SUCCESSION CASES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
General Provisions; Rules of Court [Section 3, Rule 1; Sections 2, 16, Rule 3]; Section
119, CA 141; Arts. 1306, 1315
Rule 1, Section 3 - Cases governed. Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions,
civil or criminal and special proceedings
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right,
or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are
governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special
civil action.
X X X..(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or
a particular fact.
Rule 3, Section 2 - Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in
the name of the real party in interest.
Sec 119 of CA 141 - Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead
provisions, when proper , shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs,
within a period of 5 years from date of the conveyance
Art. 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions
as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order, or public policy.
Art. 1315. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound
not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences
which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.
Limos v. Odones
GR # 186979, August A request for admission is not intended to
11 2010
merely
reproduce
or
reiterate
the
allegations of the requesting pArtys
1
pleading but should set forth relevant
evidentiary matters of fact described in the
request, whose purpose is to establish said
pArtys cause of action or defense.
Reyes v. Enriquez
GR # 162956, April
Declaration of heirship should first be filed
10 1998
as a special proceeding before complaint
2
for reconveyance and partition is filed in
ordinary court
Ventura vs. Militante
GR# 63145, Oct. 5
A dead person nor his estate cannot be a
1999
party plaintiff in a court action.
Complaint is brought against the surviving
spouse for the recovery of an indebtedness
3
chargeable against said conjugal property,
any judgment obtained thereby is void.
The proper action should be in the form of
a claim to be filed in the testate or
intestate proceedings.
Edgardo Cruz vs.
GR# 173292, Sept. 1
Heirs have acquired interest in the
Oswaldo Cruz
2010
properties in litigation and became pArties
4
in interest in the case. Complaint filed by
deceased can survive and substituted by
heirs.
Sumaljag v. Literato
GR# 149787, June
"legal representatives" refer to those
18 2008
authorized by law - the administrator,
executor or guardian who, under the rule
5
on settlement of estate of deceased
persons, is constituted to take over the
estate of the deceased.
DBP v. Gagarani
GR# 172248, Sept. 17 Daughter and son-in-law of the patentees
2008
have the right to repurchase the property
6
because this would be "more in keeping
with the spirit of the law.
Balus v. Balus
GR# 168970, Jan. 15 Deceased who lost ownership of the subject
2010
property during his lifetime, cannot pass
7
into the hands of compulsory heirs a parcel
of land which is no longer formed part of his
estate.
8
Arellano vs. Pascual
GR# 189776, Dec.
Rule on collation is applicable only when
15 2010
there is compulsory heir. Siblings are not
compulsory heirs. Decedent not having left
any compulsory heir who is entitled to any
legitime, he was at liberty to donate all his
properties, even if nothing was left for his

siblings-collateral relatives to inherit.

Acap vs. CA

GR# 118114,
1995

10

DKC Holdings
vs. CA

Supplement
Yaptinchay
Rosario
12

Corp.

v.

Alvarez v. IAC
13
14
15

Bonilla vs. Barcena

Arriola v. Arriola

Dec

7 Ownership and real rights are acquired only

pursuant to a legal mode or process. A
stranger or non co-heir cannot conclusively
claim ownership over the subject lot on the
sole basis of the waiver document
Heirs cannot escape the legal consequence
of a transaction entered into by their
GR# 118248, April. 5,
predecessor-in-interest because they have
2000
inherited the property subject to the liability
affecting their common ancestor

Del GR# 124320, March 2 Declaration of heirship can be made only in

1999
a special proceeding inasmuch as the
petitioners
here
are
seeking
the
establishment of a status or right.
GR# 68053, May 7 Hereditary estates are always liable in
1990
their totality for the payments of the
debts of the estate.
GR # L-41715, June 18 Deceaseds claim was transmitted to heris
upon his death.
GR# 177703, Jan. 28 Family Home is shielded from immediate
2008
partition.

