1. Chua v.

CFI
Facts:
Jose Frias Chua had 2 marriages. First with Patricia, he had 3 childrenIgnacio, Manuel and Lorenzo. When Patriciadied, he married Consolacion
de la Torre and had one child- Juanito Frias Chua. Jose Frias Chua died
intestate.After the intestate proceeding the court adjudicated half of lot in
question to Consolacion and the other half totheir only son, Juanito. The
two sons in the first marriage, Lorenzo and Ignacio, received P3k and
P1550respectively. (Manuel already died).Juanito also died intestate
without issue. Consolacion de la Torre executed a declaration of heirship
adjudicating inher favor the pro-indiviso share of her son Juanito in the lot
in question. When dela Torre died, Ignacio and theheirs of Lorenzo filed a
complaint praying that the one-half portion of the Lot be declared as a
reservable propertyfor the reason that the lot in question was subject to
reserval troncal pursuant to Article 981 NCC. Lower court dismissed
complaint.
Issue: WON property in question was acquired by Juanito Frias Chua from
his father Jose Frias Chua gratuitously (as first requisite of Reserva
Troncal)
Held: Yes. The transmission is gratuitous when the recipient does not give
anything in return. It matters not whether the property transmitted is subject
to any prior charges. What is essential is that the transmission by made
gratuitously, without imposing any obligation on the part of the recipient. It
is evident that the transmission of the property was by means of a
hereditary succession and therefore gratuitous. The obligation was
imposed by the Court, and not by the propositus father.
As long as the transmission was free from any condition imposed by
the deceased himself and the property is given out of pure generosity, it is
gratuitous.

2.

F R AN C I S C A T IOC O DE PAPA, M AN U E L
T I O C O , N I C O L A S T I O C O a n d JANUARIO PAPA,
plaintiffs-appellees,vs.DALISAY TONGKO CAMACHO, PRIMO
TONGKO and GODOFREDO CAMACHO,defendants-appellants.
FAC T S : Th i s c a s e i n v o lv e s t h e a p p l i c a t i on o f Ar t i c l e 8 9 1
o f t h e C i v i l C o d e o n reserva troncal.1. Defendant Dalisay D.
Tongko-Camacho and the plaintiffs, Francisco Tioco dePapa, Manuel
Tioco and Nicolas Tioco, are legitimate relatives, plaintiffs being
saiddefendant's grandaunt and granduncles. P l a i n t i f f s a n d
d e f e n d a n t D a l i s a y D . Ton g o - C a m a c h o h a v e
a s a c o m m o n ancestor the late Balbino Tioco (who had a
sister by the name of Romana Tioco),father of plaintiffs and great
grandfather of defendant. R o m a n a T i o c o d u r i n g h e r
lifetime gratuitously donated four (4) parcels
o f land to her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of
plaintiffs),4 . To r i b i a
Tioco
died
intestate
in
l9l5,
s u r v i v e d b y h e r h u s b a n d , E u s t a c i o D i z o n , and their
two legitimate children, Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon
(mother of defendant Dalisay D, Tongko-Camacho) and
leaving the afore-mentioned four (4)parcels of land as the
inheritance of her said two children in equal proindivisoshares.5 . I n 1 9 2 8 , B a l b i n o T i o c o d i e d i n t e s t a t e ,
s u r v i v e d b y h i s l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d r e n b y h i s wi f e
Ma r c i a n a F e l i x ( a m o n g t he m p l a i n t i ffs ) an d l e g i t i m a t e
g r a n d c h i l d r e n Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon. In the partition of
his estate, three (3) parcels of land were adjudicated as the
inheritance of the late Toribia Tioco, but as she
hadpredeceased her father, Balbino Tioco, the said three (3) parcels
of land devolvedupon her two legitimate children Faustino Dizon
and Trinidad Dizon in equal pro-indiviso shares.

