than a quarter of
a century. In order to put an end to all these litigations, a compromise
agreement was entered into on 12 October 1963, 2 by and between
"[T]he heir and son of Francisco de Borja by his first marriage,
namely, Jose de Borja personally and as administrator of the Testate
Estate of Josefa Tangco," and "[T]he heir and surviving spouse of
Francisco de Borja by his second marriage, Tasiana Ongsingco Vda.
de Borja, assisted by her lawyer, Atty. Luis Panaguiton, Jr."
On 16 May 1966, Jose de Borja submitted for Court approval the
agreement of 12 October 1963 to the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
in Special Proceeding No. R-7866; and again, on 8 August 1966, to
the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, in Special Proceeding No.
832. Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja opposed in both instances.
The Rizal court approved the compromise agreement, but the Nueva
Ecija court declared it void and unenforceable. Special administratrix
Tasiana Ongsingco Vda. de de Borja appealed the Rizal Court's
order of approval (now Supreme Court G.R. case No. L-28040),
while administrator Jose de Borja appealed the order of disapproval
(G.R. case No. L-28568) by the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija.
The genuineness and due execution of the compromise agreement
of 12 October 1963 is not disputed, but its validity is, nevertheless,
attacked by Tasiana Ongsingco on the ground that: (1) the heirs
cannot enter into such kind of agreement without first probating the
will of Francisco de Borja; (2) that the same involves a compromise
on the validity of the marriage between Francisco de Borja and
Tasiana Ongsingco; and (3) that even if it were valid, it has ceased to
have force and effect.
In assailing the validity of the agreement of 12 October 1963,
Tasiana Ongsingco and the Probate Court of Nueva Ecija rely on this
Court's decision in Guevara vs. Guevara. 74 Phil. 479, wherein the
Court's majority held the view that the presentation of a will for
probate is mandatory and that the settlement and distribution of an
- jann -
43
RULE 75
PRODUCTION OF WILL. ALLOWANCE OF WILL
NECESSARY
- jann -
44
- jann -
45
The New Civil Code effective in 1950 revived holographic wills in its
arts. 810-814. "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."
- jann -
The object of such requirements it has been said, is to close the door
against bad faith and fraud, to prevent substitution of wills, to
guarantee their truth and authenticity (Abangan vs. Abangan, 40
Phil., 476) and to avoid that those who have no right to succeed the
testator would succeed him and be benefited with the probate of
same. (Mendoza vs. Pilapil, 40 off. Gaz., 1855). However, formal
imperfections may be brushed aside when authenticity of the
instrument is duly proved.
Now, in the matter of holographic wills, no such guaranties of truth
and veracity are demanded, since as stated, they need no witnesses;
provided however, that they are "entirely written, dated, and signed
by the hand of the testator himself." The law, it is reasonable to
suppose, regards the document itself as material proof of
authenticity, and as its own safeguard, since it could at any time, be
demonstrated to be or not to be in the hands of the testator
himself. "In the probate of a holographic will" says the New Civil
Code, "it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the
handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the
will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will
is contested, at least three such witnesses shall be required. In the
absence of any such witnesses, (familiar with decedent's
handwriting) and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony
may be resorted to."
The witnesses so presented do not need to have seen the execution
of the holographic will. They may be mistaken in their opinion of the
handwriting, or they may deliberately lie in affirming it is in the
testator's hand. However, the oppositor may present other witnesses
who also know the testator's handwriting, or some expert witnesses,
who after comparing the will with other writings or letters of the
deceased, have come to the conclusion that such will has not been
written by the hand of the deceased. (Sec. 50, Rule 123). And the
court, in view of such contradictory testimony may use its own visual
sense, and decide in the face of the document, whether the will
submitted to it has indeed been written by the testator.
Taking all the above circumstances together, we reach the
conclusion that the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed
holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of
witnesses who have seen and/or read such will.
At this point, before proceeding further, it might be convenient to
explain why, unlike holographic wills, ordinary wills may be proved by
testimonial evidence when lost or destroyed. The difference lies in
the nature of the wills. In the first, the only guarantee of authenticity
is the handwriting itself; in the second, the testimony of the
subscribing or instrumental witnesses (and of the notary, now). The
loss of the holographic will entails the loss of the only medium of
proof; if the ordinary will is lost, the subscribing witnesses are
available to authenticate.
In the case of ordinary wills, it is quite hard to convince three
witnesses (four with the notary) deliberately to lie. And then their lies
could be checked and exposed, their whereabouts and acts on the
particular day, the likelihood that they would be called by the testator,
their intimacy with the testator, etc. And if they were intimates or
trusted friends of the testator they are not likely to lend themselves to
any fraudulent scheme to distort his wishes. Last but not least, they
can not receive anything on account of the will.
46
- jann -
the case of Gan vs. Yap, 104 Phil. 509, the Court ruled that "the
execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will
may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have
seen and/or read such will. The will itself must be presented;
otherwise, it shall produce no effect. The law regards the
document itself as material proof of authenticity." But, in
Footnote 8 of said decision, it says that "Perhaps it may be proved
by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or
carbon copy; or by other similar means, if any, whereby the
authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and
tested before the probate court." Evidently, the photostatic or xerox
copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted
because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can
be determined by the probate court.
WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court dated October 3, 1979,
denying appellant's motion for reconsideration dated August 9, 1979,
of the Order dated July 23, 1979, dismissing her petition to approve
the will of the late Ricardo B. Bonilla, is hereby SET ASIDE.
Azaola vs. Singson
"Briefly speaking, the following facts were established by
the petitioner; that on September 9, 1957, Fortunata S.
Vda. de Yance died at 13 Luskot, Quezon City, known to
be the last residence of said testatrix; that Francisco
Azaola, petitioner herein for probate of the holographic will,
submitted the said holographic will (Exh. C) whereby Maria
Milagros Azaola was made the sole heir as against the
nephew of the deceased Cesario Singson; that witness
Francisco Azaola testified that he saw the holographic will
(Exh. C) one month, more or less, before the death of the
testatrix, as the same was handed to him and his wife; that
the witness testified also that he recognized all the
signatures appearing in the holographic will (Exh. C) as the
handwriting of the testatrix and to reinforce said statement,
witness presented the mortgage (Exh. E), the special
power of attorney (Exh. F), and the general power of
attorney (Exh. F-1), besides the deeds of sale (Exhs. G
and G-1) including an affidavit (Exh. G-2), and that there
were further exhibited in court two residence certificates
(Exhs. H and H-1) to show the signatures of the testatrix,
for comparison purposes; that said witness, Azaola,
testified that the penmanship appearing in the aforesaid
documentary evidence is in the handwriting of the testatrix
as well as the signatures appearing therein are the
signatures of the testatrix; that said witness, in answer to a
question of his counsel admitted that the holographic will
was handed to him by the testatrix, "apparently it must
have been written by her" (t.s.n., p. 11). However, on page
16 on the same transcript of the stenographic notes, when
the same witness was asked by counsel if he was familiar
with the penmanship and handwriting of the deceased
Fortunata Vda. de Yance, he answered positively in the
affirmative and when he was asked again whether the
penmanship referred to in the previous answer as
appearing in the holographic will (Exh. C) was hers
(testatrix'), he answered, "I would definitely say it is hers";
that it was also established in the proceedings that the
assessed value of the property of the deceased in Luskot,
Quezon City, is in the amount of P7,000.00."
The opposition to the probate was on the ground that (1) the
execution of the will was procured by undue and improper pressure
and influence on the part of the petitioner and his wife, and (2) that
the testatrix did not seriously intend the instrument to be her last will,
and that the same was actually written either on the 5th or 6th day of
August 1957 and not on November 20, 1956 as appears on the will.
The probate was denied on the ground that under Article 811 of the
Civil Code, the proponent must present three witnesses who could
declare that the will and the signature are in the writing of the
testatrix, the probate being contested; and because the lone witness
presented by the proponent "did not prove sufficiently that the body
of the will was written in the handwriting of the testatrix."
47
- jann -
48
On June 24, 1939 a petition for the probate of his will was filed in the
Court of First Instance of Sorsogon (Special Proceeding No. 3171).
The notice of hearing was duly published In that will. Florentino
bequeathed his one-half share in the conjugal estate to his second
wife, Tecla Dollentas, and, should Tecla predecease him, as was the
case, his one-half share would be assigned to the spouses Pedro
Gallanosa and Corazon Grecia, the reason being that Pedro, Tecla's
son by her first marriage, grew up under the care of Florentino: he
had treated Pedro as his foster child, and Pedro has rendered
services to Florentino and Tecla. Florentino likewise bequeathed his
separate properties consisting of three parcels of abaca land and
parcel of riceland to his protege (sasacuyang ataman) Adolfo
Fortajada, a minor.
On October 24, 1941, the testamentary heirs, the Gallanosa spouses
and Adolfo Fortajada, submitted a project of partition covering sixtyone parcels of land located in various parts of Sorsogon, large cattle
and several pieces of personal property which were distributed in
accordance with Florentino's will. The heirs assumed the obligations
of the estate amounting to P7,129.27 in the portion of P2,376.42 for
Adolfo Fortajada and P4,752.85 for the Gallanosa spouses. The
project of partition was approved by Judge Doroteo Amador in his
order of March 13, 1943, thus confirming the heirs' possession of
their respective shares. The testator's legal heirs did not appeal from
the decree of probate and from the order of partition and distribution.
On February 20, 1952, Leon Hitosis and the heirs of Florentino's
deceased brothers and sisters instituted an action in the Court of
First Instance of Sorsogon against Pedro Gallanosa for the recovery
of the said sixty-one parcels of land. They alleged that they, by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in
continuous possession of those lands en concepto de dueo and
that Gallanosa entered those lands in 1951 and asserted ownership
over the lands. They prayed that they be declared the owners of the
lands and that they be restored to the possession thereof. They also
claimed damages (Civil Case No. 696).
The plaintiffs did not appeal from that order of dismissal which should
have set the matter at rest. But the same plaintiffs or oppositors to
the probate of the will, and their heirs, with a persistence befitting a
more meritorious case, filed on September 21, 1967, or fifteen years
after the dismissal of Civil Case No. 696 and twenty-eight years after
the probate of the will, another action in the same court against the
Gallanosa spouses and Adolfo Fortajada for the "annulment" of the
will of Florentino Hitosis and for the recovery of the same sixty-one
parcels of land. They prayed for the appointment of a receiver.
The petitioners or the defendants below contend in this certiorari
case that the lower court has no jurisdiction to set aside the 1939
decree of probate and the 1952 order of dismissal in Civil Case No.
696 and that it acted with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing
private respondents' 1967 complaint.
The issue is whether, under the facts set forth above, the private
respondents have a cause of action for the "annulment" of the will of
Florentino Hitosis and for the recovery of the sixty-one parcels of
land adjudicated under that will to the petitioners. We hold that the
lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in reconsideration
its order of dismissal and in ignoring the 1939 testamentary case and
the 1952 Civil Case No. 696 which is the same as the instant 1967
case.
We say that the defense of res judicata, as a ground for the dismissal
of plaintiffs' 1967 complaint, is a two-pronged defense because (1)
the 1939 and 1943 decrees of probate and distribution in Special
The probate court does not look upon the intrinsic validity of the will.
However, it was held that the trial court may pass upon the intrinsic
validity even before its formal validity had been established.
Otherwise, the probate of the will might become an idle ceremony if
on its face it appears intrinsically void. Where practical
considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed
upon even before probated; the court should meet the issue.