Oscar Reyes v. RTC

Makati, Rodrigo reyes

GR# 165744, Aug. 11 Without the settlement of Anastacia's

2008
estate, there can be no definite pArtition
16
and distribution of the estate to the heirs.
Without the pArtition and distribution, there
can be no registration of the transfer
Puno
v.
Puno GR# 177066, Sept. 11 Recognition as heir, participation in the
Enterprises
2009
settlement of estate and registration in the
17
books of the corporation is needed before
an heir acquire shares of decedent
Testamentary Succession; Wills In General; Article 2010; Estate Taxation; Article 1378
Vitug vs. Court of GR# 82027, Mar. 29
Survivorship agreement is valid. The
Appeals
conveyance is not a will because in a will, a
person disposes of his property. In this
18
case, the bank account is part of the
conjugal funds. Neither is the agreement a
donation inter vivos because it takes effect
after death.
Sicad vs. CA
GR# 125888, Aug. 13
A donation which purports to be one inter
vivos but withholds from the donee the right
19
to dispose of the donated property during the
donor's lifetime is in truth one mortis causa.
Aluad v. Aluad
GR# 176943, Oct. 17,
Donation although worded as inter vivos is
2008
considered as mortis causa when the donor
20
do not intend to transfer ownership during
his lifetime.
Notarial/Formal/Ordinary Will; Article 809
Suroza vs. Honrado
AM No. 2026-CFI, Dec. Will should be executed in a language
19, 1981
known to the testator, reading and
21
translation into Filipino language is not
enough.
Echavez
vs.
Dozen GR# 192916, Oct. 11 Attestation
and
acknowledgment
are
cons.
2010
embodied in two separate provisions of the
22
CC (Arts 805 and 806, respectively)
indicates that the law contemplates two
distinct acts that serve different purposes.
Azuela v. CA
GR#122880, April. 12, the total number of pages, and whether all
2006
persons required to sign did so in the
presence of each other must substantially
23
appear in the attestation clause, being the
only check against perjury in the probate
proceedings
Lee
v.
Tambago A.C. No. 5281, Feb. 12, Lawyer will be guilty of professional
24
2008
misconduct for notarizing a spurious will.
25

Guerrero

v.

Bihis

GR#174144, April. 17,

2007

Notary public who was acting outside the

place of his commission, this did not satisfy
Art 806. No notary shall possess authority
to do any notarial act beyond the limits of

his jurisdiction.
Celada

v.

Abena

26

27

Javellana
Ledesma

vs.

Cruz vs. Villasor

28
Garcia vs. Vasquez
29
Alvarado vs. Gaviola
30

Holographic Will
Roxas vs. De Jesus

GR# 145545, June. 30, - Testator may be admitted to be physically

2008
weak but it does not necessarily follow
that she was not of sound mind.
- Error in the number of pages of the will as
stated in the attestation clause is not
material to invalidate the subject will.
No. L-7179, June 30, WN the notary signed the certification of
1955
acknowledgment in the presence of the
testatrix and the witnesses, does not affect
the validity of the codicil.
No. L-32213, Nov. 26, notary public before whom the will was
1973
acknowledged cannot be considered as the
third instrumental witness since he cannot
acknowledge before himself his having
signed the will.
No. L-26615, April 30, Absence of proof that it was read to the
1970
deceased twice, the will was NOT duly
executed.
GR # 74695, Sept. 14, formal imperfections should be brushed
1993
aside when they do not affect its purpose
and which, when taken into account, may
only defeat the testators will. Reading
contents of will aloud with the witnesses
following
the
reading
is
substantial
compliance.
No. L-38338, Jan. 28,
1985

31

Labrador vs. CA

GR# 83843-44, April.

5, 1990

Kalaw vs. Relova (SC

is wrong)

No. L-40207, Sept. 28,

1984

Ajero vs. CA

GR# 106720, Sept. 15,

1994
GR# 123486, Aug. 12,
1999

32

33

34

Codoy vs. Calugay

35
Rodelas vs. Aranza

No. L-58509, Dec. 7,

1982

Seangio v. Reyes

GR # 140371-72, Nov.
27, 2006

36

37

Probate
Vda. De
38
Tolete
39

Palaganas
Palaganas

Perez

vs.

GR# 76714, June 2,

1994

v.

