Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 36

WillsCaseDoctrines

Art.774
EstateofK.H.Hemadyv.LuzonSurety(1956)[6]
Theresponsibilityoftheheirsforthedebtsoftheirdecedentcannotexceedthevalueoftheinheritance
theyreceivefromhim.Heirssucceednotonlytotherightsofthedeceasedbutalsotohisobligations.
Generalrule:apartyscontractualrightsandobligationsaretransmissibletothesuccessors.
ExceptionsunderArt.1311:
1)Natureoftheobligation
2)Intransmissibilitybystipulationoftheparties
3)Obligationisnottransmissiblebyoperationoflaw
Art.777
Unsonv.DelRosario(1953)[12]
Thelawinforceatthetimeofthedecedentsdeathwilldeterminewhotheheirsshouldbe.
Art.2253providesthatrightswhicharedeclaredforthefirsttimebythenewCivilCodeshallhave
retroactiveeffecteventhoughtheeventwhichgaverisetothemmayhaveoccurredundertheformer
legislation,butthisissoonlywhenthenewrightsdonotprejudiceanyvestedoracquiredrightofthesame
origin.Ininstantcase,Msrightofownershipoverthelandsbecamevestedin1945uponthedeathofher
husband.Thenewrightinfavoroftheillegitimatechildrenbythedeceasedcannotbeassertedtothe
impairmentofthevestedrightofMoverthelandsindispute.
DeBorjav.VdadeBorja(1972)[14]
Ownershippassestotheheirattheverymomentofdeath,whotherefore,fromthatmomentacquiresthe
righttodisposeofhisshare
Hereditaryshareinadecedentsestateistransmittedorvestedimmediatelyfromthemomentofthedeath
ofsuchcausanteorpredecessorininterest.Thus,thereisnolegalbartoasuccessor(withrequisite
contractingcapacity)disposinghishereditaryshareimmediatelyaftersuchdeath,eveniftheactualextent
ofsuchshareisnotdetermineduntilthesubsequentliquidationoftheestate.
Bonillav.Barcena(1976)[16]
Theheirshavetherighttobesubstitutedforthedeceasedaspartyonanactionthatsurvives.
Whileitistruethatapersonwhoisdeadcannotsueincourt,yethecanbesubstitutedbyhisheirsin
pursuingthecaseuptoitscompletion.
Themomentofdeathisthedeterminingfactorwhentheheirsacquireadefiniterighttotheinheritance
whethersuchrightbepureorcontingent.Thus,whenFdied,herclaimorrighttotheparcelsoflandin
litigationwasnotextinguishedbyherdeathbutwastransmittedtoherheirsuponherdeath.Herheirshave
thusacquiredinterestinthepropertiesinlitigationandbecamepartiesininterestinthecase.
Thequestionastowhetheranactionsurvivesornotdependsonthenatureoftheactionandthedamage
suedfor.
1)Survive:wrongcomplainedofaffectsprimarilyandprincipallypropertyandpropertyrights,theinjuries
tothepersonbeingmerelyincidental
2)Notsurvive:injurycomplainedofistotheperson,thepropertyandrightsofpropertyaffectedbeing
incidental.
Ininstantcase,anactiontoquiettitleoverlandinlitigationaffectsprimarilyandprincipallypropertyand
propertyrights,andthereforeisonethatsurvivesevenafterFsdeath.
Art.804
Surozav.Honrado(1981)[41]
Art.804provisionsaremandatory.Consequently,failuretocomplywiththetworequirementsnullifiesthe
will.

ThewillonitsfaceisvoidbecauseitiswritteninEnglish,alanguagenotknowntotheilliteratetestatrix,
andwhichisprobablyaforgedwillbecausesheandtheattestingwitnessesdidnotappearbeforethenotary
asadmittedbythenotaryhimself.
Ajudgewhoadmitstoprobatesuchawillshouldfacedisciplinaryaction.Intheabsenceofopposition,
thejudgeshouldhavepersonallyconductedthehearingontheprobateofthewillsothathecouldhave
ascertainedwhetherthewillwasvalidlyexecuted.
Abanganv.Abangan(1919)[46]
Itmaysometimesbepresumedthatthetestatorknewthelanguageinwhichthewillwaswritten.