Issue: WON Propositus died. The uncles and aunts want the property
for them. The niece wants the property for herself. Where does the
property go?
Held:
succession
degree as
property is

To the niece. The uncles and aunts are excluded from the
by the niece, although they are related to him within the same
the latter. Why? Because the reversion of the reservable
governed by the rules on intestate succession, wherein the

nieces/nephews succeed ahead of the spouse, and only in the absence of

the spouse will the uncles and aunts succeed.
3. Sumaya v. IAC
FACTS:
Raul Balantakbo inherited from two different ascendants two sets of
property: (1) 1/3 pro-indiviso in Liliw,Laguna from his father Jose; and
(2) 1/7 pro-indiviso in 10 parcels of land from his maternal grandmother. He
died singleand was survived by his mother, Consuelo and five brothers and
three nephews and nieces. The mother was the solesurviving compulsory
heir and adjudicated unto herself the said property in an affidavit stating
therein that she was thesole heir/ ascendant of Raul, who died leaving
property inherited from other ascendant. Thereafter, she sold 1/3 of
theproperty to Marquita Sumaya, who later on sold the same to Villa
Honorio Dev. Corp. VHDC thereafter sold the propertyto Agro-Industrial
Cooperative. The other 1/7 of the property was likewise sold to Villa which
later on sold the same toAgro. The certificates of title do not contain any
annotation of its reservable character. The five brothers and three nephews
andnieces filed a case for recovery as the property was subject to a
reserva troncal in their favor.RTC: in favor of Balantakbos CA: affirmed
HELD: Affirmed. It was established during the trial that the reservista,
Consuelo, caused the registration of an affidavit of self-adjudication of the
estate of Raul, wherein it was clearly stated therein that the property were
inherited by Raul fromhis father and grandmother. Although the certificate
of titles were free from any liens and encumbrance at the time of sale, the
fact remains that the affidavit which was registered with the register
of deeds Laguna, constitute a sufficient notice to the whole world.
Under the rule of notice in the Property Registration Decree, it is presumed
that the purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the
title. Such presumption is irrebutable.The failure of the register of deeds to
annotate the reservable character of the property in the certificate of title
cannot beattributed to Consuelo. Moreover, it is sufficient proof that the
buyers had actual knowledge of the reservable character of the property.
Such fact appeared in the deed of sale.Unless the registration of the
limitations is effected, no third persons shall be prejudiced thereby.
4. Seangio v. Reyes

Facts: PRs, Alfredo Seangio et. al filed for the settlement of the
intestate estate of the lateSegundo Seangio Petitioners opposed
said petition, contending that Segundo left a holographic
willdisinheriting Alfredo for cause. The reason for the disinheritance was
due to Alfredosmaltreatment to his father Segundo. In view of the
purported holographic will, petitioners averred that in the event
thedecedent is found to have a will, the intestate proceedings
are to be automaticallysuspended and replaced by the proceedings of
the will PRs moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings
contending that the allegedwill of Segundo does not contain any
disposition of the estate of the deceased and thatall other compulsory
heirs were not named nor instituted as heir. Devisee or
legateehence there is preterition which would result to intestacy.
Petitioners countered that the rule on preterition does not apply
because Segundoswi l l d oe s n o t c o n st i t u t e a un i v e r s a l he i r
o r h e i r s t o t h e e x c l u s i on o f o n e o r m o r e compulsory heirs.
They argued that the testator intended all his compulsory
heirs,petitioners and PRs alike, with the sole exception of Alfredo, to
inherit his estate.
ISSUE: WON THE COMPULSORY HEIRS IN THE DIRECT LINE
WERE PRETERITED IN THE WILL.
HELD:No. The compulsory heirs in the direct line were not preterited
in the will.A c c o r d i n g t o t h e S C , i t w a s S e g u n d o s l a s t
expression
to
bequeath
his
estate
to
all
h i s compulsory heirs with the sole exception of Alfredo. Also,
Segundo did not institute an heir to theexclusion of his other
compulsory heirs. The mere mention of the name of one of the
petitioners,Virginia, in the document did not operate to institute
her as the universal heir. Her name was included only as a
witness to the altercation between Segundo and his son, Alfredo.
5. DE LOS SANTOS v. DELA CRUZ
Facts: On September 5, 1912, Guillermo de los Santos applied to the
Court of Land Registration for registration of a tract of land belonging
to them, situated in the place called Apunan-auac, barrio of
Calubasan, municipality of Bamban, Province of Tarlac. The said tract
is bounded on the north by property of Felipe Lagman, on the