GR # 169144, Jan. 26,

2011

Generally, date in a holographic will

should include the day, month, and year of
its execution. However, when there is no
appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue
influence and pressure and the authenticity
of the will is established, probate should be
allowed based on principle of substantial
compliance.
The law does not specify a particular
location where the date should be placed in
the will. The only requirements are that the
date be in the will itself and executed in the
hand of the testator.
In holographic will, substitution of original
heir not authenticated by full signature will
void the contract and original will cannot be
probated, given efficacy to the seeming
change of mind of testator.
lack of authentication on the alterations will
only result in disallowance of such changes.
the object of the solemnities surrounding
the execution of wills is to close the door
against bad faith and fraud, to avoid
substitution of wills and testaments and to
guaranty their truth and authenticity
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.
mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to
the formalities of a holographic will
prescribed by law although it does not make
an affirmative disposition of the latter's
property, the disinheritance of Alfredo,
nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself.
reprobate of a will shall "cause notice
thereof to be given as in case of an original
will presented for allowance
A foreign will can be given legal effects in
our jurisdiction even if not yet probated in
the place where it is executed.

Heirs of Sandejas vs.

Lina

GR # 141634, Feb. 5,
2001

40

Supplement
Abangan
Abangan

will consisting of two sheets the first of

which contains all the testamentary
dispositions and is signed at the bottom by
the testator and three witnesses and the
second contains only the attestation clause
41
and is signed also at the bottom by the
three witnesses, it is not necessary that
both sheets be further signed on their
margins by the testator and the witnesses,
or be paged.
Caneda vs. CA
GR# 103554, May. 28,
Attestation clause that does not state that
1993
witnesses attest and subscribe in the
41
presence of the testator and of one another
will inviolate the will.
Codicils and Incorporation by Reference; Revocation [Wills & Testamentary Dispositions]
Adriana Maloto vs. No. L 76464, Feb. 29, Theres animus but no corpus. The intention
CA,
1988
to revoke must be accompanied by the
overt physical act of burning, tearing,
42
obliterating, or cancelling the will be carried
out by the testator or by another person in
his presence and under his express
direction.
Gago vs. Mamuyac,
No. L 26317, Jan. 29, Where a will which cannot be found is
1927
shown to have been in the possession of
the
testator,
when
last
seen,
the
43
presumption is, in the absence of other
competent evidence, that the same was
cancelled or destroyed.
44
Molo vs. Molo,
No. L 2538, Sept. 21, Invalidity of 2nd will which revoked 1st will
1951
can still give effect to 1st will under the
principle
of
dependent
relative
revocation, predicated on the testator'
intention not to die intestate
Diaz vs. De Leon,
No. L 17714. May. 31,
destruction of a will animo revocandi
45
1922
constitutes, in itself, a sufficient revocation.
Republication and Revival of Wills; Disallowance of Wills
46
Dorotheo vs. CA,
GR# 108581, Dec. 8,
it does not necessarily follow that an
1999
extrinsically valid last will and testament is
always
intrinsically
valid.
Unlawful
provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be
given effect.
Institution of Heirs
47
Reyes vs. Baretto GR # L17818, Jan. 25,
Institution to an heir believed to be a
Datu
1967
daughter who happened to be not is still
valid. Testator is at liberty to assign the free
portion of his estate to whomsoever he
chose.
Preterition; Disinhertance
Aznar vs. Duncan,
GR # L 24365, June 30, Renvoi Doctrine
48
1966
Acain vs. IAC
GR # L 72706, Oct. 27, adopted child was preterited but not the
48
1987
wife. A wife is not a compulsory heir in the
direct line so she cannot be preterited.
Nuguid vs. Nuguid
GR # L 23445, June 23, Institution of the sister as universal heir,
50
1966
preteriting parents is void.
51
52

vs.

Reference to judicial approval, however,

cannot adversely affect the substantive
rights of heirs to dispose of their own pro
indiviso shares in the co-heirship or coownership.

GR # 13431, Nov. 12,

1919

Seangio v. Reyes

GR # 14037172, Nov.
27, 2006

Santos
Buenaventura

GR # L 22797, Sept.
22, 1966

vs.

See above

the intentions of the testatrix had been

fulfilled, her will had been admitted and
allowed probate within a reasonably short
period, and the disposition of her property
can now be effected.
Substitution of Heirs; Vulgar & Fideicommissary Substitution; Conditional & Term

Disposition
Palacios vs. Ramirez

GR # L- 27952, Feb.
15, 1992

fideicommissary substitution should not go

beyond one degree from the heir originaly
instituted."

PCIB vs. Escolin

GR# L-27860, Mar. 29,

1974

Rabadilla vs. Court of

Appeals

GR# 113725, June 29,

2000

no fideicommissary substitution bec. there

was no obligation upon the husband to
preserve and transmit the prop. to the
brothers and sisters of the wife as seen in
his authority to sell the property
Without the obligation clearly imposing
upon the first heir the preservation of the
property and its transmission to the second
heir, there is no fideicommissary
substitution

53

54

55

Legitime
Francisco
56
Francisco-Alfonso

57

vs.

Capitle v.
Elbambuena and
Olar

Reserva
Edroso vs. Sablan
58

GR# 138774, March

8, 2001
GR# 169193, Nov. 30,
2006

GR # L-6878, Sept. 13,

1913

Sienes vs. Esparcia

GR #L-12957,
24, 1961

Gonzales vs. CFI

GR #L-34395, May 19,

1981

Cano vs. Director

GR #L-10701, Jan. 16,

1959

59

March

60

61
Vizconde v. CA (bad
case) did not see
62
that it was a case of
reserve troncal)
Disinheritance
Seangio v. Reyes
63

GR# 118449, Feb. 11,

1998

GR# 140371-72, Nov.

27, 2006
Legal or Intestate Succession [Arts. 960-1014]
General Provision
Bagunu vs. Piedad,
GR# 140975, Dec. 8,
2000

compulsory heir can not be deprived of her

share in the estate save by disinheritance
as prescribed by law.
Estranged wife remained to be a legal heir,
mere estrangement not being a legal
ground for the disqualification of a surviving
spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse.
the legal title and dominion, even though
under a condition, reside to reservista while
he lives. Reservista's right of ownership is
registrable.
Since it was the reservee who survived the
reservor, it was then the reservees buyer
who would acquire absolute ownership.
reservable properties should be inherited by
all the nearest relatives within the third
degree from the prepositus. She could not
select the reservees to whom the
reservable property should be given and
deprive the other reservees of their share
therein.
Upon the death of the reservista, the
reservatario nearest to the prepositus
becomes, automatically and by operation of
law, the owner of the reservable property.
error to require a son-in-law of the
decedent to be included in the collation as
he is not a compulsory heir

See above

Among collateral relatives, except only in

the case of nephews and nieces of the
decedent concurring with their uncles or
64
aunts, the rule of proximity, is applicable
The right of representation does not apply
to "others collateral relatives within the fifth
civil degree.
Right of Representation (See also Domestic Adoption Act)
Sayson vs. CA,
GR# 8922425, Jan. 23, While it is true that the adopted child shall
1992
be deemed to be a legitimate child and
have the same right as the latter, these
65
rights do not include the right of
representation
Order of Intestate Succession
Descending Direct Line
Sayson vs. CA,
GR# 89224-25, Jan.
23, 1992
66

a person's love descends first to his children

and grandchildren before it ascends to his
parents and thereafter spreads among his
collateral relatives.

Ascending Direct Line

Illegitimate Children
Corpus vs. Corpus

GR # L-22469, Oct.
23, 1978

67
Leonardo vs. CA

GR #L-51263,
28, 1983

Feb.

Diaz vs. IAC

GR #L-66574,
17, 1987

June

Diaz vs. IAC

GR #L-66574, Feb.
21, 1990
GR # 183053, June
16, 2010

68

68
70

Suntay v. Suntay

71

Surviving Spouse
Verdad vs. CA
72
73

Cabales v. CA

Collateral Relatives
Heirs of Uriarte vs.
CA

GR# 109972, April.

29, 1996
GR# 162421, Aug.
31, 2007
GR# 116775,
22, 1998

Jan.

74

75

Gonzales vs. CA

GR# 117740, Oct.

30, 1998

The State
Republic vs. CA
76

GR# 143483, Jan.

31, 2002

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
An illegitimate cannot, by right of
representation, claim a share of the estate
left by the legitimate relatives left by his
father
The right of representation is not available
to illegitimate descendants of legitimate
children in the inheritance of a legitimate
grandparent.
Order of preference is not absolute in the
designation of administrator. Selection of an
administrator lies in the sound discretion of
the trial court. The attendant facts and
circumstances of this case necessitate, at
the least, a joint administration by both
respondent and petitioner, even if the latter
is an illegitimate child.
A right of redemption arose in favor of a
daughter-in-law who was survived by his
husband, making her a co-owner in the
inheritance of his mother-in-law
mother who if duly authorized by the courts,
could validly sell his share in the property
The
determination
of
whether
the
relationship is of the full or half-blood is
important only to determine the extent of
the share of the survivors, since being halfblood is immaterial to determine his right to
the inheritance as a 3rd degree relative.
Brothers & sisters are precluded from
inheriting the estate of their brother, when
decedent have an illegitimate child.

Private respondent's belated assertion of her

right over the escheated properties militates
against recovery.
Provisions Common to Testate and Intestate Succession [Arts. 1015 -1105]
Right of Accretion
Parish
Priest
of GR# L-22036, April In order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir,
Victoria, Tarlac vs. 30, 1979
devisee or legatee must be living at the
77
Rigor
moment the succession opens, except in
case of representation, when it is proper
Acceptance and Repudiation of Inheritance
Guy v. CA
GR# 163707, Sept.
78
15, 2006
Executors and Administrators; Collation & Donation [725-773]; See also Art. 1448 NCC
Zaragoza vs. CA
GR# 106401, Sept. partition inter vivos may be done for as long
79
29, 2000
as legitimes are not prejudiced & they should
be collated in the determination of legitimes
Nazareno vs. CA
GR# 138842, Oct. There is also an implied trust when a
18, 2000
donation is made to a person but it appears
that although the legal estate is transmitted
80
to the donee, he nevertheless is either to
have no beneficial interest or only a part
thereof. this is subject to collation
Vizconde vs. CA
GR# 118449, Feb. Collation of the Paraaque property is
11, 1998
improper for, to repeat, collation covers only
81
properties
gratuitously
given
by
the
decedent during his lifetime to his
compulsory heirs

Ty v. Ty

GR# 165696, April.

30, 2008

ild, legitimate or illegitimate, of one paying

the price of the sale, NO TRUST IS IMPLIED
BY LAW, it being disputably presumed that
82
there is a gift in favor of the child. However,
here there is no proof that the properties are
really donated to the deceased son.
Arellano v. Pascual
GR # 189776, Dec.
Rule on collation is applicable only when
15, 2010
there is compulsory heir. Siblings are not
compulsory heirs. Decedent not having left
83
any compulsory heir who is entitled to any
legitime, he was at liberty to donate all his
properties, even if nothing was left for his
siblings-collateral relatives to inherit.
Partition and Distribution of the Estate; Effect of Partition; Rescission 0061nd Nullity of
Partition
Noceda vs. CA
GR# 119730, Sept. There is no co-ownership where portion
2, 1999
owned
is
correctly
determined
and
identifiable,
though
not
technically
84
described, or that said portions are still
embraced in one and the same certificate of
title does not make said portions less
determinable or identifiable.
Silverio v. CA
GR# 178933, Sept. Until the estate is partitioned, each heir only
16, 2009
has an inchoate right to the properties of the
85
estate, such that no heir may lay claim on a
particular property.
Avelino vs. CA
GR# 115181, March When a person dies without leaving pending
31, 2000
obligations, his heirs, are not required to
submit
the
property
for
judicial
86
administration,
nor
apply
for
the
appointment of an administrator by the
court.
Zaragoza vs. CA
GR# 106401, Sept. See above
87
29, 2000
Arrogante v. Deliarte
GR# 152132, July 24, private deed of sale does not equate to an
2007
oral partition by an act inter vivos. Besides,
88
partition of property representing future
inheritance cannot be made effective during
the lifetime of its owner
Orendain
Jr.
vs. GR# 168660/ June testatrixs large landholdings cannot be
Rodriguez
30, 2009
subjected indefinitely to a trust because the
89
ownership thereof would then effectively
remain with her even in the afterlife.
Alfonso v. Andres
GR # 166236, July Poverty is not a justification for delaying a
90
29, 2010
case