ThecircumstanceappearinginthewillitselfthatthesamewasexecutedinCebuandinthedialectofthis
localitywherethetestatrixwasaneighbor[sic]isenough,intheabsenceofanyprooftothecontrary,to
presumethatsheknewthisdialectinwhichthewillwaswritten.
RFB:samerulinginGonzalesv.Laurel(1923).Ontheauthorityofthesecasesitseemsthat,inorderfor
thepresumptiontoapply,thefollowingmustappear:
1)Thewillmustbeinlanguageordialectgenerallyspokenintheplaceofexecution;and
2)Thetestatormustbeanativeorresidentofsaidlocality
Art.806
Payadv.Tolentino(1936)[49]
Thumbmarkassignature.
Testatrix,assistedbycounsel,placedherthumbmarkoneachandeverypageofthequestionedwilland
thatsaidcounselmerelywrotehernametoindicatetheplacewheresheplacedsaidthumbmark.Inother
words,counseldidnotsignforthetestatrix.Shesignedbyplacingherthumbmarkoneachandeverypage
thereof.Astatuterequiringawilltobesignedissatisfiedifthesignatureismadebythetestators
mark.Itisclear,therefore,thatitwasnotnecessarythattheattestationclauseinquestionshouldstatethat
thetestatrixrequestedhercounseltosignhernameinasmuchasthetestatrixsignedthewillinquestionin
accordancewithlaw.
Matiasv.Salud(1958)[50]
Thelegalrequisitethatthewillshouldbesignedbytestatorissatisfiedbyathumbprintorothermark
affixedbyhim;andthatwheresuchmarkisaffixedbythedecedent,itisunnecessarytostateinthe
attestationclausethatanotherpersonwrotethetestatorsnameathisrequest.
Intheinstantcase,itwasshownthattheherpeszosterthatafflictedtherightarmandshoulderofthe
testatrixmadewritingadifficultandpainfulact,totheextentthat,afterwritingonesignatureonthesecond
page,shedroppedthepenbecauseofanattackofpainthatlastedmanyminutes,andevidentlydiscouraged
attemptstosign.
Itistobeconcededthatwhereatestatoremploysanunfamiliarwayofsigning,andboththeattestation
clauseandthewillaresilentonthematter,suchsilenceisafactortobeconsideredagainsttheauthenticity
ofthetestament;butthefailuretodescribetheunusualsignaturebyitselfaloneisnotsufficienttorefuse
probatewhentheevidencefortheproponentfullysatisfiesthecourtthatthewillwasexecutedand
witnessedasrequiredbylaw.
Garciav.Lacuesta(1951)[54]
Acrossassignature.
Itisnotherepresentedthatthecrossappearingonthewillistheusualsignatureofthetestatororeven
oneofthewaysbywhichhesignedhisname.Themeresingofacrosscannotbelikenedtoathumbmark,
becausethecrosscannotanddoesnothavethetrustworthinessofathumbmark.
Barutv.Cabacungan(1912)[56]
Whenagentmustwrite.
Asregardsthevalidityofthewill,itisunimportantwhetherthepersonwhowritesthenameofthe
testatrixsignshisownornot.Theimportantthingisthatitclearlyappearsthatthenameofthetestatrix

wassignedatherexpressdirectioninthepresenceofthethreewitnessesandthattheyattestedand
subscribeditinherpresenceandinthepresenceofeachother.
Itmaybewise,asapracticalmatterthattheonewhosignsthetestatorsnamesignsalsohiown;butthat
isnotessentialtothevalidityofthewill.
Nerav.Raymundo(1911)[61]
Signinginthepresenceofwitnesses
Jabonetav.Gustilo:Thetruetestofpresenceofthetestatorandthewitnessesintheexecutionofawillis
notwhethertheyactuallysaweachothersign,butwhethertheymighthaveseeneachothersign,hadthey
chosentodoso,consideringtheirmentalandphysicalpositionwithrelationtoeachotheratthemomentof
inscriptionofeachsignature.
Thepositionofthepartieswithrelationtoeachotheratthemomentofthesubscriptionofeachsignature
mustbesuchthattheymayseeeachothersigniftheychoosetodoso.Jabonetadoctrine:thequestion
whetherthetestatorandthesubscribingwitnessestoanallegedwillsigntheinstrumentinthepresenceof
eachotherdoesnotdependuponproofofthefactthattheireyeswereactuallycastuponthepaperatthe
momentofitssubscriptionbyeachofthem,butthatatthatmomentexistingconditionsandtheirposition
withrelationtoeachotherweresuchthatbymerelycastingtheireyesintheproperdirectiontheycould
haveseeneachothersign.
Icasianov.Icasiano(1964)[64]
Theinadvertentfailureofonewitnesstoaffixhissignaturetoonepageofatestament,duetothe
simultaneousliftingoftwopagesinthecourseofsigning,isnotpersesufficienttojustifydenialof
probate.Thatthefailureofthewitnesstosignpagethreewasentirelythroughpureoversightisshownby
hisowntestimonyaswellasbytheduplicatecopyofthewill,whichbearsacompletesetofsignaturesin
everypage.
RFB:TheIcasianoholdingcannot,andshouldnot,betakenasadeparturefromtherulethatthewill
shouldbesignedbythewitnessesoneverypage.Thecarbonduplicatewasregularinallaspects.A
cavalierdisregardoftheformalrequirementsofwillsinrelianceonIcasianoisnotrecommended.
Cagrov.Cagro(1953)[68]
Thesignaturesofthewitnessesmustbeatthebottomoftheattestationclause.
Fact:signatureofthethreewitnessesdonotappearonthebottomoftheattestationclause,butthepage
containingtheclauseissignedbythewitnessesonthelefthandmargin.
Theattestationclauseisamemorandumofthefactsattendingtheexecutionofthewillrequiredbylaw
tobemadebytheattestingwitnesses,anditmustnecessarilybeartheirsignature.Anunsignedattestation
clausecannotbeconsideredasanactofthewitnesses,sincetheomissionoftheirsignatureatthebottom
thereofnegativestheirparticipation.
Thesignaturesonthelefthandmargincannotbedeemedastheirsignaturetotheclausebecausesaid
signaturesareincompliancewiththelegalmandatethatthewillbesignedonthelefthandmarginofallits
pages.Ifanattestationclausenotsignedbythewitnessesatthebottomthereof,beadmittedassufficient,it
wouldbeeasytoaddsuchclausetoawillonasubsequentoccasionandintheabsenceofthetestatorand
anyorallofthewitnesses.
DissentingopinionofBautistaAngelo:(a)substantialcompliance;(b)theuncontradictedtestimonyofthe
witnessesthattheclausewasalreadywritteninthewillwhenthesamewassignedobviatesfearofthe
majoritythattheclausemayhavebeenonlyaddedonasubsequentoccasionandnotatthesigningofthe
will.
Javellanav.Ledesma(1955)[70]
Acknowledgementbeforeanotarypublic.
Fact:Codicilsignedbytestatrixandwitnessesatthehospital;thenotarypublicbroughtthecodiciltohis
office,andsignedandsealeditthere.
Whetherornotthenotarysignedthecertificationofacknowledgementinthepresenceofthetestatrixand
thewitnessesdoesnotaffectthevalidityofthecodicil.TheCivilCodedoesnotrequirethatthesigningof

thetestator,witnessesandnotaryshouldbeaccomplishedinonesingleact.
Thesubsequentsigningandsealingbythenotaryofhiscertificationthatthetestamentwasduly
acknowledgedbytheparticipantsthereinisnotpartoftheacknowledgementitselfnorofthetestamentary
act.
RFB:(a)ratio:Thecertificationofacknowledgementneednotbesignedinthepresenceofthetestatorand
thewitnesses;(b)obiter:Art.806doesnotrequirethatthetestatorandthewitnessesmustacknowledgeon
thesamedaythatitwasexecuted.
Cruzv.Villasor(1973)[72]
Thenotarypubliccannotbecountedasoneoftheattestingwitnesses.
Thenotarypublicbeforewhomthewillwasacknowledgedcannotbeconsideredasthethirdinstrumental
witnesssincehecannotacknowledgebeforehimselfhishavingsignedthewill.Ifthethirdwitnesswere
thenotarypublichimself,hewouldhavetoavow,assent,oradmithishavingsignedthewillinfrontof
himself.Thiscannotbedonebecausehecannotsplithispersonalityintotwosothatonewillappearbefore
theothertoacknowledgehisparticipationinthemakingofthewill.
Furthermore,thefunctionofthenotarypublicis,amongothers,toguardagainstanyillegalorimmoral
arrangement.Thatfunctionwouldbedefeatedifthenotarypublicwereoneoftheattestingorinstrumental
witnesses.Forthenhewouldbeinterestedinsustainingthevalidityofhisownact.
Toallowthenotarypublictoactasthirdwitness,oroneoftheattestingandacknowledgingwitnesses,
wouldhavetheeffectofhavingonlytwoattestingwitnessestothewillwhichwouldbeincontraventionof
theArticle805requiringatleastthreecrediblewitnessestoactassuchandofArticle806whichrequires
thatthetestatorandtherequirednumberofwitnessesmustappearbeforethenotarypublictoacknowledge
thewill.
Art.808
Garciav.Vasquez(1970)[75]
ProvisionofArticle808mandatory.
Fact:testatrixsvisionwasmainlyforviewingdistantobjectsandnotforreadingprint.
Forallintentsandpurposesoftherulesonprobate,thetestatrixwasnotunlikeablindtestator,andthe
dueexecutionofherwillwouldhaverequiredobservanceofArticle808.Therationalebehindthe
requirementofreadingthewilltothetestatorifheisblindorincapableofreadingthewillhimself(as
whenheisilliterate),istomaketheprovisionsthereofknowntohim,sothathemaybeabletoobjectif
theyarenotinaccordancewithhiswishes.
Alvaradov.Gaviola(1993)[80]
Therequirementhasbeenliberallyapplied,theSCdeclaringsubstantialcompliancetobesufficient.
Facts:Thelawyerwhodraftedthewillandsubsequentcodicilreadthemaloudinthepresenceofthe
testator,thethreeinstrumentalwitnessesandthenotarypublic.Thelatterfourfollowedthereadingwith
theirownrespectivecopiespreviouslyfurnishedthem.
Substantialcomplianceisacceptablewherethepurposeofthelawhasbeensatisfied,becausethe
solemnitiessurroundingtheexecutionofwillsareintendedtoprotectthetestatorfromallkindsoffraud
andtrickerybutareneverintendedtobesorigidandinflexibleastodestroytestamentaryprivilege.
Itwasnotonlythelawyerwhoreadthedocuments.Thenotarypublicandthethreeinstrumental
witnesseslikewisereadthewillandcodicil,albeitsilently.Withfourpersonsfollowingthereadingword
withtheirowncopies,itcanbesafelyconcludedthatthetestatorwasreasonablyassuredthatwhatwas
readtohim(thosewhichheaffirmedwereinaccordancewithhisinstructions),werethetermsactually
appearinginthetypewrittendocuments.
Art.809
Canedav.CA(1993)[87]
Fact:petitionersaverthattheattestationclauseisfatallydefectivesinceitfailstospecificallystatethat
theinstrumentalwitnessestothewillwitnessedthetestatorsigningthewillintheirpresenceandthatthey
alsosignedthewillandallthepagesthereofinthepresenceofthetestatorandofoneanother.

SCagreeswithpetitioners.Theabsenceofastatementthatthewitnessessignedthewillandeverypage
thereofinthepresenceofthetestatorandofoneanotherisafataldefectwhichmustnecessarilyresultin
thedisallowanceofthewill.Suchdefectintheattestationclausecannotbecharacterizedasmerely
involvingformofthewillorthelanguageusedthereinwhichwouldwarranttheapplicationofthe
substantialcompliancerulecontemplatedinArt.809.Thedefectisnotonlyintheformorthelanguageof
theattestationclausebutthetotalabsenceofaspecificelementrequiredbyArt.805tobespecifically
statedintheattestationclause.
ProperinterpretationofthesubstantialcomplianceruleinArt.809:Omissionwhichcanbesuppliedbyan
examinationofthewillitself,withouttheneedofresortingtoextrinsicevidence,willnotbefataland,
correspondingly,wouldnotobstructtheallowancetoprobateofthewillbeingassailed.However,those
omissionswhichcannotbesuppliedexceptbyevidencealiunde(fromanothersource,fromelsewhere,
fromoutsidesource)wouldresultintheinvalidationoftheattestationclauseandultimately,ofthewill
itself.

Art.810
Roxasv.DeJesus(1985)[103]
Issue:whetherFEB./61appearingintheholographicwillisavalidcompliancewithArt.810.
Acompletedateisrequiredtoprovideagainstsuchcontingenciesasthatoftwocompetingwillsexecuted
onthesameday,orofatestatorbecominginsaneonthedayonwhichawillwasexecuted.Thereisno
contingencyinthiscase.