- jann -
49
- jann -
Two weeks later, or on April 25, 1978, Maxine and her two children
Linda and Pete, as the first parties, and Ethel, Juanita Grimm Morris
and their mother Juanita Kegley Grimm, as the second parties, with
knowledge of the intestate proceeding in Manila, entered into a
compromise agreement in Utah regarding the estate. It was signed
by David E. Salisbury and Donald B. Holbrook, as lawyers of the
parties, by Pete and Linda and the attorney-in-fact of Maxine and by
the attorney-in-fact of Ethel, Juanita Grimm Morris and Juanita
Kegley Grimm.
In that agreement, it was stipulated that Maxine, Pete and Ethel
would be designated as personal representatives (administrators) of
Grimm's Philippine estate (par. 2). It was also stipulated that
Maxine's one-half conjugal share in the estate should be reserved for
her and that would not be less than $1,500,000 plus the homes in
Utah and Santa Mesa, Manila (par. 4). The agreement indicated the
computation of the "net distributable estate". It recognized that the
estate was liable to pay the fees of the Angara law firm
Acting on the declaration of heirs and project of partition signed and
filed by lawyers Limqueco and Macaraeg (not signed by Maxine and
her two children), Judge Conrado M. Molina in his order of July 27,
1979 adjudicated to Maxine one-half (4/8) of the decedent's
Philippine estate and one-eighth (1/8) each to his four children or 121/2% (pp. 140-142, Record). No mention at all was made of the will
in that order.
Petition to annul partition and testate proceeding No. 134559. On
September 8, 1980, Rogelio A. Vinluan of the Angara law firm, in
behalf of Maxine, Pete and Linda, filed in Branch 38 of the lower
court a petition praying for the probate of Grimm's two wills (already
probated in Utah), that the 1979 partition approved by the intestate
court be set aside and the letters of administration revoked, that
Maxine be appointed executrix and that Ethel and Juanita Morris be
ordered to account for the properties received by them and to return
the same to Maxine (pp. 25-35, Rollo).
Grimm's second wife and two children alleged that they were defraud
due to the machinations of the Roberts spouses, that the 1978 Utah
compromise agreement was illegal, that the intestate proceeding is
void because Grimm died testate and that the partition was contrary
to the decedent's wills.
Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Judge Leonidas denied it
for lack of merit in his order of October 27, 1980. Ethel then filed a
petition for certiorari and prohibition in this Court, praying that the
testate proceeding be dismissed, or, alternatively that the two
proceedings be consolidated and heard in Branch 20 and that the
matter of the annulment of the Utah compromise agreement be
heard prior to the petition for probate (pp. 22-23, Rollo).
Ruling. We hold that respondent judge did not commit any grave
abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in denying
Ethel's motion to dismiss.
A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with
two wills and "no will shall pass either real or personal property
unless it is proved and allowed" (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule
75, Rules of Court). The probate of the will is mandatory (Guevara
vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479 and 98 Phil. 249; Baluyot vs. Pao, L42088, May 7, 1976, 71 SCRA 86). It is anomalous that the estate of
a person who died testate should be settled in an intestate
proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated
with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate
proceeding should continue hearing the two cases.
Ethel may file within twenty days from notice of the finality of this
judgment an opposition and answer to the petition unless she
considers her motion to dismiss and other pleadings sufficient for the
purpose. Juanita G. Morris, who appeared in the intestate case,
should be served with copies of orders, notices and other papers in
the testate case. WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The
temporary restraining order is dissolved. No costs.
Nepomuceno vs. CA
50
On August 21, 1974, the petitioner filed a petition for the probate of
the last Will and Testament of the deceased Martin Jugo in the Court
of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXIV, Caloocan City and asked
for the issuance to her of letters testamentary. On May 13, 1975, the
legal wife of the testator, Rufina Gomez and her children filed an
opposition alleging inter alia that the execution of the Will was
procured by undue and improper influence on the part of the
petitioner; that at the time of the execution of the Will, the testator
was already very sick and that petitioner having admitted her living in
concubinage with the testator, she is wanting in integrity and thus
letters testamentary should not be issued to her.
On January 6, 1976, the lower court denied the probate of the Will on
the ground that as the testator admitted in his Will to cohabiting with
the petitioner from December 1952 until his death on July 16, 1974,
the Will's admission to probate will be an idle exercise because on
the face of the Will, the invalidity of its intrinsic provisions is evident.
On June 2, 1982, the respondent court set aside the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Rizal denying the probate of the Will. The
respondent court declared the Will to be valid except that the devise
in favor of the petitioner is null and void pursuant to Article 739 in
relation with Article 1028 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
- jann -
51
- jann -
52
- jann -
testarix made it difficult for her to look for all the witnesses. That she
did not resort to relatives or friends is, likewise explainable: it would
have meant the disclosure of the terms of her will to those interested
in her succession but who were not favored by her, thereby exposing
her to unpleasant importunity and recriminations that an aged person
would naturally seek to avoid. The natural desire to keep the making
of a will secret can, likewise, account for the failure to probate the
testament during her lifetime.
We conclude that the trial court committed no error in finding
the appellant's evidence established at most grounds for suspicion
but fell far short of establishing actual exercise of improper pressure
or influence. Considering that testarix considered proponent as her
own son, to the extent that she expressed no objection to his being
made the sole heir of her sister, Florentina Cruz, in derogation of her
own rights, we find nothing abnormalin her instituting proponent also
as her own beneficiary. As stated by the Court in the Knutson case
The truth of the matter is that bequests and devises to those in whom
the testator has confidence and who have won his affection are more
likely to be free from undue influence that bequests or devises to
others. (In re Knutson's Will, 41 Pac. 2d 793). Appellants invoked
presumption of undue influence held to exist by American authorities
where the beneficiary participates in the drafting of execution of the
will favoring him; but since the will was prepared by Atty. Pascual,
although nephew of the proponent, we do not think the presumption
applies; for in the normal course of events, said attorney would follow
the instructions of the testatrix; and a member of the bar in good
standing may not be convicted of unprofessional conduct, or of
having conspired to falsify a statement, except upon clear proof.
The charge of fraud, being premised on the existence of
undue influence, needs no separate discussion. WHEREFORE, the
decree of probate appealed from is affirmed;
XI. LEGITIME
A. Concept.
Art. 886. Legitime is that part of the testator's property which he
cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for certain
heirs who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs. (806)
Three principal systems of distribution of hereditary property:
1. Absolute freedom of disposition
2. Total reservation
3. Partial reservation
T: Considering the customs and traditions of the Filipinos for the
sake of family solidarity, the present code preserved the system of
legitimes. However, changes have been made as follows:
1. with respect to the amounts of that coumpulsory heirs receive;
2. illegitimate children have been made compulsory heirs though with
a smaller legitime;
3. legitime of surviving spouse has been changed from a mere
usufruct to a full ownership.
4. eliminates the mejora which resulted in the increase of both the
legitime and the free portion
Thus, Justice JBL Reyes has this to say:
The increase of the legitime to as against the 1/3 in the old code,
and the suppression of the mejora, operate to limit the freedom of
choice of the testator to a greater extent than under the old code, for
the testator, under that law, could at least select the individual
descendants who should receive the third betterment.
Jurisprudence, however, interpreted the ultimate purpose of the
systems of legitime. It is a limitation upon the freedom of the testator
to dispose of his property. Its purpose is to protect those heirs, for
whom the testator is presumed to have an obligation to reserve
53
children,
and
natural
2.
3.
- jann -
2.
54
4.
- jann -
2.
55
- jann -
therefore, that the devise or legacy should be first taken from the
remaining disposable portion, and if there is any excess of the devise
or legacy over the disposable portion, that excess charged against or
merged in the legitime of the surviving spouse.
If however, the legitime of the surviving spouse is already protected
by the disposition giving him an amount or portion equivalent to that
legitime, then he cannot ask for more unless, the testator provides it
as addition to his legitime.
Art. 893. If the testator leaves no legitimate descendants, but
leaves legitimate ascendants, the surviving spouse shall have a
right to one-fourth of the hereditary estate.
This fourth shall be taken from the free portion of the estate.
(836a)
Art. 894. If the testator leaves illegitimate children, the surviving
spouse shall be entitled to one-third of the hereditary estate of
the deceased and the illegitimate children to another third. The
remaining third shall be at the free disposal of the testator. (n)
Art. 895. The legitime of each of the acknowledged natural
children and each of the natural children by legal fiction shall
consist of one-half of the legitime of each of the legitimate
children or descendants.
The legitime of an illegitimate child who is neither an
acknowledged natural, nor a natural child by legal fiction, shall
be equal in every case to four-fifths of the legitime of an
acknowledged natural child.
The legitime of the illegitimate children shall be taken from the
portion of the estate at the free disposal of the testator,
provided that in no case shall the total legitime of such
illegitimate children exceed that free portion, and that the
legitime of the surviving spouse must first be fully satisfied.
(840a)
Article repealed by Article 176 of the Family Code which provides
that the legitime of each illegitimate children is one-half of that of
legitimate child.
Ratio: the law rewards more the fruits of legal unions, thus, giving
preference and greater portion of the hereditary estate. However, for
humanitarian reasons the illegitimate children should not be
disregarded because they are just as innocent and blameless as the
legitimate children for being born in this world beyond their control.
Limitations to the rights of Legitimate children:
1.
2.
3.
4.
56
- jann -
The other half shall be at the free disposal of the testator. (842a)
Art. 903. The legitime of the parents who have an illegitimate
child, when such child leaves neither legitimate descendants,
nor a surviving spouse, nor illegitimate 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. (n)
It must be noted that in illegitimate filiation, the right to succeed in the
ascending line terminates with the parent of the deceased illegitimate
child. There is, therefore, no reciprocity of successional reights
between the illegitimate grandparent and the illegitimate grandchild.
P.D. 603; Art. 39. Effects of Adoption. - The adoption shall:
(1) Give to the adopted person the same rights and
duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter:
Provided, That an adopted child cannot acquire
Philippine citizenship by virtue of such adoption:
(2) Dissolve the authority vested in the natural parent
or parents, except where the adopter is the spouse of
the surviving natural parent;
(3) Entitle the adopted person to use the adopter's
surname; and
(4) Make the adopted person a legal heir of the
adopter: Provided, That if the adopter is survived by
legitimate parents or ascendants and by an adopted
person, the latter shall not have more successional
rights than an acknowledged natural child: Provided,
further, That any property received gratuitously by the
adopted from the adopter shall revert to the adopter
should the former predecease the latter without
legitimate issue unless the adopted has, during his
lifetime, alienated such property: Provided, finally,
That in the last case, should the adopted leave no
property other than that received from the adopter,
and he is survived by illegitimate issue or a spouse,
such illegitimate issue collectively or the spouse shall
receive one-fourth of such property; if the adopted is
survived by illegitimate issue and a spouse, then the
former collectively shall receive one-fourth and the
latter also one-fourth, the rest in any case reverting to
the adopter, observing in the case of the illegitimate
issue the proportion provided for in Article 895 of the
Civil Code.
The adopter shall not be a legal heir of the adopted person,
whose parents by nature shall inherit from him, except that if
the latter are both dead, the adopting parent or parents take the
place of the natural parents in the line of succession, whether
testate or interstate.
D. Restrictions regarding the legitime
Art. 904. The testator cannot deprive his compulsory heirs of
their legitime, except in cases expressly specified by law.
Art. 872. The testator cannot impose any charge, condition, or
substitution whatsoever upon the legitimes prescribed in this
Code. Should he do so, the same shall be considered as not
imposed. (813a)
57
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Art. 906. Any compulsory heir to whom the testator has left by
any title less than the legitime belonging to him may demand
that the same be fully satisfied. (815)
By the word testator, irt is believed thiat this principle applies only
when that which has been left is in a will or testament. If there is no
testatmentery disposition in his favor, the heir cannot ask for
completion of his legitime, because there is nothing to complete;
instead, there should be case of preterition or total omission, and in
such case the forced heir in the direct line is entitled to ask, not
merely for the completion of his legitime, but for the annulment of the
institution of heir.