southeast by Dolores Singian, on the south by Agaton Lugtu, on the

west by Alberto Rivera, and on the northeast by Felipe de la Cruz. On
April 3, 1913, counsel for Felix de la Cruz objected in writing to the
foregoing application, alleging that the lot indicated by the letter A in
the plan ought not to be registered, as the applicant claims, because
he is the absolute and exclusive owner thereof; and he prays that the
application and registration to be denied by reference to the lot
marked "A."
Issue: WON there was the unregistered has a lawful right in acquiring
such property
Held: The respondent is also a claimant and as such cannot escape
the obligation to prove the allegations contained in his exception to
the application of the party who alleges that he is the owner of the
land sought to be registered, and if the respondent Cruz has not
succeeded in disproving with evidence the allegations of Santos, who
has proved his ownership of the land, then the registration sought by
the latter is proper under the law.
For the foregoing reasons, whereby the errors assigned to the
judgment appealed from are held to be refuted, affirmation of the
same is proper, as we do hereby affirm it; with the costs against the
appellant.
6. Teotico vs Del Val
FACTS: Maria Mortera died on July 1955 leaving properties worth
P600,000. She executed a will written in Spanish, affixed her signature
and acknowledged before Notary Public by her and the witnesses. Among
the legacies made in the will was the P20,000 for Rene Teotico who was
married to the testatrixs niece, Josefina Mortera. The usufruct of Marias
interest in the Calvo Building were left to the said spouses and the
ownership thereof was left in equal parts to her grandchildren, the
legitimate children of said spouses. Josefina was likewise instituted, as
sole and universal heir to all the remainder of her properties not otherwise
disposed by will. Vicente Teotico filed a petition for the probate of the will
but was opposed by Ana del Val Chan, claiming that she was an adopted
child of Francisca (deceased sister of Maria) and an acknowledged natural
child of Jose (deceased brother of Maria), that said will was not executed

as required by law and that Maria as physically and mentally incapable to

execute the will at the time of its execution and was executed under
duress, threat, or influence of fear.
ISSUE: WON defendant has right to intervene in this proceeding.
HELD:
It is a well-settled rule that in order that a person may be allowed to
intervene in a probate proceeding is that he must have an interest in the
estate, will or in the property to be affected by either as executor or as a
claimant of the estate and be benefited by such as an heir or one who has
a claim against it as creditor. Under the terms of the will, defendant has no
right to intervene because she has no such interest in the estate either as
heir, executor or administrator because it did not appear therein any
provision designating her as heir/ legatee in any portion of the estate. She
could have acquired such right if she was a legal heir of the deceased but
she is not under the CIVIL CODE. Even if her allegations were true, the
law does not give her any right to succeed the estate of the deceased sister
of both Jose and Francisca because being an illegitimate child she is
prohibited by law from succeeding to the legitimate relatives of her natural
father and that relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the
adopter and adopted and does not extend to the relatives of the adopting
parents except only as expressly provided by law. As a consequence, she
is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of the adopter.
Hence, defendant has no right to intervene either as testamentary or as
legal heir in the probate proceeding.
7. SAYSON V. CA
FACTS: Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot fivechildren, namely, Mauricio,
Rosario, Basilisa,Remedios and Teodoro. Eleno died onNovember 10, 1952,
and Rafaela on May15,1976. Teodoro, who had married IsabelBautista, died
on March 23, 1972. His wifedied nine years later. Their properties wereleft in
the possession of Delia, Edmundo, andDoribel, all surnamed Sayson, who
claim tobe their children.Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa, and Remedios,together
with Juana C. Bautista, Isabel's mother, filed a complaint for partition and
accounting of theintestate estate of Teodoro and Isabel Sayson. Delia,
Edmundo and Doribel filed their own complaint,this time for the accounting and

partition of the intestate estate of Eleno and Rafaela Sayson, againstthe

couple's four surviving children.Both cases filed on the Lower Court were
decided in favor Delia, on the basis of practically thesame evidence.
ISSUE:
WON the CA is correct in holding that Delia and Edmundo are disqualified to inherit
from theestate of the deceased spouses Eleno and Rafaela Sayson.
HELD: HELD:
A different conclusion must be reached in the case of Delia and Edmundo, to whom
thegrandparents were total strangers.
While it is true that the adopted child shall be deemed to be alegitimate child and
have the same right as the latter, these rights do not include the right
of representation. The relationship created by the adoption is between only the
adopting parents and theadopted child and does not extend to the blood relatives of
either party.In sum, we agree with the lower courts that Delia and Edmundo as the
adopted children and Doribelas the legitimate daughter of Teodoro Sayson and Isabel
Bautista, are their exclusive heirs and areunder no obligation to share the estate of
their parents with the petitioners. The Court of Appeals wascorrect, however, in
holding that only Doribel has the right of representation in the inheritance of
her grandparents' intestate estate, the other private respondents being only the
adoptive children of thedeceased Teodoro.
8. BALILO-MONTERO v. SEPTIMO
FACTS: Jose Balilo was the owner of a parcel of land, with an area of
7.7837 hectares, located in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, covered by
Homestead Patent No. 46784 issued on February 21, 1938. Based on the
said patent, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 3014 was issued to and
under his name by the Register of Deed. On August 12, 1943, Jose Balilo
died intestate. sometime in 1948, Niniana Balilo, the sister of Jose Balilo,
filed a petition in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pampanga, for the
guardianship of the property and the person of Jovencio Balilo whom she
alleged to be the son of her brother, Jose Balilo; hence, her nephew.
However, Jose Septimo failed to register the deed in the Office of the
Register of Deeds and, consequently, to secure a torrens title over the
property in his name. The guardianship case was terminated on September
24, 1951 per the Order of the CFI of even date.

