IV.

Hacbang vAlo
G.R. No. 191031
October 5, 2015

Facts:

SofronioHacbang, a bishop died and was survived by his parents and siblings. Before Sofronio
died he left several properties behind and will which stated how his properties should be
distributed.

According to his will, one half of his properties will be given to his parents, will the other half
will be given to one of his siblings, Dolores. The will was accepted for probate by the court,
however it was archived and thus the proceedings was not completed.

Basilio inherited a property from his mother, Dolores, who inherited the said property from
Sofronio. A TCT was issued in the name of Basilio. The petitioners in this case now questions
the validity of the of the TCT issued in favor of Basilio and argues that the will made by
Sofronio did not validly transfer the property to Dolores and that only a final decree of
distribution will vest title on the properties from the estate on the distributes. In essence, the
petitioners argue that because the probate proceedings was not finished the will did not vest any
title to Dolores and as a result Basilio could not have inherited the said property from Dolores as
all the properties would have become part the estate of Sofronio’s parents as compulsory heirs.

Issue:
Whether or not the will made by Sofronio validly transferred his property to his parents
and to Dolores HacbangAlo.

Ruling:

The laws that will govern in the settlement of the estate of the deceased in the present case will
be the 1889 Spanish Civil Code and the1901 Code of Civil Procedure because the law in force at
the time of the decedent's death determines the applicable law over the settlement of his estate.

In the Spanish Civil Code and our own Civil Code provides that the ownership over the
inheritance passes to the heirs at the precise moment of death - not at the time the heirs are
declared, nor at the time of the partition, nor at the distribution of the properties.

As a result of the above mentioned principle, legatees and devisees granted specific properties
acquire ownership over the legacies and devises at that immediate moment without prejudice to
the legitimes of compulsory heirs. Thus the property was validly transferred to the said heirs
mentioned in the will at precise moment of Sofronio died.

Even if the probate proceeding was archived, it does not matter because as provided by the
Spanish code and later on adapted by the our Civil Code, a person without compulsory heirs may
dispose of his estate, either in part or in its entirety, in favor of anyone capacitated to succeed
him; if the testator has compulsory heirs, he can dispose of his property provided he does not
impair their legitimes.

Aside from that there no need for a final adjudication to be made by the court, because in this
case the will was very specific as to what property will be given to whom. Thus, from the very
moment of the testator's death, title over these particular properties have been vested on the heir,
legatee, or devisee.

In conclusion, Sofronio, through the last will and testament he made, validly transferred his
properties to his parents and dolores. As to the portion given to Dolores and later on to Basilio,
the plaintiff does not have standing to question such transfer as they do not have any interest in
the said property.

Relevance on the law of Succession:

As provided in the Spanish Civil Code and our Civil Code: the ownership over the inheritance
passes to the heirs at the precise moment of death - not at the time the heirs are declared, nor at
the time of the partition, nor at the distribution of the properties.

And take from, again in the Spanish Civil Code that soon adapted by our Civil code,a person
without compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate, either in part or in its entirety, in favor of
anyone capacitated to succeed him; if the testator has compulsory heirs, he can dispose of his
property provided he does not impair their legitimes.

V. Calalang-Parulan v Garcia
G.R. No. 184148
June 9, 2014

Facts:

Pedro Calalang contracted two marriages during his lifetime. The first one was with
EncarnacionSilverio. The first marriage bore children who are the respondents in this case. The
second marriage was contracted between Pedro Calalang and Elvira Calalang after the first
marriage was dissolved.

During the first marriage as argued by the respondents, their father and mother, Pedro
Encarnacion acquired a property whom they inherited from their maternal grandmother,
Francisca. According to the respondents, the property was never registered despite the fact that
their parents have been in a continuous and actual possession of the said property. Their mother
and the marriage of their parents was dissolved.