But when it is not evedent that the testator has forgotten the
compulsory heir and it appears as a fact that the compulsory heir
had already received something in the way of advance upon his
legitime, it cannot be presumed that the testator had forgotten the
compulsory heir. There is no real preterition, although nothing has
been left by will to the CH. The purpose of Article 906 evidently is to
give the compulsory heir only that ehich has been reserved for him
by the law, nothing less nothing more. If he was not forgotten then he
is entitled only to that which the testator cannot deprive him.
Even when the CH has not been mentioned in the will or has not
been gien an advance on his legitime, if the testamentary
dispositions do not cover the entire estate but something is left
undisposed, and the CH is also a compulsory heir is also an intestate
- jann -
heir. The indisposed portion would pass by the rule of intestacy to the
CH; if it is not enough to cover his legitime, then he may ask for the
completion of such legitme. It is to be presumed that the testator
intended to give him the undisposed portion.
Art. 907. Testamentary dispositions that impair or diminish the
legitime of the compulsory heirs shall be reduced on petition of
the same, insofar as they may be inofficious or excessive. (817)
Only the CHs whose legitme has been impaired can avail of the right
to ask for the reduction of inofficious donations, devises, or legacies.
Art. 1347. All things which are not outside the commerce of
men, including future things, may be the object of a contract. All
rights which are not intransmissible may also be the object of
contracts.
No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except
in cases expressly authorized by law.
All services which are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy may likewise be the
object of a contract. (1271a)
It is essential that the object must be in existence at the time of
perfection of the contract, or that it has the possibility or potentiality
of coming into existence at some future time. By way of exception,
the law generally does not allow contracts on future inheritance. In
order to be future inheritance, the succession must not have been
opened at the time of the contract. A contract to fall within the
prohibition of this article, the following requisites are necessary: 1.
that the succession is yet to be opened. 2. the object forms part of
the inheritance. 3. the promissor has an expectant right over the
object which is purely hereditary in nature.
An agreement to partition an estate of a living person by those who
inherit from him is void. A contract renouncing the right to inherit from
one who is still alive is void.
After the death of the person, however, the properties and rights left
by him by way of inheritance can be the subject matter of a contract
among or by his heirs, even before a partition thereof has been
made, because the rights of the heirs are transmitted to them from
the death of the predecessor.
When the object of the contract is not a part of the inheritance, the
prohibition does not apply, even if delivery of such object is
dependent upon the death of one of the contracting parties. Thus, life
insurance contracts, and stipulations providing for reversion of
property donated in marriage settlements in the event of the death of
the donee, are valid. Likewise, if the right of the party over the thing
is not by virtue of succession, but as creditor, the contract does not
fall within the prohibition of this article. It has been held that in a
contract of purchase by co-owners, it is valid to stipulate that in the
event of death of any of them, those who survive will acquire the
share of the predeceased.
E. Determination of computation
Art. 908. To determine the legitime, the value of the property left
at the death of the testator shall be considered, deducting all
debts and charges, which shall not include those imposed in
the will.
Steps to determine legitime:
1.
58
2.
If the donation to a stranger exceeds the free portion, then it will have
to be reduced as inofficious. The purpose of the law is not to prevent
the stranger from getting more from the inheritance, but to ascertain
that the CH do not get less than what pertains to them as legitime.
3.
4.
5.
The remainder after deduction of the debts and charges is the net
hereditary estate.
Collation is thus for the benefit of the CH, and not the creditors of the
decedent. The presence of the latter, however, must be determined
at the time of the testators death, not at the time the donation was
made. The value of the property donated, however, is determined on
the date the donations were made.
To the net value of the hereditary estate, shall be added the
value of all donations by the testator that are subject to
collation, at the time he made them. (818a)
Art. 909. Donations given to children shall be charged to their
legitime.
Donations made to strangers shall be charged to that part of the
estate of which the testator could have disposed by his last will.
Insofar as they may be inofficious or may exceed the disposable
portion, they shall be reduced according to the rules
established by this Code. (819a)
Art. 910. Donations which an illegitimate child may have
received during the lifetime of his father or mother, shall be
charged to his legitime.
Should they exceed the portion that can be freely disposed of,
they shall be reduced in the manner prescribed by this Code.
(847a)
Any donation to the grandchild is not subject to collation because the
same is not a CH but it may be charged against the free portion as a
donation to stranger.
When the donation to a compulsory heir exceeds his legitime, the
excess is chargeable against the free portion which is at the disposal
- jann -
1.
2.
3.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
59
b.
Donations are reduced first the most recent ones with regard the
excess. Thus, priority in time priority in right. If several donations
made on the same date they are reduced pro rata
A property donated once alienated by donee cannot be set aside. It
would be dangerous to the stability of property and inimical to the
freedom of alienation.
LC alone
1 LC w/ SS- ,
2 or more LC w/ SS , same as 1 LC receives
LC w/ IC , half of 1 LC
1LC, SS, IC , , half of 1 LC
LCs, SS, IC , same as 1 LC, half of 1 LC
IC alone
IC w/ SS 1/3, 1/3
IP alone
IP w/ LC or IC excluded by the latter
IP w/ SS ,
COLLATION
Art. 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other
compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the estate any
property or right which he may have received from the
decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or
any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in
the determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the
account of the partition. (1035a)
Art. 1062. Collation shall not take place among compulsory
heirs if the donor should have so expressly provided, or if the
donee should repudiate the inheritance, unless the donation
should be reduced as inofficious. (1036)
Art. 1063. Property left by will is not deemed subject to
collation, if the testator has not otherwise provided, but the
legitime shall in any case remain unimpaired. (1037)
- jann -
60
- jann -
61
- jann -
given full validity and effect. Aside from the provisions of Articles 906
and 907 above quoted, other codal provisions support the executrixappellee's project of partition as approved by the lower court rather
than the counter-project of partition proposed by oppositorsappellants whereby they would reduce the testamentary disposition
or partition made by the testatrix to one-half and limit the same,
which they would consider as mere devises or legacies, to one-half
of the estate as the disposable free portion, and apply the other half
of the estate to payment of the legitimes of the seven compulsory
heirs. Oppositors' proposal would amount substantially to a
distribution by intestacy and pro tanto nullify the testatrix' will,
contrary to Article 791 of the Civil Code. It would further run counter
to the provisions of Article 1091 of the Civil Code that "(A) partition
legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the
property adjudicated to him.
The burden of oppositors' contention is that the testamentary
dispositions in their favor are in the nature of devises of real property,
citing the testatrix' repeated use of the words "I bequeath" in her
assignment or distribution of her real properties to the respective
heirs. From this erroneous premise, they proceed to the equally
erroneous conclusion that "the legitime of the compulsory heirs
passes to them by operation of law and that the testator can only
dispose of the free portion, that is, the remainder of the estate after
deducting the legitime of the compulsory heirs . . . and all
testamentary dispositions, either in the nature of institution of heirs or
of devises or legacies, have to be taken from the remainder of the
testator's estate constituting the free portion."
Oppositors' conclusions necessarily are in error. The testamentary
dispositions of the testatrix, being dispositions in favor of compulsory
heirs, do not have to be taken only from the free portion of the estate,
as contended, for the second paragraph of Article 842 of the Civil
Code precisely provides that "(O)ne who has compulsory heirs may
dispose of his estate provided he does not contravene the provisions
of this Code with regard to the legitime of said heirs." And even going
by oppositors' own theory of bequests, the second paragraph of
Article 912 of the Civil Code covers precisely the case of the
executrix-appellee, who admittedly was favored by the testatrix with
the large bulk of her estate in providing that "(T)he devisee who is
entitled to a legitime may retain the entire property, provided its value
does not exceed that of the disposable portion and of the share
pertaining to him as legitime." For "diversity of apportionment is the
usual reason for making a testament; otherwise, the decedent might
as well die intestate." 18 Fundamentally, of course, the dispositions
by the testatrix constituted a partition by will, which by mandate of
Article 1080 of the Civil Code and of the other cited codal provisions
upholding the primacy of the testator's last will and testament, have
to be respected insofar as they do not prejudice the legitime of the
other compulsory heirs.
Oppositors' invoking of Article 1063 of the Civil Code that "(P)roperty
left by will is not deemed subject to collation, if the testator has not
otherwise provided, but the legitime shall in any case remain
unimpaired" and invoking of the construction thereof given by some
authorities that "'not deemed subject to collation' in this article really
means not imputable to or chargeable against the legitime", while it
may have some plausibility
19 in an appropriate case, has no
application in the present ease. Here, we have a case of a
distribution and partition of the entire estate by the testatrix, without
her having made any previous donations during her lifetime which
would require collation to determine the legitime of each heir nor
having left merely some properties by will which would call for the
application of Articles 1061 to 1063 of the Civil Code on collation.
The amount of the legitime of the heirs is here determined and
undisputed.
With this resolution of the decisive issue raised by oppositorsappellants, the secondary issues are likewise necessarily resolved.
Their right was merely to demand completion of their legitime under
Article 906 of the Civil Code and this has been complied with in the
approved project of partition, and they can no longer demand a
further share from the remaining portion of the estate, as bequeathed
and partitioned by the testatrix principally to the executrix-appellee.
62
On appeal, the order of the trial court was reversed, the respondent
court ** holding that the deed of donation contained no express
prohibition to collate as an exception to Article 1062. Accordingly, it
ordered collation and equally divided the net estate of the decedent,
including the fruits of the donated property, between Buhay and
Rosalinda. 4
Don Mariano relied on Doa Catalina to carry out the terms of their
compact, hence, nine (9) years after his death, as if in obedience to
his voice from the grave, and fully cognizant that she was also
advancing in years, Doa Catalina began transferring, by sale,
donation or assignment, Don Mariano's, as well as her own,
properties to their respective nephews and nieces. She made the
following sales and donations of properties which she had received
from her husband's estate, to his Locsin nephews and nieces:
We agree with the respondent court that there is nothing in the above
provisions expressly prohibiting the collation of the donated
properties. As the said court correctly observed, the phrase "sa
Doa Catalina died on July 6, 1977. Four years before her death,
she had made a will on October 22, 1973 affirming and ratifying the
transfers she had made during her lifetime in favor of her husband's,
- jann -
63
- jann -
64
- jann -
65
- jann -
66
- jann -
67
- jann -
68
- jann -
69
- jann -
The testatrix in her will made a partition of the entire conjugal estate
among her six children (her husband had renounced his hereditary
rights and his one-half conjugal share). She did not assign the whole
estate to one or more children as envisaged in article 1080. Hence,
she had no right to require that the legitimes be paid in cash. On the
other hand, her estate may remain undivided only for a period of
twenty years. So, the provision that the estate should not be divided
during her husbands lifetime would at most be effective only for
twenty years from the date of her death unless there are compelling
reasons for terminating the coownership (Art. 1083, Civil Code).
Subject to the foregoing observations and the rules on collation, the
will is intrinsically valid and the partition therein may be given effect if
it does not prejudice the creditors and impair the legitimes. The
distribution and partition would become effective upon the death of
Felix Balanay, Sr. In the meantime, the net income should be
equitably divided among the children and the surviving spouse.
It should be stressed that by reason of the surviving husbands
conformity to his wifes will and his renunciation of his hereditary
rights, his one-half conjugal share be a part of his deceased wifes
estate. His conformity had the effect of validating the partition made
in paragraph V of the will without prejudice, of course, to the rights of
the creditors and the legitimes of the compulsory heirs.
Article 793 of the Civil Code provides that "property acquired after
the making of a will shall only pass thereby, as if the testator had
possessed it at the time of making the will, should it expressly appear
by the will that such was his intention". Under article 930 of the Civil
Code "the legacy or devise of a thing belonging to another person is
void, if the testator erroneously believed that the thing pertained to
him. But if the thing bequeathed, though not belonging to the testator
when he made the will, afterwards becomes his, by whatever title,
the disposition shall take effect."
In the instant case there is no doubt that the testatrix and her
husband intended to partition the conjugal estate in the manner set
forth in paragraph V of her will. It is true that she could dispose of by
will only her half of the conjugal estate (Art. 170, Civil Code) but
since the husband, after the dissolution of the conjugal partnership,
had assented to her testamentary partition of the conjugal estate,
such partition has become valid, assuming that the will may be
probated.
The instant case is different from the Nuguid case, supra, where the
testatrix instituted as heir her sister and preterited her parents. Her
will was intrinsically void because it preterited her compulsory heirs
in the direct line. Article 854 of the Civil Code provides that "the
preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in
the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or
born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir;
but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not
inofficious." Since the preterition of the parents annulled the
institution of the sister of the testatrix and there were no legacies and
devises, total intestacy resulted (Art. 960[2], Civil Code).
In the instant case, the preterited heir was the surviving spouse. His
preterition did not produce intestacy. Moreover, he signified his
conformity to his wifes will and renounced his hereditary rights.
It results that the lower court erred in not proceeding with the probate
of the will as contemplated in its uncancelled order of June 18,
19713. Save in an extreme case where the will on its face is
intrinsically void, it is the probate courts duty to pass first upon the
formal validity of the will. Generally, the probate of the will is
mandatory (Art. 838, Civil Code; Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479
and 98 Phil. 249; Fernandez vs. Dimagiba, L-23638, October 12,
1967, 21 SCRA 428).
To give effect to the intention and wishes of the testatrix is the first
and principal law in the matter of testaments (Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon,
L-24561, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 554, 561). Testacy is preferable
to intestacy. An interpretation that will render a testamentary
disposition operative takes precedence over a construction that will
nullify a provision of the will (Arts. 788 and 791, Civil Code).
70
- jann -
71
legacies nor devises having been provided in the will the whole
property of the deceased has been left by universal title to petitioner
and his brothers and sisters. The effect of annulling the institution of
heirs will be, necessarily, the opening of a total intestacy (Neri v.
Akutin, 74 Phil. 185 [1943]) except that proper legacies and devises
must, as already stated above, be respected.
For private respondents to have tolerated the probate of the will and
allowed the case to progress when on its face the will appears to be
intrinsically void as petitioner and his brothers and sisters were
instituted as universal heirs coupled with the obvious fact that one of
the private respondents had been preterited would have been an
exercise in futility. It would have meant a waste of time, effort,
expense, plus added futility. The trial court could have denied its
probate outright or could have passed upon the intrinsic validity of
the testamentary provisions before the extrinsic validity of the will
was resolved (Cayetano v. Leonidas, supra; Nuguid v. Nuguid,
supra). The remedies of certiorari and prohibition were properly
availed of by private respondents.
Thus, this Court ruled that where the grounds for dismissal are
indubitable, the defendants had the right to resort to the more
speedy, and adequate remedies of certiorari and prohibition to
correct a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction,
committed by the trial court in not dismissing the case, (Vda. de
Bacang v. Court of Appeals, supra) and even assuming the existence
of the remedy of appeal, the Court harkens to the rule that in the
broader interests of justice, a petition for certiorari may be
entertained, particularly where appeal would not afford speedy and
adequate relief. (Maninang v. Court of Appeals, supra).
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit and the questioned decision of respondent Court of Appeals
promulgated on August 30, 1985 and its Resolution dated October
23, 1985 are hereby AFFIRMED.
- jann -
Art. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any
property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title
from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to
reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of
law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree
and who belong to the line from which said property came. (871)
A number of Reservas and Reversions where allowed under the old
civil code but they were eliminated under the new civil code leaving
only the Reserva Troncal. The elimination was in line with one of the
principal objectives of the new civil code in the law of succession;
namely, to prevent the estate from being entailed.
The following are some of the reasons for its abolition:
1. creates uncertainty in the pwnership of property, because of the
suspended ownership the reservista has no enthusiasm to preserve
or improve the property
72
- jann -
As held by the trial court, it is clear upon the facts already stated, that
the land in question was reservable property. Francisco Yaeso
inherited it by operation of law from his father Saturnino, and upon
Francisco's death, unmarried and without descendants, it was
inherited, in turn, by his mother, Andrea Gutang. The latter was,
therefore, under obligation to reserve it for the benefit of relatives
within the third degree belonging to the line from which said property
came, if any survived her. The record discloses in this connection
that Andrea Gutang died on December 13, 1951, the lone reservee
surviving her being Cipriana Yaeso who died only on January 13,
1952 (Exh. 10).
In connection with reservable property, the weight of opinion is that
the reserva creates two resolutory conditions, namely, (1) the death
of the ascendant obliged to reserve and (2) the survival, at the time
of his death, of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line
from which the property came (6 Manresa 268-269; 6 Sanchez
Roman 1934). The Court has held in connection with this matter that
the reservista has the legal title and dominion to the reservable
property but subject to a resolutory condition; that he is like a life
usufructuary of the reservable property; that he may alienate the
same but subject to reservation, said alienation transmitting only the
revocable and conditional ownership of the reservista, the rights
acquired by the transferee being revoked or resolved by the survival
of reservatorios at the time of death of the reservista (Edroso vs.
Sablan, 25 Phil., 295; Lunsod vs. Ortega, 46 Phil., 664; Florentino vs.
Florentino, 40 Phil., 480; and Director of Lands vs. Aguas, 63 Phil.,
279).
The sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellees was,
therefore, subject to the condition that the vendees would definitely
acquire ownership, by virtue of the alienation, only if the vendor died
without being survived by any person entitled to the reservable
property. Inasmuch as when Andrea Gutang died, Cipriano Yaeso
was still alive, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the previous
sale made by the former in favor of appellants became of no legal
effect and the reservable property subject matter thereof passed in
exclusive ownership to Cipriana.
On the other hand, it is also clear that the sale executed by the
sisters Paulina and Cipriana Yaesco in favor of the spouse Fidel
Esparcia and Paulina Sienes was subject to a similar resolutory
condition. The reserve instituted by law in favor of the heirs within the
third degree belonging to the line from which the reservable property
came, constitutes a real right which the reservee may alienate and
dispose of, albeit conditionally, the condition being that the alienation
shall transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when the reservee
survives the person obliged to reserve. In the present case, Cipriana
Yaeso, one of the reservees, was still alive when Andrea Gutang, the
person obliged to reserve, died. Thus the former became the
absolute owner of the reservable property upon Andrea's death.
While it may be true that the sale made by her and her sister prior to
this event, became effective because of the occurrence of the
resolutory condition, we are not now in a position to reverse the
appealed decision, in so far as it orders the reversion of the property
in question to the Estate of Cipriana Yaeso, because the vendees
the Esparcia spouses did not appeal therefrom.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision as above modified is
affirmed, with costs, and without prejudice to whatever action in
equity the Esparcia spouses may have against the Estate of Cipriana
Yaeso for the reconveyance of the property in question.
Florentino vs. Florentino
That Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II married the first time Antonia Faz
de Leon; that during the marriage he begot nine children called Jose,
Juan, Maria, Encarnacion, Isabel, Espirita, Gabriel, Pedro, and
Magdalena of the surname Florentino y de Leon; that on becoming a
widower he married the second time Severina Faz de Leon with
whom he had two children, Mercedes and Apolonio III of the
surname Florentino y de Leon; that Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II
died on February 13, 1890; that he was survived by his second wife
Severina Faz de Leon and the ten children first above mentioned;
73
belonged within the third degree to the line from which such property
came.
- jann -
74
- jann -
Torre, the other half of Lot No. 399 in favor of Juanito Frias Chua, his
son in the second marriage; marriage; P3,000.00 in favor of Lorenzo
Frias Chua; and P1,550.00 in favor of Ignacio Frias, Chua , his sons
in the second marriage; By the virtue of said adjudication, Transfer
Certificate of Title No. TR-980 (14483) 2 dated April 28, 1932 was
issued by the Register of Deeds in the names of Consolacion de la
Torre and Juanito Frias Chua as owners-pro-indiviso of Lot No. 339.
On February 27, 1952, Juanito Frias Chua of the second marriage
died intestate without any issue. After his death, is mother
Consolacion de la Torre succeeded to his pro-indiviso share of her
son Juanito as a result of which Transfer Certificate of Title No.
31796 covering the whole Lot No. 399 was issued in her name. Then
on March 5, 1966, Consolacion de la Torre died intestate leaving no
direct heir either in the descending or ascending line except her
brother and sisters.
on May 11, 1966 before the respondent Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental, Branch V, praying that the one-half (1/2) portion
of Lot No. 399 which formerly belonged to Juanito Frias Chua but
which passed to Consolacion de la Torre upon the latter's death, be
declared as reservable property for the reason that the lot in question
was subject to reserva troncal pursuant to Article 981 of the New
Civil code. private respondent as administratrix of the estate of the
Consolacion de la Torre and the heirs of the latter traversed
individually the complaint of petitioners. 4
On July 29, 1968, the respondent Court rendered a decision
dismissing the complaint of petitioners. Hence this instant petition.
The pertinent provision on reserva troncal under the New Civil Code
provides:
"ART. 891.
The ascendant who inherits
from his descendant any property which the
latter may have required by gratuitous title from
another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is
obliged to reserve such property as he may have
acquired by operation of law for the benefit of
relatives who are within the third degree and
belong to the line Iron which said property
came."
Pursuant to the foregoing provision, in order that a property may be
impressed with a reservable character the following requisites must
exist, to wit: (1) that the property was acquired by a descendant from
an ascendant or from a brother or sister by gratuitous title; (2) that
said descendant died without an issue: (3) that the property is
inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; and (4) that there
are relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which
said property came. 5 In the case before Us, all of the foregoing
requisites are present. Thus, as borne out by the records, Juanito
Frias Chua of the second marriage died intestate in 1952; he died
without leaving any issue; his pro-indiviso of 1/2 share of Lot No. 399
was acquired by his mother, Consolacion de la Torre by operation of
law. When Consolacion de la Torre died, Juanito Frias Chua who
died intestate had relatives within the third degree. These relatives
are Ignacio Frias Chua and Dominador Chua and Remedios Chua,
the supposed legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo Frias
Chua, who are the petitioners herein.
The crux of the problem in instant petition is focused on the first
requisite of reserva troncal whether the property in question as
acquired by Juanito Frias Chua from his father, Jose Frias Chua,
gratuitously or not. In resolving this point, the respondent Court said:
We are not prepared to sustain the respondent Court's conclusion
that the lot in question is not subject to a reserva troncal under Art.
891 of the New Civil Code. It is, As explained by Manresa which this
Court quoted with approval in Cabardo v. Villanueva, 44 Phil. 186,
"The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the
recipient does not give anything in return." It matters not whether the
property transmitted be or be not subject to any prior charges; what
is essential is that the transmission be made gratuitously, or by an
act of mere liberality of the person making it, without imposing any
75
- jann -
In view of the fact that the parties are close blood relatives and have
acted upon legal advice in pursuing their respective claims, and in
order to restore and preserve harmony in their family relations, they
hereby waive all their claims against each other for damages (other
than legal interest on plaintiffs' share in the rentals which this
Honorable Court may deem proper to award), attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation which shall be borne by the respective parties."