ISSUE: WON the title over the property belonged to Jose Septimo despite
failure to register the deed in the office of the register of deeds
HELD: The contention of the petitioner that the CA erred in applying the law
on testate succession under the Old Civil Code is, likewise, correct. The
appellate court should have applied the provisions of the Old Civil Code on
intestate succession considering that Jose Balilo died intestate in 1943,
before the effectivity of the New Civil Code.
Article 931 of the Old Civil Code provides that when a person dies
intestate, his legitimate children and their descendants succeed him,
without distinction of sex, or age, even though they spring from different
marriages. Article 932 of the same Code provides that the children of the
deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right, dividing the
inheritance in equal shares. Moreover, under Article 939 of the Old Civil
Code, in the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants, the natural
children legally acknowledged and those legitimated by royal succession
shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased.

9. CORPUS v. CORPUS
Facts: Teodoro R. Yangco died in Manila on April 20, 1939 at the age of
seventy-seven years. His will dated August 29, 1934 was probated in the
Court of First Instance of Manila. Yangco had no forced heirs. At the time of
his death, his nearest relatives were (1) his half brother, Luis R. Yangco, (2)
his half sister, Paz Yangco, the wife of Miguel Ossorio (3) Amalia Corpus,
Jose A. V. Corpus, and Ramon L. Corpus, the children of his half brother,
Pablo Corpus, and (4) Juana (Juanita) Corpus, the daughter of his half
brother Jose Corpus. Juanita died in October, 1944 at Palauig, Zambales.
Pursuant to the order of the probate court, a project of partition dated
November 26, 1945 was submitted by the administrator and the legatees
named in the will. That project of partition was opposed by the estate of
Luis R. Yangco whose counsel contended that an intestacy should be
declared Because the will does not contain an institution of heir. It was also
opposed by Atty. Roman A. Cruz, who represented Juanita Corpus, Pedro
Martinez and Juliana de Castro. Juanita Corpus was already dead when
Atty. Cruz appeared as her counsel.

Issue: WON Teodoro R. Yangco was a natural child, that his will had been
duly legalized and that plaintiff's action is barred by res judicata and laches.
Held: The rule in article 943 is now found in article 992 of the Civil Code
which provides that "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".
That rule is based on the theory that the illegitimate child is disgracefully
looked upon by the legitimate family while the legitimate family is, in turn,
hated by the illegitimate child.
10.

LEONARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: On October 29, 1964, petitioner Cresenciano Leonardo, claiming

to be the son of the late Sotero Leonardo, filed a complaint for ownership of
properties, sum of money and accounting in the Court of First Instance of
Rizal seeking judgment (1) to be declared one of the lawful heirs of the
deceased Francisca Reyes, entitled to one-half share in the estate of said
deceased jointly with defendant, private respondent herein, Maria Cailles,
(2) to have the properties left by said Francisca Reyes, described in the
complaint, partitioned between him and defendant Maria Cailles, and (3) to
have an accounting of all the income derived from said properties from the
time defendants took possession thereof until said accounting shall have
been made, delivering to him his share therein with legal interest.
Issue: WON AS THE GREAT GRANDSON OF FRANCISCA REYES, HAS
NO LEGAL RIGHT TO INHERIT BY REPRESENTATION.
HELD: even if it is true that petitioner is the child of Sotero Leonardo, still
he cannot, by right of representation, claim a share of the estate left by the
deceased Francisca Reyes considering that, as found again by the Court of
Appeals, he was born outside wedlock as shown by the fact that when he
was born on September 13, 1938, his alleged putative father and mother
were not yet married, and what is more, his alleged father's first marriage
was still subsisting. At most, petitioner would be an illegitimate child who
has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives

of his father, like the deceased Francisca Reyes. (Article 992, Civil Code of
the Philippines.)
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed
in this petition is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner