T : Testator

A, Filipino, resides in KL, made will, went to HK made another will revoking the first. What law will govern
the revocation?

- Refer to Art. 829. It doesn’t say Filipino or foreigner. Any person.

What happens if he resides in KL? What law will govern the revocation?

- Art. 829, if you are not domiciled/residing in Ph, there are only 2 laws you can use – the place
you reside and where you make the will. You will NOT use the law where it was revoked
UNLESS you are domiciled in the Ph, then you can use the place where it was revoked.

Revocation implied by law:

Art. 936 – legacy of credit. Here the T is the creditor and he gave a legacy of credit (against A)in
favor of B who is not the debtor. How can B enforced the legacy of credit?

A.935 2nd Par –the Administrator shall assign the rights against the debtor to the heir.

What if the T. collected the amount because it was already due, then he died? Does the legacy of
credit still become effective after his death?

 No. That’s why it’s called implied revocation.

What if T merely demanded, then he died?

 It depends upon the demand. A.936—if demand is judicial, then it has

already lapsed. If extra-judicial, heir can still recover.

A.957-

T gives legacy of a gold bar but before he died, he made it into a statute. Who gets the statute?

 The estate. It is transformed as it is not anymore a gold bar but a gold statute.

A gave/devised land to B, but before A died, B bought the land. Can B (devisee) asked for
reimbursement or was it revoked?

 A.957(2) – legacy/devise without effect

 A gave/devised land to B. A sold it to C because C forced him to sell the land to him. While he was
still alive, A brought an action to annul the said sale because his consent was taken by force and
it was annulled. Can the devisee get the property?

 Yes. There was no revocation. A was forced to sell. It was not done voluntarily.

A devised land to B (in a will). A donated said land to C, however donation did not follow the form
(as it was done in a private document). Can B then get the property because the donation was
void?

 No.
A. 957(2) Sentence 2 –by donation there was intention to revoke

If the ground for the 2nd transmission is annulment, then it doesn’t mean it’s revoked.

But if the ground for the 2nd transmission is void, then that is revoked because the intention
actually was there. . UNLESS it is “by virtue of exercise of right of repurchase”:

A gave a devise to B, then A sold to C with right of repurchase. A bought it back.

Can devisee (B) get the property?

 Yes.

But it would still apply in case of right of redemption (e.g. foreclosure sale). Why?
Because repurchase is actually voluntary. Whereas foreclosure is compulsory.
With more reason imong gibawi by exercising right of redemption, that means
you never intend to leave it from the estate.So I think you’ll apply either right of
repurchase or right of redemption. (36: 01)

Revocation:

Supposing you have 2 wills, should the revocation of the later be the same form of the first will? Can a
notarial will be revoked by a holographic will?

- Yes. Because it says will. It did not say the same form.

1st will – to Rosa. 2nd will – to Roberto who did not accept. Should the property go to Rosa?

- Dependent Relative Revocation – condition has to be expressly stated in the second will (e.g.
in cases Roberto does not consent or the 2nd will is void as to form, then it would go back to
the first heir). But without that expressed condition, do not apply Dependent Relative
Revocation.
 - Instanter- when you have a revocation and it is complete; first will instantly revoked. It doesn’t
depend upon (see A.832) incapacity, renunciation, nor validity of the 2nd will UNLESS you
make it as an expressed condition to revive the first will

1st will—to Rosa, 2nd will—to Roberto with condition that in case Roberto doesn’t accept, it will be Rosa.
So there’s now a Dependent Relative Revocation. When T died, they couldn’t find the holographic will.
They only have the Xerox (photostatic) copy. Should the Xerox copy be probated? Should Rosa get the
devise?

- If it is a holographic will, once it’s lost, it’s lost. Why because there’s nothing to which to
compare to.
- But if Xerox copy of the holographic will, yes pwede na sya. Rodillas v. Aranza (119 Scra 116)
- You have to prove it’s existing when T died. Presumption is if will couldn’t be found, it has
been revoked.

Suppose you knew T had holographic will and you know she always puts it in her
drawer. Then when she died, it’s no longer there. Somebody else has Xerox copy.

 You prove first its due execution, its genuineness. Atleast 1 witness if
not contested. Atleast 3, if contested. However you still have to prove
that it was not revoked. Because the presumption is if you cannot
find it here, she probably tore it. Because the Xerox copy is with
another person. Even if notarial wills. You still have to show that it
was not revoked. The presumption is if the copies could not be found,
she probably threw that away, probably revoked it.

Should Rosa get the devise?

- Yes because of Dependent Relative Revocation.

2nd will was executed expressly revoking the 1st. Then the 2nd will was revoked. Does it revive the 1st will?

- A. 837

Institution of Heirs:

No disposition. The will provides for recognition of an illegitimate child. Is the will valid?

- Yes. A. 841 rel. A. 834

Give all law books to classmate “Kriz”. Who will get? Does it become unknown (A. 845)?

- Institution of unknown heir is void.There can be evidence aliunde but not oral declaration. In
the facts, wala may evidence at all. So you just have to rely on the statement on the will which
could not be known because there are 2 persons who answer to Kriz.

Preterition (A. 854):

T has 2 children. He executed a will in favor of 1 of his children, B his legit child, excluding his wife and A,
his illegitimate child. But he did not disinherit, exclude ra. Was there preterition?

- There was preterition of illegitimate child.

- Should the illegitimate child get only his legitime, because the legit child B was given the
universal title? So the question now is can you consider part of the universal title as the legacy
or device? Instituting B as a legal heir could that mean he is also instituted as legacy or devisee?
No. It was not even a legacy/devise. A legacy/devise is something specific. He was a universal
heir. Nothing specific was given. So the whole institution of heir is void.

T is giving all his properties to B, except for a legacy in favor of grandchild. Is that legacy valid?

- Yes, provided that it is not inofficous. A. 854.

A before marriage had an illegitimate child. A married then has legit child. Both his children
died/predeceased. Both his children have legit children. A gave his properties to his legit child/made him
universal heir. He preterited the illegit child. Was there preterition?

-If there right of representation applies, there is preterition. In other words, it is not enough that you omit
your child. If he predeceased you, wa nay....

- There's no preterition because the person instituted is not an heir anymore. He's not a
complusory heir because he already died. You are considered compulsory heir only when you are
alive at the time T dies. But they all predeceased. So initially, there was preterition. But before T
died, the institued heir predeceased, so there's no institution of the heir. So walay preterition
(A.854) "if the omitted complusory heir should die before the T, the institution shall be effectual."
The institution is not allowed because it is as if the heir was not alive. However there is right of
representation.

So there is no preterition because the omitted heir predeceased, there is no complusory heir because he
died ahead of the T. Is there a right of representation? Is the iron curtain rule applicable? The iron curtain
rule will apply only if this one (illustration on the board) is illegitimate.
What if both the children has illegit and legitimate children? They both predeceased. Who among has
right to representation?

- All except the illegitimate child of the legit child. A. 992 (Iron curtain rule).
- Illegit and legit child of illegit child has right of representation (A.902).

Apply A. 992, if to inheret by right of representation. Not if you are to inheret directly.

***

A will substitute for B. B renounced his legacy. Take note institution of heirs refers the will ergo to free
portion. You can't have a substitution in the legitime. You can have accretion, right to rep. in the legitime.

Can A rescind it in lieu of B as there is no statement when substitution will apply?

- Substitution is valid. See A.959 2nd par: "a simple substitution..." It's obviosly expressed.

If you do not state the particular circumstance that A will substitute B, then what are the circumstances
included if it's not expressedly stated?

- A. 959 1st par. incapacitated, predeceased, repudiation

2 or more persons substitued by 1?

- Brief

1 substituted for 2?

- Compendious

A and B to be substituted by C. A predeceased. Can C get the share of A?

- No. The condition did not exist cause onky A died. Acretion not intestacy.

A will have 1/2 of the land in the northern portion. B will have the other half of the land in the southern
portion. B predecased. To whom will the share of B go? Is there accretion?

- No. Because area is designated/specified. Accretion will apply only if there is no delienation.
What if it says 1/2 will go to A, 1/2 will go to B. Dili na northern dili na southern. Then substitute si C. B
died.

- A. 1071. 1/2 for each.

A 1/4, B 1/4, C 1/2, subsitute si D. C died. Is. Art. 1017 applicable if not equal shares?

- Tolentino: No.
- Balane: Apply 1016(1). Pro indiviso ra gihapon na. What they have is sharing. There is no
delienation. You cannot exclusively determine to whom the property or that portion will go.

How about money? T has P1M. A & B will share equally. B died. Is there accretion?

- Yes. "money or other.." A. 1017 par 2.

T is giving 500k in savings account to A. 500k in time deposit to B. B predeceased. Is there accretion?

- No. It has been earmarked, since they have been designated that particular amount based in
the time and savings deposit

In intestate, if one of the heirs repudiates and there is no right of rep., will the share of the heir who
repudiates be by accretion or his own right?

- A.1018 says accretion

- But if it's legitime, then own right (A. 1021 2nd par).

2 kinds of substitution: simple and fideicommisary. Brief and compendious are under simple sub. Take
note under A. 857- does not include fideicommissary sub. because it says "in default of the heir". In
fideicommisary sub. see A. 866 - there is no default.

What are the requisites of fideicommisary substitution?

- First, institute the first and 2nd heir.

- Second, they should be 1 degree of each other of relationship and 1 degree of transmission.

Balane: 1 degree means 1 degree of relationship and 1 degree of transmission because

there are only first and 2nd heir, walay 3rd heir.

Tolentino: You can transmit to a 3rd heir as long as the 3rd heir is also 1 degree from the
first.
 It's clear that there is only 1st and 2nd heir.

- Third, the 1st heir has an oblig. to preserve and transmit to the 2nd heir. Because without the
preserve and transnit, there is no fideicommisary substitution.
- Fourth, they should both be living at the time testator dies.
- Fifth, it should be expressed in the will (A.867 no. 1)

Supposing there is first and 2nd heir. The first heir died/predeceased ahead of the T. Will the 2nd heir get
the property? Would the 2nd heir inherit or succeed based on simple substitution?

- It is obvious from the intention of the T that he wants to let the 2nd heir get it. So even if the
1st heir predeceased [to sir] the intention is still there. Kinsa may tuyo anang fideicommisary,
ang 2nd heir jud. So why would you deny the intention by saying dili na fideicommisary. [Sir
thinks] it will be converted to simple, but the intention will still be there.

If 2nd heir predeceased the T? Then died. The first heir, children of 2nd heir, and children of T are claiming.
Who will get?

- No more 2nd heir. Children of 2nd heir cannot represent because this is not intestacy, this is
free portion. They are all voluntary heirs. [Sir thinks] it will be on the first heir. It will stop
there. Because he instituted the first heir.

[To Sir], whoever is surviving at the time T died, will get the share. Either of the 1st or 2nd heir
predeceased—OR—dili “and”, kay kung “and” ganin na sya, intestacy, [Sir thinks] whoever is existing at
the time T dies will get. It’s not in the rules actually.

T died, the B, the 2nd heir died after T. Once the 1st heir dies, who will get the share of the 1st heir which
is fideicommisay—children of B, children of A (1st heir), of T’s children?

- Children of 2nd heir, because 2nd heir died after T died. The 2nd heir does not inherit from the 1st
heir. 2nd heir inherits from the T. See A.866 which is similar to A.878.

T executed a will giving to A a device after 10 years. Is a device that prohibits the voluntary heir from
disposing it within 10 years valid?

- Yes.

If within 20 years?

- Still valid. A. 870 states “for more than 20 years”.

T executed a will giving to A a device after 10 years from T’s death. T died. The heir died the next day.
Who will get that device after 10 years- T’s heirs or devicee’s heirs?

- Heirs of devicee. A.878.

T is giving device if heir lives upto 30 years old. T died. The next day heir died at age 22. Who will get it
after 8 years?

- T’s heirs. A. 878 talks about a suspensive term. (In this case), this is actually a condition. The
condition is whether he would live up to age 30.

1 degree:

A is 1st heir. T says preserve and transmit it to your wife. Is that valid?

- No. Wife can never be one degree. No common ancestor. 1 degree is direct line, could either be
ascendant and descendant. Dili pwede ang collateral. Eg. Father-son

T says first to the father, next to the son, 3rd to the daughter of the first heir. Pwede? How many
transmissions?

- It’s already more than 2.

Tolentino: As long as there is 1 degree, regardless of how many transmissions
Balane: refers to first and 2nd heir only
Otherwise it will make the property captive for a very long time. Go for the clincher that it says in
the code first and 2nd heir.

T gives property to husband stating that whatever is left with the property when husband dies will go to
the second child. Was there a fideicommissary substation? Was there an obligation to preserve and
transmit?

- No. Thus no fideicommissary.

A.864- Substitution can never burden the legitime – another requisite for fideicommisary sub.

A fideicommisary substitution is similar to usufruct. The 2nd heir is considered to be the one who owns
land, 1st heir the usufruct. Similar but not the same because there is another provision there that says if
for example T says he’s giving the1st heir the land, then to B the usufruct, then after B, to his son. The
fideicommisary substitution is not on the land but on the usufruct. See A. 869, A.863.

A.868.- Sir also adds the 2nd heir

A, fideicommisary substitution, cannot sell it for 30 years because will have to transmit to B. Valid?

- No. Disposition should not be more than 20 years.

But if you read the commentary, substitution and exemption to A.870

Disposition to alienate should not be more than 20 years.

However, fideicommissary is an exception to the rule in Art. 870. So it can be forever like say “you can
only transfer it 50 years later.

Sir: I think that is wrong. I think fideicommissary could be like this: the period or the death of the first heir.

Now if you choose the period, then 20 years only but if you choose the death of the first heir then it is OK
because it is the death.

Q: A transfer this to B 30 years after or upon death?A died 40 years later. Valid?

A: Have to wait after death

What id he died before 40 years? Have to wait for 40 years?

No. Whichever comes first. The period or the death will determine when the inheritance will pass.

Can a testator put a condition that “I’m giving you a device, provided that you kill my political enemy.”
Could the heir receive the device even if he did not kill the political enemy of the testator?

No. Art. 870.

The disposition is void, but the heir can get the legacy. The disposition is void hence it is considered as not
written.

What if it was a donation? Would the same principle apply?

Yes. Art. 727

If it is a contract?

Void. The person will get nothing because it is a void stipulation.

Q: A says “Son, I will not give you your legitime if you do not pass the bar.” He did not pass the bar. Will
he get the legitime?

A: Yes. The stipulation is not valid.

Is he disqualified as an heir? Is he disqualified due to unworthiness?

No.

Q: A says “Son, I’m giving you 1 million if you pass the bar.” A died. The son did not pass the bar. He passed
the bar 10 years after the testator died. Can he get the legacy?

A: Yes. Art. 1034(3)

Q: A says “Daughter, I’m giving you a legacy provided you marry only a person who was born in
Dumaguete.” The testator died. The daughter married somebody from Siquijor. Is the condition valid?

A: Yes. It is not an absolute condition not to marry.

Note:
If to the spouse, can have a condition not to re-marry at all.

But can also argue that it is an imposition and a limitation on the right of the child to marry. Argue that it
although it is not an absolute imposition not to marry, it is contrary to good customs.

Q: A says “I’m giving you a legacy of one million if you can make a hole in one in golf.” Before the testator
made the will, the heir was able to get a whole in one. But after the testator made a will, the heir never
got a whole in one. Will he get the legacy when the testator dies?

A: No. Art. 878

If the testator did not know that he made a whole in one, then that will be deemed as a whole in one.

But if the testator knew that the heir was able to get a whole in one then the heir would have to comply
again.

BUT, if the condition is such that it cannot be complied with again, it will be deemed as complied with.
Hence, the testator can get the legacy.

When it comes to compliance or mixed conditions, compliance can be before or after the death.

But if it concerns potestative condition, it can only be done after the death of the testator.

Art. 877

Art. 878

Negative potestative conditions

Art. 879

Q: A says “Wife, do not remarry. I’m giving you my own land.” Is the device valid?

A: It is valid. Art. 874.

If imposed on the spouse (widow) then the absolute prohibition not to remarry is valid.

Before the widow can get the devise, she has to give a security as assurance that she will comply with the
condition.

If wife remarries, then she has to return the devise. In case it has suffered damages or she sold it then the
security will answer for it.
What if she does not give a security?

A: The devise will be subject to administration.

Caucion Muciana - applies in cases of estates and inheritance; a bond (security) for the compliance of
potestative conditions

Caucion Moratoria- Art. 587; applies in usufruct; not a bond but an affidavit

Ex: If you enter into a usufruct concerning furniture, you have to execute an affidavit. Not a bond.

Do you have to give a bond or security when it is a suspensive term?

Art. 878

Q: “I’m giving you this device 10 years later.” Do you have to give a bond?

A: Not the devisee, but the legal heirs should give a bond. Art. 885

In suspensive term, those who need to give a bond are the legal heirs since while the heir is waiting for
the 10 years to lapse, it is the legal heirs are the one administering the devise.

Recap: Suspensive term—legal heirs give a bond

Negative potestative condition—the instituted heir gives a bond otherwise the devise will be
under administration

What if it was a resolutory term, is there a bond?

There is no resolutory term under the law on succession.

Suspensive Condition

Art. 880

The devise is under administration

Resolutory Condition; Modal institution

Art. 882

In resolutory condition, it is already yours but you have to give a security.

Ex: I’m giving you a property for you to build a school.

The difference between a suspensive condition and a modal institution is:

in a modal institution, it does not suspend. “I’m giving that to you, but if you violate the condition, I’ll get
it back.
But in suspensive condition, it suspends. You are not getting it until the condition is fulfilled.

Art. 882- resolutory condition

Q: A said in will “I’m giving this rice field to my nephew provided that half of the harvest should be given
to the church.” Nephew did not give half the share. Can the legal heirs get back the land?

A: It is a modal institution/ resolutory condition. If the condition is violated then it should be returned.

Q: A said “im giving this Riceland to any of my nephews who becomes a priest. Meanwhile the church will
administer it.” When A made the will nobody of his nephews was a priest. When he died none of his
nephews was a priest. There was a nephew born after he died became a priest. Can that nephew get the
riceland?

A: No. When the testator died, the nephew was not capacitated to inherit yet since the nephew was not
born yet.

Q: A made a will. None of his nephews were a priest. A died. One of his nephews became a priest. Can
that nephew get the devise?

A: Yes. Because when the testator died that nephew was already capacitated to inherit.

Reserva Troncal
Art. 891
Q: A and B are married. They have properties belonging to ACP. They donated to their son. B (father) died.
Then the son died. So the property went by operation of law to his mother. When the mother died, would
the property go to the brother of the father or the sister of the mother? Is reserve troncal applicable?

A: No. Under reserva troncal, the property must come from the ascendant (the father in this case). In this
case, it did not come from the father of the ascendant but the ACP of A and B. Hence, reserve troncal is
not applicable and so the sister of the mother gets the property. It does not revert back to the father’s
line (aka to the brother of the father).

Q: A and B are married. They have a child, C. The father died. B the mother remarried to D. B and D had a
child, E. C, the legitimate child of the first marriage donated to his half-brother, E. Then their mother died.
So that property was inherited by the father of E, which was D. When D died, the brother of the father (B)
in the first marriage and the brother of the second husband (D) are claiming. Was there reserva troncal?

A: Yes. There is reserva troncal if the origin gives to his half-brother.

The origin could either be the brother or sister who does not come from the same line.
(Half-brother/half-sister)

Who else could be an origin?

Ascendants—grandmother/father,father, mother
Q: A, the mother, gave her separate property to her son. The mother and father died. The son also died.
The sister of the father and the sister of the mother are claiming. Is there reserve troncal?

A: No. there was no second transfer.

When the child died, who are his heirs? The only heirs remaining where the sister of his father and the
sister of his mother (his aunts).

A: Both are heirs since both aunts are of the same line.

Q: A and B had son. When the son died, the property went to the sister of the mother. When the sister of
the mother died, the auntie of his mother claimed. The uncle of his father also claimed. Was there reserve
troncal?

A: No. in order for reserve troncal to operate, the second transfer must be in another ascending line—the
line of the father. In this case, it went to the line of the mother.

Can the second ascendant be an aunt?

A: Art. 964(1)
Art. 964(3)

Does an aunt belong to the collateral line?

No reserve troncal if collateral relative ang second ascendant or if the first ascendant is not in the direct
line.

The ascendant should always be in the direct line.

Q: Father made son a beneficiary for an insurance policy of one million. Father died. The son then had an
illegitimate son. Then the son died and he was survived by his illegitimate child and his mother. Is there
reserva troncal if the prepositus is survived by an illegitimate son?

Can the mother inherit concurrently inherit with an illegitimate child?

Yes.
Can the mother inherit concurrently inherit with an legitimate child?

No.

If the child has a descendant na legitimate, there is no reserve troncal kay wala namay maadto sa taas (sa
ascendant) kay maadto naman sa legitimate child tanan.

Kung ang heirs nabailin kay illegitimate and the mother, they can both inherit so naay reserva troncal kay
naa may mapunta sa ascendant (mother in this case).

It is not always correct if to say reserve troncal will apply if there is no issue.

It will not apply if there is a legitimate issue.

If there is an issue, but the child is illegitimate, then there can be reserve troncal.

Are the insurance benefits covered by reserve troncal?

Yes. Reserva Troncal covers those by gratuitous title.

Sir: Minus the premiums since it will go to the estate.

When the prepositus died, he made a will giving all his property to his mother. Mother was the only heir.
Reserva Troncal?

Yes. Since the mother is a compulsory heir, she is entitled to a legitime. Since there is a will, that represents
the free portion. So the first half is the mother’s legitime and the second half is her inheritance of the free
portion. So the first half which passed by operation of law is covered under reserve troncal.

In other words, when you make a will it does not mean that all of it is under the free portion.

In other words, if there was no will, everything would be under reseva troncal.

Can the property reserved be sold by the reservista? Would that third person (buyer) have a better right
than the reservatarios in case the reservista dies?
Sienes vs Espartia

A: The reservista has a right to alienate. If it is sold to an innocent third party then the third party has a
better right. But the reservista is liable.

The property must also be registered.

Can the reservista still alienate and have it registered?

He has the right to alienate.
The next question is this right subject to a limitation?
The buyer’s right is subject to a limitation in cases when the reservista dies there are reservatarios.

The next question now is is this right of the buyer a suspensive or a resolutory coindition? The condition
is if the resevatarios survives the reservista.

The question is is that condition suspensive or resolutory?

In Partia vs Sienes it says its resolutory.

However it also says there that is a conditional sale. Is a conditional sale suspensive or resolutory?

Suspensive.

Sir: I agree with Balane that it is suspensive. It is like I’ll sell it to you if there are no relatives of the third
degree.
But just have to rely nalang on the court saying that it is resolutory.
What happens now is that the reservista can transfer ownership to the buyer but the title will be in the
name of the reservatarios. Because that is what resolutory is. You’ll get it but then it will be extinguished.

Relatives within the third degree

From who?
From the prepositus

So Relatives of the third degree from the prepositus AND from the line where the property came from.

Is there a right of representation in reserve troncal in the case of reservatarios?

There is a right of representation if the representative is also within the third degree.

Q: Suppose Reservatarios is the brother of the Prepositus and the Nephew of the Prepositus who is the
son of another brother. Can that nephew represent his father who is the brother of the prepositus. So is
nephew within the third degree?

Yes. Third degree is up to nephew and nieces. Can also be the uncle of the prepositus.

Suppose the uncle of the prepositus and the nephew of the prepositus concurs, what will be their sharing?

Art. 1009
Nephews exclude uncles of the prepositus.
Brother, sisters, nephews and nieces come first before other collateral relatives.

Mendoza vs. De Los Santos, Gr No. 176422, March 20, 2013

Right of Representation

Q: A is the deceased. He is survived by mother and paternal grandfather. Who will inherit?

A: Only the mother. There is no representation in the ascending line.

Q: A decedent is survived by his maternal grandmother and grandfather and paternal grandfather. Who
will inherit and what is their share?

A: They all inherit.

Do they inherit by right of representation?

A: In their own right.

How will they share the estate?

A: Divide it by lines. One half to paternal. One half to maternal. (The maternal grandparents then divide
their half of the share; the paternal grandpa gets one-half from the decedent.)

Q: A has to kids, B and C. Each of them also have children, B1 and C1. B is incapacitated. Who are the heirs
of A?

A: C and B1. C inherits in his own right. B1 through right of representation.

Q: B predeceased.

A: There is right of representation in predecease.

Q: B repudiates.

A: There is no right of representation in repudiation.

Q: What if B and C repudiates?

A: B1 and C1 inherit in their own right.

Art. 969

Q: A has a son B. B marries C and has a child B1. B predeceased his father, who are the heirs of A.

A: B1. Not C even if she is a spouse since there is no right of representation when it comes to the spouse.

Q: A has two sons B and C. B has one son. C has two sons. B and C predeaces. Who are the heirs of A and
how will they share?

A: The heirs are B1, C1 and C2.

B1 gets one half of the estate and C1 has one-fourth and C2 has one-fourth.

Their sharing is per stirpes.

What if B1, C1 and C2 are nephews and nieces of A?

Would they share the same way?

They inherit per capita.

Art. 975

If nephews and nieces survive alone per capita. If they survive with uncles and aunts, they inherit through
right of representation.

Grandchildren will always be by right of representation.

Art. 982

Can there be representation in disinheritance?

Yes.

Art. 976
Art. 992

Repudiation

Q: A grandfather. B father. C grandson. And D adopted son of B. B predecease. Who inherits from
grandpa?

A: Only C. The relationship between adopted son and adopter is only between them.

Q: A (grandpa) has son B. B has son C. B repudiated. B predeceased. Can C inherit through
representation?

A: No. Because no right of representation in repudiation.

Grandson can then inherit in his own right.

Q: Grandpa, Father, grandson. The grandson repudiated his father. Can the grandson represent his
father to the estate of the grandfather?

A: Yes. The grandson did not repudiate the grandpa but only the father.

Grounds for Disinheritance of Ascendant, Descendant and Spouse

Requisites for disinheritance

Effect of ineffective disinheritance is you are restored to your legitime if the free portion has been given
away. If not been given away, then you can get what you get just like the other heirs. (The same share
with other siblings).

Disinheritance must be total.

Disinheritance only applies to legitime.

Grounds for incapacity

Art. 1027-applies to testamentary

Art. 1028-also testamentary

Art. 1032 Both testamentary, intestate, etc. (applies to all kinds of succession)
If there are concurrent grounds for disinheritance and incapacity, and there is no written pardon, would
he still be able to inherit?

A: On unworthiness:
In disinheritance, reconciliation can be done even without a written instrument.
In incapacity (Art. 1032), there must be a subsequent written will.

Reconciled japun even without written instrument.

Reconciled japun even without written instrument.