It was only during the second marriage that Pedro registered the said property. In his marriage
with Elvira, they bore two children namely Rolando and Nora. Before Pedro died, he sold the
disputed property to Nora, his child in the second marriage. Soon there after a TCT was issued in
favor of Nora.
The respondents or the children of the first marriage now comes to court to assail the validity of
such sale and as a consequence thereof the validity of the TCT issued to Nora. They argue that as
heirs of EncarnacionSilverio they are co-owners of the disputed property and as co-owners Pedro
should have asked their consent before he sold the property to Nora.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents, as co-owners, were deprive of their share of their
inheritance by reason of the sale made by Pedro to Nora.

Ruling:

No, they were not deprived of their share in the inheritance. The respondents, in the first place
have no vested successional rights to the disputed property because as rule it is only at the time
of death that successional rights are vested to the heirs.

As provided by the New Civil Code, article 777 says that “rights to the succession are
transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent” and further, article 1034 of the same
Code states that the capacity of an heir is determined at the time of the death of the decedent.
Thus it can be concluded that it is only upon the death of Pedro that his heirs, the respondents in
this case, will acquire rights as to their inheritance.

At the time the sale was made by Pedro to Nora, the respondents did not have yet any
successional rights to the said property as these rights were not yet transmitted to them.
Therefore, the respondents do not have any standing to question the sale on the ground that
Pedro deprives them of their shares of their inheritance.

As to the issue of fraud, as alleged by the respondent that the plaintiff committed the same, the
respondents were not able to prove by clear and convincing evidence as to the existence of
ground. Thus the complaint filed by respondents is dismissed.

Relevance on the law of Succession:

According to Art. 777 of the Civil Code, “the rights to succession are transmitted from the
moment of the death of the decedent.” Furthermore, successional rights of an heir are always
based on at the time of death of the decendent. The implication or the effects of transmission of
rights from the moment of death of a person is that it ripens to ownership, he or she has the right
to sell. But the only thing subject for alienation is your share to the inheritance.

VI. BALUS v BALUS

G.R. No 168970
January 15, 2010

Facts:
On January 3, 1979, Rufo mortgaged a parcel of land as security for a loan he obtained from the
Rural Bank of Maigo, Lanao del Norte.

Rufo failed to pay his loan. As a result, the mortgaged property was foreclosed and was
subsequently sold to the Bank as the sole bidder at a public auction held for that purpose. On
November 20, 1981, a Certificate of Sale was executed by the sheriff in favor of the Bank. The
property was not redeemed within the period allowed by law. On January 25, 1984, the sheriff
executed a Definite Deed of Sale in the Bank’s favor. Thereafter, a new title was issued in the
name of the Bank.

Subsequently Rufo died on July 6, 1984. On October 10, 1989, herein petitioner and respondents
executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate adjudicating to each of them a specific one-third
portion of the subject property consisting of 10,246 square meters. The Extrajudicial Settlement
also contained provisions wherein the parties admitted knowledge of the fact that their father
mortgaged the subject property to the Bank and that they intended to redeem the same at the
soonest possible time.

Issue:
Whether or not the land in questioned is part of the estate of Rufo.

Ruling:

No. The subject land is not part of the estate of Rufo. ART 777 provides that the rights to a
person’s succession are transmitted from the moment of his death. The inheritance of a person
consists of the property and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his death,
as well as those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. Rufo lost
ownership of the subject property during his lifetime, it only follows that at the time of his death,
the disputed parcel of land no longer formed part of his estate to which his heirs may lay claim.
Stated differently, petitioner and respondents never inherited the subject lot from their father.

Relevance on the law of Succession:

The rights to a person’s succession are transmitted from the moment of his death. As provided by
Article 777 of the Civil Code. In addition, the inheritance of a person consists of the property and
transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his death, as well as those which have
accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. In the present case, since Rufo lost
ownership of the subject property during his lifetime, it only follows that at the time of his death,
the disputed parcel of land no longer formed part of his estate to which his heirs may lay claim.
Stated differently, petitioner and respondents never inherited the subject lot from their father