1
The issue raised is whether, as contended by the plaintiffs-appellees
and ruled by the lower Court, all relatives of the praepositus within
the third degree in the appropriate line succeed without distinction to
the reservable property upon the death of the reservista, as seems to
be implicit in Art. 891 of the Civil Code, which reads: or, as asserted
by the defendant-appellant, the rights of said relatives are subject to,
and should be determined by, the rules on intestate succession.
That question has already been answered in Padura vs. Baldovino,
3 where the reservatario was survived by eleven nephews and
nieces of the praepositus in the line of origin, four of whole blood and
seven of half blood, and the claim was also made that all eleven
were entitled to the reversionary property in equal shares. This
Court, speaking through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, declared the
principles of intestacy to be controlling, and ruled that the nephews
and nieces of whole blood were each entitled to a share double that
of each of the nephews and nieces of half blood in accordance with
Article 1006 of the Civil Code.
"The issue in this appeal may be formulated as follows: In a case of
reserva troncal where the only reservatarios (reserves) surviving the
reservista, and belonging to the line of origin, are nephews of the
descendant (prepositus), but some are nephews of the half blood
and the others are nephews of the whole blood, should the reserved
properties be apportioned among them equally, or should the
nephews of the whole blood take a share twice as large as that of the
nephews of the half blood?
The case is one of first impression and has divided the Spanish
commentators on the subject. After mature reflection, we have
concluded that the position of the appellants is correct. The reserva
troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the
reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging to the line
from which the property originally came, and avoid its being
dissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant
(reservista).
"Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate succession when
there are relatives of the descendant within the third degree, the right
of the nearest relative, called reservatario, over the property which
the reservista (person holding it subject to reservation) should return
to him, excludes that of the one more remote. The right of
representation cannot be alleged when the one claiming same as a
reservatario of the reservable property is not among the relatives
within the third degree belonging to the line from which such property
came, inasmuch as the right granted by the Civil Code in Article 811
is in the highest degree personal and for the exclusive benefit of
designated persons who are within the third degree of the person
from whom the reservable property came. Therefore, relatives of the
fourth and the succeeding degrees can never be considered as
reservatarios, since the law does not recognize them as such.
"In spite of what has been said relative to the right of representation
on the part of one alleging his right as reservatario who is not within
the third degree of relationship, nevertheless there is right of
representation on the part of reservatarios who are within the third
degree mentioned by law, as in the case of nephews of the deceased
person from whom the reservable property came . . ."
Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of
ordinary intestate succession; so is the rule that whole blood brothers
and nephews are entitled to a share double that of brothers and
nephews of half blood. If in determining the rights of the reservatarios
inter se, proximity of degree and the right of representation of
76
- jann -
77
- jann -
The oppositor cannot also derive comfort from the fact that she is an
adopted child of Francisca Mortera because under our law the
relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter
and the adopted does not extend to the relatives of the adopting
parents or of the adopted child except only as expressly provided for
by law. Hence, no relationship is created between the adopted and
the collaterals of the adopting parents. As a consequence, the
adopted is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of the
adopter.
"The relationship established by the adoption, however, is limited to
the adopting parent, and does not extend to his other relatives,
except as expressly provided by law. Thus, the adopted child cannot
be considered as a relative of the ascendants and collaterals of the
adopting parents, nor of the legitimate children which they may have
after the adoption, except that the law imposes certain impediments
to marriage by reason of adoption. Neither are the children of the
adopted considered as descendants of the adopter. The relationship
created is exclusively between, the adopter and the adopted, and
does not extend to the relatives of either." (Tolentino, Civil Code of
the Philippines, Vol. 1, p. 652)
We have examined the evidence on the matter and we are fully in
accord with the foregoing observation. Moreover, the mere claim that
Josefina Mortera and her husband Rene Teotico had the opportunity
to exert pressure on the testatrix simply because she lived in their
house several years prior to the execution of the will and that she
was old and suffering from hypertension in that she was virtually
isolated from her friends for several years prior to her death is
insufficient to disprove what the instrumental witnesses had testified
that the testatrix freely and voluntarily and with full consciousness of
the solemnity of the occasion executed the will under consideration.
The exercise of improper pressure and undue influence must be
supported by substantial evidence and must be of a kind that would
overpower and subjugate the mind of the testatrix as to destroy her
free agency and make her express the will of another rather than her
own (Coso vs. Deza, 42 Phil., 596). The burden is on the person
challenging the will that such influence was exerted at the time of its
execution, a matter which here was not done, for the evidence
presented not only is sufficient but was disproved by the testimony
the instrumental witnesses.
The question of whether the probate court could determine the
intrinsic validity of the provisions of a will has been decided by this
Court in a long line of decisions among which the following may be
cited: "Opposition to the intrinsic validity or legality of the provisions
of the will cannot be entertained in probate proceeding because its
only purpose is merely to determine if the will has been executed in
accordance with the requirements of the law."
"To establish conclusively as against everyone, and once for all, the
facts that a will was executed with the formalities required by law and
that the testator was in a condition to make a will, is the only purpose
of the proceedings under the new code for the probate of a will. (Sec.
625.) The judgment in such proceedings determines and can
determine nothing more. In them the court has no power to pass
upon the validity of any provisions made in the will. It can not decide,
for example, that a certain legacy is void and another one valid."
II. DISINHERITANCE
Art. 915. A compulsory heir may, in consequence of
disinheritance, be deprived of his legitime, for causes expressly
stated by law. (848a)
Disinheritance may be defined as the act by which the testator, for a
just cause, deprives a compulsory heir of his right to the legitime.
It is a means given to the testator to punish such of his compulsory
heirs who have committed acts which render them unworthy of
benefit or generosity. The law saves the testator from the pain of
seeing a portion of his property pass forcibly to an ungrateful heir or
to one who may have brought dishonor to him.
78
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
must be unconditional;
7.
must be total
- jann -
prescription of penalty;
79
c.
intention is lacking
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
2.
3.
unintentional;
2.
- jann -
80
Art. 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the
following grounds:
- jann -
or
habitual
alcoholism
of
the
Art. 63. The decree of legal separation shall have the following
effects:
(1) The spouses shall be entitled to live separately from
each other, but the marriage bonds shall not be severed;
(2) The absolute community or the conjugal partnership
shall be dissolved and liquidated but the offending spouse
shall have no right to any share of the net profits earned by
the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, which
81
amount that pertains to him as intestate heir and not only that as
compulsory heir.
XVI. INSTITUTION OF HEIRS
A. In General
Art. 840. Institution of heir is an act by virtue of which a testator
designates in his will the person or persons who are to succeed
him in his property and transmissible rights and obligations. (n)
The will of the testator is the supreme law which succession is
governed, thus, the beneficiaries under the will must be designated
with clearness so that there can be no doubt as to who are intended
by the testator.
Since the institution of heirs and the designation of legatees and
devisees spring exclusively from the will of the testator, only the
portion of the inheritance that is subject to the disposal of the testator
would be affected by such institution or designation. It cannot affect
the portion known as the legitime.
Art. 785. The duration or efficacy of the designation of heirs,
devisees or legatees, or the determination of the portions which
they are to take, when referred to by name, cannot be left to the
discretion of a third person. (670a)
T: The matters mentioned in this article are testamentary in nature;
they constitute expressions of the will or disposition of the testator.
Hence, pursuant to Art. 784, it cannot be delegated.
B: The ff. constitute the essence of will making or the exercise of the
disposing power, and thus, non-delegable:
4.
5.
6.
Art. 841. A will shall be valid even though it should not contain
an institution of an heir, or such institution should not comprise
the entire estate, and even though the person so instituted
should not accept the inheritance or should be incapacitated to
succeed.
- jann -
82
4.
T: the testator whose lips have been sealed by death can no longer
deny or affirm the truth of what witnesses may say he declared,
would create confusion and give rise to false claims.
Art. 845. Every disposition in favor of an unknown person shall
be void, unless by some event or circumstance his identity
becomes certain. However, a disposition in favor of a definite
class or group of persons shall be valid. (750a)
Art. 786. The testator may entrust to a third person the
distribution of specific property or sums of money that he may
leave in general to specified classes or causes, and also the
designation of the persons, institutions or establishments to
which such property or sums are to be given or applied. (671a)
T: the third person here does not make any disposition, but simply
carries out details in the execution of the testamentary disposition
made by the testator himself in the will.
B: for this article to take effect the testator must determine the ff:
5.
6.
4.
- jann -
83
- jann -
barring the petitioners nephews and niece from registering their claim
even to properties adjudicated by the decedent in her will?
Before the institution of heirs may be annulled under article 850 of
the Civil Code, the following requisites must concur: First, the cause
for the institution of heirs must be stated in the will; second, the
cause must be shown to be false; and third, it must appear from the
face of the will that the testator would not have made such institution
if he had known the falsity of the cause.
The petitioners would have us imply, from the use of the terms,
"sapilitang tagapagmana" (compulsory heirs) and "sapilitang mana"
(legitime), that the impelling reason or cause for the institution of the
respondents was the testatrix's belief that under the law she could
not do otherwise. If this were indeed what prompted the testatrix in
instituting the respondents, she did not make it known in her will.
Surely if she was aware that succession to the legitime takes place
by operation of law, independent of her own wishes, she would not
have found it convenient to name her supposed compulsory heirs to
their legitimes. Her express adoption of the rules on legitimes should
very well indicate her complete agreement with that statutory
scheme. But even this, like the petitioners' own proposition, is highly
speculative of what was in the mind of the testatrix when she
executed her will. One fact prevails, however, and it is that the
decedent's will does not state in a specific or unequivocal manner
the cause for such institution of heirs. We cannot annul the same on
the basis of guesswork or uncertain implications.
And even if we should accept the petitioners' theory that the
decedent instituted the respondents perfecto Cruz, et al. solely
because she believed that the law commanded her to do so, on the
false assumption that her adoption of these respondents was valid,
still such institution must stand.
Article 850 of the Civil Code, quoted above, is a positive injunction to
ignore whatever false cause the testator may have written in his will
for the institution of heirs. Such institution may be annulled only when
one is satisfied, after an examination of the will, that the testator
clearly would not have made the institution if he had known the
cause for it to be false. Now, would the late Basilia have caused the
revocation of the institution of heirs if she had known that she was
mistaken in treating these heirs as her legally adopted children? Or
would she have instituted them nonetheless?
The decedent's will, which alone should provide the answer, is mute
on this point or at best is vague and uncertain. The phrases, "mga
sapilitang tagapagmana" and "sapilitang mana," were borrowed from
the language of the law on succession and were used, respectively,
to describe the class of heirs instituted and the abstract object of the
inheritance. They offer no absolute indication that the decedent
would have willed her estate other than the way she did if she had
known that she was not bound by law to make allowance for
legitimes. Her disposition of the free portion of her estate (libre
disposicion) which largely favored the respondent Perfecto Cruz, the
latter's children, and the children of the respondent Benita Cruz,
shows a perceptible inclination on her part to give to the respondents
more than what she thought the law enjoined her to give to them.
Compare this with the relatively small devise of land which the
decedent had left for her blood relatives, including the petitioners
Consuelo Austria-Benta and Lauro Mozo and the children of the
petitioner Ruben Austria. Were we to exclude the respondents
Perfecto Cruz, et al, from the inheritance, then the petitioners and the
other nephews and nieces would succeed to the bulk of the estate by
intestacy a result which would subvert the clear wishes of the
decedent.
Whatever doubts one entertains in his mind should be swept away
by these explicit injunctions in the Civil Code: "The words of a will are
to receive an 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 will, that is to be
preferred which will prevent intestacy." 1
Testacy is favored and doubts are resolved on its side, especially
where the will evinces an intention on the part of the testator to
84
- jann -
85
In the instant case, the records will show that in the settlement of the
testate estate of Maria Lizares, the executrix, Eustaquia Lizares
submitted on January 8, 1971, a project of partition in which the
parcels of land, subject matters of the complaint for reconveyance,
were included as property of the estate and assigned exclusively to
Eustaquia as a devisee of Maria Lizares. In accordance with said
project of partition which was approved by the probate court,
Encarnacion Lizares Vda. de Panlilio, Remedios Lizares Vda. de
Guinto, Felicidad Paredes Llopez, Rosario Paredes Mendoza and
Eustaquia Lizares executed an Agreement of Partition and
Subdivision on November 28, 1972, whereby they agreed to
terminate their co-ownership over Lots Nos. 550, 514, 553, 1287-C
of SWO-7446 and 552 covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
T-65004, T-65005, T-65006, T-65007 and T-65008. These facts taken
altogether show that the Lizares sisters recognized the decree of
partition sanctioned by the probate court and in fact reaped the fruits
thereof.
Hence, they are now precluded from attacking the validity of the
partition or any part of it in the guise of a complaint for
reconveyance. A party cannot, in law and in good conscience be
allowed to reap the fruits of a partition, agreement or judgment and
repudiate what does not suit him. 39 Thus, where a piece of land
has been included in a partition and there is no allegation that the
inclusion was effected through improper means or without
petitioner's knowledge, the partition barred any further litigation on
said title and operated to bring the property under the control and
jurisdiction of the court for its proper disposition according to the
tenor of the partition. 40 The question of private respondents' title
over the lots in question has been concluded by the partition and
became a closed matter.
A final decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased person vests
the title to the land of the estate in the distributees. If the decree is
erroneous, it should be corrected by opportune appeal, for once it
becomes final, its binding effect is like any other judgment in rem,
unless properly set aside for lack of jurisdiction or fraud. Where the
court has validly issued a decree of distribution and the same has
become final, the validity or invalidity of the project of partition
becomes irrelevant. 41
It is a fundamental concept in the origin of every jural system, a
principle of public policy, that at the risk of occasional errors,
judgments of courts should become final at some definite time fixed
by law, interest rei publicae ut finis sit litum. "The very object of which
the courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies." 42
The only instance where a party interested in a probate proceeding
may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left out by reason
of circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or
inadvertence not imputable to negligence. Even then, the better
practice to secure relief is the opening of the same by proper motion
within the reglementary period, instead of an independent action, the
effect of which if successful, would be for another court or judge to
throw out a decision or order already final and executed and
reshuffle properties long ago distributed and disposed of. 43
The fundamental principle upon which the doctrine of res judicata
rests is that parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same
issue more than once, that, when a right or fact has been judicially
tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an
opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court,
so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the
parties and those in privity with then in law or estate. 44
Granting that res judicata has not barred the institution of Civil Case
No. 11639, the contention of Celsa L. Vda. de Kilay ko et al. that they
are conditional substitute heirs of Eustaquia in the testate estate of
Maria Lizares 46 is not meritorious. While the allegation of the joint
administrators that paragraphs 10 and 11 of Maria Lizares' last will
and testament conceives of a fideicommissary substitution under
Article 863 of the Civil Code is also baseless as said paragraphs do
not impose upon Eustaquia a clear obligation to preserve the estate
in favor of Celsa L. Vda. de Kilay ko, et al., neither may said
- jann -
86
- jann -
87
- jann -
88
- jann -
89
- jann -
90
Art. 950. If the estate should not be sufficient to cover all the
legacies or devises, their payment shall be made in the
following order:
Art. 943. If the heir, legatee or devisee cannot make the choice,
in case it has been granted him, his right shall pass to his heirs;
but a choice once made shall be irrevocable. (877a)
Art. 944. A legacy for education lasts until the legatee is of age,
or beyond the age of majority in order that the legatee may
finish some professional, vocational or 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.
If the testator has not fixed the amount of such legacies, it shall
be fixed in accordance with the social standing and the
circumstances of the legatee and the value of the estate.
If the testator or during his lifetime used to give the legatee a
certain sum of money or other things by way of support, the
same amount shall be deemed bequeathed, unless it be
markedly disproportionate to the value of the estate. (879a)
- jann -
91
- jann -
petition for the probate of the purported will of the late Benedicta de
los Reyes, executed on October 22, 1930, and annexed to the
petition. The will instituted the petitioner as the sole heir of the estate
of the deceased. The petition was set for hearing, and in due time,
Dionisio Fernandez, Eusebio Reyes and Luisa Reyes, and one
month later, Mariano, Cesar, Leonor and Paciencia, all surnamed
Reyes, all claiming to be heirs intestate of the decedent, filed
oppositions to the probate asked. Grounds advanced for the
opposition were forgery, vices of consent of the testatrix, estoppel by
laches of the proponent, and revocation of the will by two deeds of
conveyance of the major portion of the estate made by the testatrix in
favor of the proponent in 1943 and 1944, but which conveyances
were finally set aside by this Supreme Court in a decision
promulgated on August 3, 1954, in cases G.R. Nos. L-5618 and L5620 (unpublished).
Oppositors Fernandez and Reyes petitioned for reconsideration
and/or new trial, insisting that the issues of estoppel and revocation
be considered and resolved; whereupon, on July 27, 1959, the Court
overruled the claim that proponent was in estoppel to ask for the
probate of the will, but "reserving unto the parties the right to raise
the issue of implied revocation at the opportune time."
On February 27, 1962, after receiving further evidence on the issue
whether the execution by the testatrix of deeds of sale of the larger
portion of her estate in favor of the testamentary heir, made in 1943
and 1944, subsequent to the execution of her 1930 testament, had
revoked the latter under Article 957(2) of the 1950 Civil Code (Art.
869 of the Civil Code of 1889), the trial Court resolved against the
oppositors and held the will of the late Benedicta de los Reyes
"unaffected and unrevoked by the deeds of sale." Whereupon, the
oppositors elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
In this instance, both sets of oppositors-appellants pose three main
issues: (a) whether or not the decree of the Court of First Instance
allowing the will to probate had become final for lack of appeal; (b)
whether or not the order of the Court of origin dated July 27, 1959,
overruling the estoppel invoked by oppositors-appellants had
likewise become final; and (c) whether or not the 1930 will of
Benedicta de los Reyes had been impliedly revoked by her execution
of deeds of conveyance in favor of the proponent on March 26, 1943
and April 3, 1944.
There being no controversy that the probate decree of the Court
below was not appealed on time, the same had become final and
conclusive. Hence, the appellate courts may no longer revoke said
decree nor review the evidence upon which it is made to rest. Thus,
the appeal belatedly lodged against the decree was correctly
dismissed.
The alleged revocation implied from the execution of the deeds of
conveyance in favor of the testamentary heir is plainly irrelevant to
and separate from the question of whether the testament was duly
executed. For one, if the will is not entitled to probate, or its probate
is denied, all questions of revocation becomes superfluous: in law,
there is no such will and hence there would be nothing to revoke.
Then, again, the revocation invoked by the oppositors-appellants is
not an express one, but merely implied from subsequent acts of thetestatrix allegedly evidencing an abandonment of the original
intention to bequeath or devise the properties concerned. As such,
the revocation would not affect the will itself, but merely the particular
devise or legacy. Only the total and absolute revocation can preclude
probate of the revoked testament (Trillana vs. Crisostomo, supra).
As to the issue of estoppel, we have already ruled in Guevara vs.
Guevara, 98 Phil. 249, that the presentation and probate of a will are
requirements of public policy, being primarily designed to protect the
testator's expressed wishes, which are entitled to respect as a
consequence of the decedent's ownership and right of disposition
within legal limits. Evidence of it is the duty imposed on a custodian
of a will to deliver the same to the Court, and the fine and
imprisonment prescribed for its violation (Revised Rule 75) It would
be non-sequitur to allow public policy to be evaded on the pretext of
estoppel. Whether or not the order overruling the allegation of
estoppel is still appealable or not, the defense is patently
unmeritorious and the Court of Appeals correctly so ruled.
92
- jann -
But the ratio legis (that among a testator's relatives the closest are
dearest) obviously does not apply where the beneficiaries are
relatives of another person (the legatee) and not of the testator.
There is no logical reason in this case to presume that the testator
intended to refer to the rules of intestacy, for he precisely made a
testament and provided substitutes for each legatee; nor can it be
said that his affections would prefer the nearest relatives of the
legatee to those more distant, since he envisages all of them in a
group, and only as mere substitutes for a preferred beneficiary.
Should Article 959 (old Art. 751) be applied by analogy? There are
various reasons against this. The most important one is that under
this article, as recognized by the principal commentators on the Code
of 1889, the nearest exclude all the farther relatives and the right of
representation does not operate.
The result would be that by applying to the descendants of Filomena
Diaz the "nearest relatives" rule of Article 959, the inheritance would
be limited to her children, or anyone of them, excluding the
grandchildren altogether. This could hardly be the intention of the
testator who, in the selfsame clause 10 of his codicil (ante), speaks
of "cuatro hijos de mi difunto hermano Fabian" and of "los hijos de
Domingo Legarda," as well as of "descendientes legitimos" of the
other legatees, to us indicating clearly that he understood well that
hijos and descendientes are not synonymous terms. Observe that, in
referring to the substitutes of Filomena Diaz, Nestor Santiago and
Isabel M. de Santiago, the testator, does not even use the
description "sus hijos o descendientes," but only "descendientes".
There is no doubt that, the testator's intention being the cardinal rule
of succession in the absence of compulsory (forced) heirs, he could
93
- jann -
In this Petition for Review of two (2) Orders of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu the question raised is whether the widow whose
husband predeceased his mother can inherit from the latter, her
mother-in-law.
In the course of the intestate proceedings, the trial court issued an
Order dated June 16, 1972 declaring the following individuals the
legal heirs of the deceased and prescribing their respective share of
the estate Fortunato T. Rosales (husband) 1/4; Magna R. Acebes
(daughter), 1/4; Macikequerox Rosales, 1/4; and Antonio Rosales
(son), 1/4.
This declaration was reiterated by the trial court in its Order dated
February 4, 1975. These Orders notwithstanding, Irenea Rosales
insisted in getting a share of the estate in her capacity as the
surviving spouse of the late Carterio Rosales, son of the deceased,
claiming that she is a compulsory heir of her mother-in-law together
with her son, Macikequerox Rosales.
In sum, the petitioner poses two (2) questions for Our resolution.
First is a widow (surviving spouse) an intestate heir of her motherin-law? Second are the Orders of the trial court which excluded
the widow from getting a share of the estate in question final as
against the said widow?
Our answer to the first question is in the negative. Intestate or legal
heirs are classified into two (2) groups, namely, those who inherit by
their own right, and those who inherit by the right of representation.
1 Restated, an intestate heir can only inherit either by his own right,
as in the order of intestate succession provided for in the Civil Code,
2 or by the right of representation provided for in Article 981 of the
same law.
There is no provision in the Civil Code which states that a
widow (surviving spouse) is an intestate heir of her mother-inlaw. The entire Code is devoid of any provision which entitles her to
inherit from her mother-in-law either by her own right or by the right
of representation. The provisions of the Code which relate to the
order of intestate succession (Articles 978 to 1014) enumerate with
meticulous exactitude the intestate heirs of a decedent, with the
State as the final intestate heir. The conspicuous absence of a
provision which makes a daughter-in-law an intestate heir of the
deceased all the more confirms Our observation. If the legislature
intended to make the surviving spouse an intestate heir of the
parent-in-law, it would have so provided in the Code.
The aforesaid provision of law 3 refers to the estate of the deceased
spouse in which case the surviving spouse (widow or widower) is a
compulsory heir. It does not apply to the estate of a parent-in-law.
Indeed, the surviving spouse is considered a third person as regards
the estate of the parent-in-law
By the same token, the provision of Article 999 of the Civil Code
aforecited does not support petitioner's claim. A careful examination
of the said Article confirms that the estate contemplated therein is the
estate of the deceased spouse. The estate which is the subject
matter of the intestate estate proceedings in this case is that of the
deceased Petra V. Rosales, the mother-in-law of the petitioner. It is
from the estate of Petra V. Rosales that Macikequerox Rosales
draws a share of the inheritance by the right of representation as
provided by Article 981 of the Code.
Article 971 explicitly declares that Macikequerox Rosales is called to
succession by law because of his blood relationship. He does not
succeed his father, Carterio Rosales (the person represented) who
predeceased his grandmother, Petra Rosales, but the latter whom
his father would have succeeded. Petitioner cannot assert the same
right of representation as she has no filiation by blood with her
mother-in-law.
Petitioner however contends that at the time of the death of her
husband Carterio Rosales he had an inchoate or contingent right to
the properties of Petra Rosales as compulsory heir. Be that as it may,
said right of her husband was extinguished by his death that is why it
is their son Macikequerox Rosales who succeeded from Petra
94
- jann -
95
- jann -
96
"'Between the natural child and the legitimate relatives of the father
or mother who acknowledged it, the Code denies any right of
succession. They cannot be called relatives and they have no right to
inherit. Of course, there is a blood tie, but the law does not recognize
it. In this, article 943 is based upon the reality of the facts and upon
the presumptive will of the interested parties; the natural child is
disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family; the
legitimate family is, in turn, hated by the natural child; the latter
considers the privileged condition of the former and the resources of
which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the natural
child nothing but the product of sin, a palpable evidence of a blemish
upon the family. Every relation is ordinarily broken in life; the law
does no more them recognize this truth, by avoiding further grounds
of resentment.' (7 Manresa, 3d ed., p. 110.)"
The oppositor cannot also derive comfort from the fact that she is an
adopted child of Francisca Mortera because under our law the
relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter
and the adopted does not extend to the relatives of the adopting
parents or of the adopted child except only as expressly provided for
by law. Hence, no relationship is created between the adopted and
the collaterals of the adopting parents. As a consequence, the
adopted is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of the
adopter.
"The relationship established by the adoption, however, is limited to
the adopting parent, and does not extend to his other relatives,
except as expressly provided by law. Thus, the adopted child cannot
be considered as a relative of the ascendants and collaterals of the
adopting parents, nor of the legitimate children which they may have
after the adoption, except that the law imposes certain impediments
to marriage by reason of adoption. Neither are the children of the
adopted considered as descendants of the adopter. The relationship
created is exclusively between, the adopter and the adopted, and
- jann -
Private respondent filed a Petition dated January 23, 1976 with the
Court of First Instance of Cavite in Sp. Proc. Case No. B-21, "In The
Matter of the Intestate Estate of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero," praying among other things, that the corresponding letters
of Administration be issued in her favor and that she be appointed as
special administratrix of the properties of the deceased Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
It is undisputed: 1) that Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero who together with Felisa's mother Juliana
were the only legitimate children of the spouses Felipe Pamuti and
Petronila Asuncion; 2) that Juliana married Simon Jardin and out of
their union were born Felisa Pamuti and another child who died
during infancy; 3) that Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero is the widow
of Pascual Santero and the mother of Pablo Santero; 4) that Pablo
Santero was the only legitimate son of his parents Pascual Santero
and Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero; 5) that Pascual Santero died in
1970; Pablo Santero in 1973 and Simona Santero in 1976; 6) that
Pablo Santero, at the time of his death was survived by his mother
Simona Santero and his six minor natural children to wit: four minor
children with Anselma Diaz and two minor children with Felixberta
Pacursa.
Petitioner Anselma Diaz, as guardian of her minor children, filed her
"Opposition and Motion to Exclude Felisa Pamuti-Jardin dated March
13, 1980, from further taking part or intervening in the settlement of
the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, as well as in
the intestate estate of Pascual Santero and Pablo Santero.
On May 20, 1980, Judge Ildefonso M. Bleza issued an order
excluding Felisa Jardin "from further taking part or intervening in the
settlement of the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero,
as well as in the intestate estates of Pascual Santero and Pablo
97
After her Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the trial court in
its order dated November 1, 1980, Felisa P. Jardin filed her appeal to
the Intermediate Appellate Court in CA-G.R. No. 69814-R. A decision
4 was rendered by the Intermediate Appellate Court on December
14, 1983 (reversing the decision of the trial court) the dispositive
portion of which reads "WHEREFORE, finding the Order appealed
from not consistent with the facts and law applicable, the same is
hereby set aside and another one entered sustaining the Orders of
December 1 and 9, 1976 declaring the petitioner as the sole heir of
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero and ordering oppositors-appellees
not to interfere in the proceeding for the declaration of heirship in the
estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero."
The real issue in this case may be briefly stated as follows who
are the legal heirs of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero her niece
Felisa Pamuti Jardin or her grandchildren (the natural children of
Pablo Santero)?
The dispute at bar refers only to the intestate estate of Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero and the issue here is whether oppositorsappellees (petitioners herein) as illegitimate children of Pablo
Santero could inherit from Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, by right
of representation of their father Pablo Santero who is a legitimate
child of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
Now then what is the appropriate law on the matter? Petitioners
contend in their pleadings that Art. 990 of the New Civil Code is the
applicable law on the case. They contend that said provision of the
New Civil Code modifies the rule in Article 941 (Old Civil Code) and
recognizes the right of representation (Art. 970) to descendants,
whether legitimate or illegitimate and that Art. 941, Spanish Civil
Code denied illegitimate children the right to represent their
deceased parents and inherit from their deceased grandparents, but
that Rule was expressly changed and/or amended by Art. 990 New
Civil Code which expressly grants the illegitimate children the right to
represent their deceased father (Pablo Santero) in the estate of their
grandmother (Simona Pamuti)" 5
Petitioners' contention holds no water. Since the hereditary conflict
refers solely to the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero, who is the legitimate mother of Pablo Santero, the
applicable law is the provision of Art. 992 of the Civil Code which
reads as follows:
ART. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his
father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit
in the same manner from the illegitimate child. (943a).
Pablo Santero is a legitimate child, he is not an illegitimate child. On
the other hand, the oppositors (petitioners herein) are the illegitimate
children of Pablo Santero.
It is therefore clear from Article 992 of the New Civil Code that the
phrase "legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother"
includes Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero as the word "relative"
includes all the kindred of the person spoken of. 7 The record shows
that from the commencement of this case the only parties who
claimed to be the legitimate heirs of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero are Felisa Pamuti Jardin and the six minor natural or
illegitimate children of Pablo Santero. Since petitioners herein are
barred by the provisions of Article 992, the respondent Intermediate
Appellate Court did not commit any error in holding Felisa PamutiJardin to be the sole legitimate heir to the intestate estate of the late
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the assailed
decision is hereby AFFIRMED
Debacayo vs. Feraris
Melodia Ferraris was a resident of Cebu City until 1937 when she
transferred to Intramuros, Manila. She was known to have resided
there continuously until 1944. Thereafter, up to the filing on
December 22, 1960 of the petition for the summary settlement of her
estate, she has not been heard of and her whereabouts are still
unknown. More than ten (10) years having elapsed since the last
time she was known to be alive, she was declared presumptively
dead for purposes of opening her succession and distributing her
estate among her heirs.
Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in
that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the
illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the
father or mother of said legitimate child. They may have a natural tie
of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purposes of Art.
992. Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family there is
presumed to be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility. The
illegitimate child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate
family; the family is in turn, hated by the illegitimate child; the latter
considers the privileged condition of the former, and the resources of
which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the
illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin, palpable evidence of
a blemish broken in life; the law does no more than recognize this
truth, by avoiding further grounds of resentment. 6
The sole issue to be resolved in this case is: Who should inherit the
intestate estate of a deceased person when he or she is survived
only by collateral relatives, to wit: an aunt and the children of a
- jann -
98
Nevertheless, the trial court was correct when it held that, in case of
intestacy, nephews and nieces of the de cujus exclude all other
collaterals (aunts and uncles, first cousins, etc.) from the succession.
This is readily apparent from articles 1001, 1004, 1005, and 1009 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines, that provided as follows:
Under the last article (1009), the absence of brothers, sisters,
nephews and nieces of the decedent is a precondition to the other
collaterals (uncles, cousins, etc.) being called to the succession. This
was also and more clearly the case under the Spanish Civil Code of
1889, that immediately preceded the Civil Code now in force (R. A.
386). Thus, Articles 952 and 954 of the Code of 1889 prescribed as
follows:
"ART. 952.
In the absence of brothers or sisters
and of nephews or nieces, children of the former, whether
of the whole blood or not, the surviving spouse, if not
separated by a final decree of divorce shall succeed to the
entire estate of the deceased."
"ART. 954.
Should there be neither brothers nor
sisters, nor children of brothers or sisters, nor a surviving
spouse, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the
estate of deceased.
The probate court in its order of December 26, 1946 approved the
project of partition. It held that in certain clauses of the will the
testator intended to conserve his properties not in the sense of
disposing of them after his death but for the purpose of preventing
that "tales bienes fuesen malgastados o desfilpar rados por los
legatarios" and that if the testator intended a perpetual prohibition
against alienation, that condition would be regarded "como no puesta
o no existente". It concluded that "no hay motivos legales o morales
para que la sucession de Don Teodoro R. Yangco sea declarada
intestada."
It will be seen that under the preceding articles, brothers and sisters
and nephews and nieces inherited ab intestato ahead of the
surviving spouse, while other collaterals succeeded only after the
widower or widow. The present Civil Code of the Philippines merely
placed the spouse on a par with the nephews and nieces and
brothers and sisters of the deceased, but without altering the
preferred position of the latter vis a vis the other collaterals.
Appellants quote paragraph 2 of Tolentino's commentaries to Article
1009 of the present Civil Code as declaring that Article 1009 does
not establish a rule of preference. Which is true as to "other
collaterals", since preference among them is according to their
proximity to the decedent, as established by Article 962, paragraph
1.
"ART. 962.
In every inheritance, the relative
nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones, saving
the right of representation when it properly takes place."
But Tolentino does not state that nephews and nieces concur with
other collaterals of equal degree. On the contrary, in the first
- jann -
99
- jann -
100
- jann -
101
- jann -
b.
102
- jann -
error, is: How shall the estate of a person who dies intestate be
divided when the only survivors are the spouse and one legitimate
child?
The Second Issue: Petitioner rests his claim to 3/4 of his father's
estate on Art. 892, of the New Civil Code which provides that:
"If only the legitimate child or descendant of the deceased
survives, the widow or widower shall be entitled to onefourth of the hereditary estate. . . .'
As she gets one-fourth, therefore, I get 3/4, says Claro. Perfecta, on
the other hand, cites Art. 996 which provides:
"If a widow or widower and legitimate children or
descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the
succession the same share as that of each of the
children."
Replying to Perfecta's claim, Claro says the article is unjust and
inequitable to the extent that it grants the widow the same share as
that of the children in intestate succession, whereas in testate, she is
given 1/4 and the only child 1/2.
Oppositor Perfecta Miranda, on the other hand, contends that Art.
996 should control, regardless of its alleged inequity, being as it is, a
provision on intestate succession involving a surviving spouse and a
legitimate child, inasmuch as in statutory construction, the plural
word "children" includes the singular, "child".
Art. 892 of the New Civil Code falls under the chapter on
Testamentary Succession; whereas Art. 996 comes under the
chapter on Legal or Intestate Succession. Such being the case, it is
obvious that Claro cannot rely on Art. 892 to support his claim to 3/4
of his father's estate. Art. 892 merely fixes the legitime of the
surviving spouse and Art. 888 thereof, the legitime of children in
testate succession. While it may indicate the intent of the law with
respect to the ideal shares that a child and a spouse should get
when they concur with each other, it does not fix the amount of
shares that such child and spouse are entitled to when intestacy
occurs. Because if the latter happens, the pertinent provision on
intestate succession shall apply; i. e. Art. 996.
This is, remember, intestate proceedings. In the New Civil Code's
chapter in legal or intestate succession, the only article applicable is
Art. 996. Our colleague Mr. Justice J. B. L. Reyes, professor of Civil
Law, is quoted as having expressed the opinion that under this
article, when the widow survives with only one legitimate child, they
share the estate in equal parts. 1 Senator Tolentino in his
commentaries writes as follows:
"One child Surviving. If there is only one legitimate child
surviving with the spouse, since they share equally, onehalf of the estate goes to the child and the other half goes
to the surviving spouse. Although the law refers to
"children or descendants," the rule in statutory construction
that the plural can be understood to include the singular is
applicable in his case." (Tolentino, Civil Code of the
Philippines, Vol. III, p. 436.)
The theory of those holding otherwise, seems to be premised on
these propositions: (a) Art. 996 speaks of "children," therefore it does
not apply when there is only one "child"; consequently Art. 892 (and
Art. 888) should be applied, thru a process of judicial construction
and analogy; (b) Art. 996 is unjust or unfair because whereas in
testate succession, the widow is assigned one-fourth only (Art. 892),
she would get 1/2 in intestate. Children: It is a maxim of statutory
construction that words in plural include the singular. 2 So Art. 996
could or should be read (and so applied): "if the widow or widower
and a legitimate child are left, the surviving spouse has the same
share as that of the child." Indeed, if we refuse to apply the article to
this case on the ground that "child" is not included in "children", the
consequences would be tremendous, because "children" will not
include "child"
103
Illegitimate parents
- jann -
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. (915)
104
Partition
Art. 1078. Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of
the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such
heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the deceased. (n)
Art. 1079. Partition, in general, is the separation, division and
assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it
may belong. The thing itself may be divided, or its value. (n)
Art. 1080. Should a person make partition of his estate by an act
inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall be respected, insofar
as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs.
A parent who, in the interest of his or her family, desires to keep
any agricultural, industrial, or manufacturing enterprise intact,
may avail himself of the right granted him in this article, by
ordering that the legitime of the other children to whom the
property is not assigned, be paid in cash. (1056a)
Art. 1081. A person may, by an act inter vivos or mortis causa,
intrust the mere power to make the partition after his death to
any person who is not one of the co-heirs.
The provisions of this and of the preceding article shall be
observed even should there be among the co-heirs a minor or a
person subject to guardianship; but the mandatary, in such
case, shall make an inventory of the property of the estate, after
notifying the co-heirs, the creditors, and the legatees or
devisees. (1057a)
- jann -
105
all surnamed Horilleno, and since Esperanza had already died, she
was succeeded by her only daughter and heir herein plaintiff.
Filomena Javellana, in the proportion of 1/7 undivided ownership
each; now then, even though their right had not as yet been
annotated in the title, the co-owners led by Carlos, and as to
deceased Justice Antonio Horilleno, his daughter Mary, sometime
since early 1967, had wanted to sell their shares, or if possible if
Filomena Javellana were agreeable, to sell the entire property, and
they hired an acquaintance Cresencia Harder, to look for buyers,
and the latter came to interest defendants, the father and son,
named Ramon Doromal, Sr. and Jr., and in preparation for the
execution of the sale, since the brothers and sisters Horilleno were
scattered in various parts of the country, Carlos in Ilocos Sur, Mary
in Baguio, Soledad and Fe, in Mandaluyong, Rizal, and Rosita in
Basilan City, they all executed various powers of attorney in favor of
their niece, Mary H. Jimenez Exh. 1-8, they also caused preparation
of a power of attorney of identical tenor for signature by plaintiff,
Filomena Javellana, Exh. M, and sent it with a letter of Carlos, Exh.
7 dated 18 January, 1968 unto her thru Mrs. Harder, and here,
Carlos informed her that the price was P4.00 a square meter,
although it now turns out according to Exh. 3 that as early as 22
October, 1967, Carlos had received in check as earnest money from
defendant Ramon Doromal, Jr., the sum of P5,000.00 and the price
therein agreed upon was five (P5.00) pesos a square meter, as
indeed in another letter also of Carlos to Plaintiff in 5 November,
1967, Exh. 6, he had told her that the Doromals had given the
earnest money of P5,000.00 at P5.00 a square meter, at any rate,
plaintiff not being agreeable, did not sign the power of attorney, and
the rest of the co-owners went ahead with their sale of their 6/7,
Carlos first seeing to it that the deed of sale by their common
attorney in fact, Mary H. Jimenez be signed and ratified as it was
signed and ratified in Candon, Ilocos Sur, on 15 January, 1968, Exh.
2, then brought to Iloilo by Carlos in the same month, and because
the Register of Deeds of Iloilo refused to register right away, since
the original registered owner, Justice Antonio Horilleno was already
dead, Carlos had to ask as he did, hire Atty. Teotimo Arandela to file
a petition within the cadastral case, on 26 February, 1968, for the
purpose, Exh. C, after which Carlos returned to Luzon, and after
compliance with the requisites of publication, hearing and notice, the
petition was approved, and we now see that on 29 April, 1968,
Carlos already back in Iloilo went to the Register of Deeds and
caused the registration of the order of the cadastral court approving
the issuance of a new title in the name of the co-owners, as well as
of the deed of sale to the Doromals, as a result of which on that
same date, a new title was issued TCT No. 23152, in the name of
the Horillenos to 6/7 and plaintiff Filomena Javellana to 1/7, Exh. D,
only to be cancelled on the same day under TCT No. 23153, Exh. 2,
already in the names of the vendees Doromals for 6/7 and to herein
plaintiff, Filomena Javellana, 1/7, and the next day 30 April, 1968,
the Doromals paid unto Carlos by check, the sum of P97,000.00
Exh. 1, of Chartered Bank which was later substituted by check of
Phil. National Bank, because there was no Chartered Bank Branch
in Ilocos Sur, but besides this amount paid in check, the Doromals
according to their evidence still paid an additional amount in cash of
P18,250.00 since the agreed price was P5.00 a square meter; and
thus was consummated the transaction, but it is here where
complications set in.
Upon these facts, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
decision and held that although respondent Javellana was informed
of her co-owners' proposal to sell the land in question to petitioners
she was, however, "never notified . . . least of all, in writing", of the
actual execution and registration of the corresponding deed of sale,
hence, said respondent's right to redeem had not yet expired at the
time she made her offer for that purpose thru her letter of June 10,
1968 delivered to petitioners on even date. The intermediate court
further held that the redemption price to be paid by respondent
should be that stated in the deed of sale which is P30,000
notwithstanding that the preponderance of the evidence proves that
the actual price paid by petitioners was P115,250.
- jann -
106
- jann -
107
- jann -
The findings of facts of both the trial court and the respondent
Appellate Court that the signature of Manuel Bautista in the
questioned Deed of Extrajudicial Partition is authentic, as examined
by the NBI, can no longer be questioned in this proceeding.
Nevertheless, even granting that the signature of Manuel Bautista in
the questioned Extrajudicial Deed of Partition is genuine, an
108
- jann -
109
Effects of Partition
Art. 1091. A partition legally made confers upon each heir the
exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to him. (1068)
Art. 1092. After the partition has been made, the co-heirs shall
be reciprocally bound to warrant the title to, and the quality of,
each property adjudicated. (1069a)
Art. 1093. The reciprocal obligation of warranty referred to in the
preceding article shall be proportionate to the respective
hereditary shares of the co-heirs, but if any one of them should
be insolvent, the other co-heirs shall be liable for his part in the
- jann -
110
1069-1070). In the case at bar, the motion filed by petitioner for the
delivery of her share was filed on July 20, 1964, which is just more
than 3 years from August 28, 1961 when the amended project of
partition was approved and within 5 years from April 23, 1960 when
the original project of partition was approved. Clearly, her right to
claim the two lots allocated to her under the project of partition had
not yet expired. And in the light of Section 1 of Rule 90 of the
Revised Rules of Court of 1964 and the jurisprudence above cited,
the order dated December 15, 1960 of the probate court closing and
terminating the probate case did not legally terminate the testate
proceedings, for her share under the project of partition has not been
delivered to her.
- jann -
111
- jann -
112
- jann -
RULE 78
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF ADMINISTRATION,
WHEN AND TO WHOM ISSUED
SECTION 1. Who are incompetent to serve as a
executors or administrators.No person is competent to
serve as executor or administrator who:
(a) Is a minor;
(b) Is not a resident of the Philippines; and
(c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute
the duties of the trust by reason of drunkenness,
improvidence, or want of understanding or integrity, or
by reason of conviction of an offense involving moral
turpitude.
SEC. 2. Executor of executor not to administer estate.
The executor of an executor shall not, as such, administer
the estate of the first testator.
SEC. 3. Married women may serve.A married woman
may serve as executrix or administratrix, and the marriage of
a single woman shall not affect her authority so to serve
under a previous appointment
SEC 4 Letters testamentary issued when will allowed.
When a will has been proved and allowed, the court shall
issue letters testamentary thereon to the person named as
executor therein, if he is competent, accepts the trust, and
gives bond as required by these rules
SEC. 5. Where some coexecutors disqualified others
may act.When all of the executors named in a will can not
act because of incompetency, refusal to accept the trust, or
failure to give bond, on the part of one or more of them,
letters testamentary may issue to such of them as are
competent, accept and give bond, and they may perform the
duties and discharge the trust required by the will.
SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration
granted.If no executor is named in the will, or the executor
or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give
bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be
granted:
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the
case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of
the court, or to such person as such surviving husband
or wife, or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if
competent and willing to serve;
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the
case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected by
them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or
widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after
the death of the person to apply for administration or to
request that administration be granted to some other
person, it may be granted to one or more of the
principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;
113
- jann -
114
- jann -
115
RULE 87
SEC. 10. When creditor may bring action. Lien for cost.
When there is such a deficiency of assets, and the
deceased in his lifetime had made or attempted such a
conveyance, as is stated in the last preceding section, and
the executor and administrator has not commenced the
action therein provided for, any creditor of the estate may,
with the permission of the court, commence and prosecute to
final judgment, in the name of the executor or administrator, a
like action for the recovery of the subject of the conveyance
or attempted conveyance for the benefit of the creditors. But
the action shall not be commenced until the creditor has filed
in a court a bond executed to the executor or administrator, in
an amount approved by the judge, conditioned to indemnify
the executor or administrator against the costs and expenses
incurred by reason of such action. Such creditor shall have a
lien upon any judgment recovered by him in the action for
such costs and other expenses incurred therein as the court
deems equitable. Where the conveyance or attempted
conveyance has been made by the deceased in his lifetime
in favor of the executor or administrator, the action which a
creditor may bring shall be in the name of all the creditors,
and permission of the court and filing of bond as above
prescribed, are not necessary.
- jann -
116