Asageneralrule,thedateinaholographicwillshouldincludetheday,month,andyearofits
execution.However,when,asinthecaseatbar,thereisnoappearanceoffraud,badfaith,undueinfluence
andpressureandtheauthenticityofthewillisestablishedandtheonlyissueiswhetherornotthedate
FEB./91isavalidcompliancewithArt.810,probateoftheholographicwillshouldbeallowedunderthe
principleofsubstantialcompliance.
Labradorv.CA(1990)[105]
Fact:dateappearsinthebodyoftheholographicwill.
Thelawdoesnotspecifyaparticularlocationwherethedateshouldbeplacedinthewill.Theonly
requirementsarethatthedatebeinthewillitselfandexecutedinthehandofthetestator.Both
requirementsarepresentinthesubjectwill.
Art.811
Azaolav.Singson(1960)[110]
Thethreewitnessprovisionincaseofcontestedholographicwillsisdirectory,notmandatory.
Sincetheauthenticityofthewillwasnotcontested,proponentwasnotrequiredtoproducemorethanone
witness;butevenifthegenuinenessoftheholographicwillwerecontested,Art.811cannotbeinterpreted
astorequirethecompulsorypresentationofthreewitnessestoidentifythehandwritingofthetestator,
underthepenaltyofhavingtheprobatedenied.
Sincenowitnessmayhavebeenpresentattheexecutionofaholographicwill,nonebeingrequiredby
law,itbecomesobviousthattheexistenceofwitnessespossessingtherequisitequalificationsisamatter
beyondthecontroloftheproponent.
Art.811foreseesthepossibilitythatnoqualifiedwitnessmaybefound(orwhatamountstothesame
thing,thatnocompetentwitnessmaybewillingtotestifytotheauthenticityofthewill,andprovidesfor
resorttoexpertevidencetosupplythedeficiency.Suchresorttoexpertevidenceisconditionedbyifthe
Courtdeemitnecessary,whichrevealthatwhatthelawdeemsessentialisthattheCourtshouldbe
convincedofthewillsauthenticity.Sincethelawleavesittothetrialcourttodecideifexpertsarestill
needed,nounfavorableinferencecanbedrawnfromapartysfailuretoofferexpertevidence,untiland
unlessthecourtexpressesdissatisfactionwiththetestimonyofthelaywitnesses.
SCsconclusion:theruleofArt.811,par.1,ismerelydirectoryandisnotmandatory.

Codoyv.Calugay(1999)
Fact:holographicwillchallengedforforgery.6witnessesofproponentdidnotcategoricallystatethat
theyknowthehandwritingandsignatureofthetestatrix;whereas,2didso.
Issue:whethertheprovisionsofArt.811ismandatory,i.e.,forprobateofcontestedholographicwillat
leastthreewitnessesexplicitlydeclarethesignatureinthewillisthegenuinesignatureofthetestator.
SC(Pardo):Weareconvinced,basedonthelanguageused,thatArticle811ismandatory.Wehave
ruledthatshallinastatutecommonlydenotesanimperativeobligationandisinconsistentwiththeidea
ofdiscretionandthatthepresumptionisthatthewordshallwhenusedinastatuteismandatory.Case
remandedbecausetheCourtfoundthatthetestimonyoftheaforesaid2witnesseswasnotconvincing.
Query:hasthisrulingreversedAzaola,supra.?
1)Azaolaisnotonallfourswiththiscase.Here,thewillwascontested(ground:forgery),inAzaolathe
willwasnotcontested.
2)RFBspersonalview:No,becausethebasisoftheremandthattheCourtdidnotfindthetestimonyof
the2witnessessatisfactoryisperfectlyconsistentwithAzaolathatqualityofthetestimony,notthe
quantityofthewitnesses,isthecriterion.Thus,SCsstatementthatthreewitnessruleismandatoryisan
obiter.WecanreadAzaolaandGodoytogether.
Ganv.Yap(1958)[114]
Intheprobateofaholographicwill,thedocumentitselfmustbeproduced.Therefore,alostholographic
willcannotbeprobated.
Whenthewillitselfisnotsubmitted,themeansofoppositionandofassessingtheevidence,arenot
available.Andthen,theonlyguarantyofauthenticitythetestatorshandwritinghasdisappeared.
Theexecutionandthecontentsofalostordestroyedholographicwillmaynotbeprovedbythebare
testimonyofwitnesseswhohaveseenand/orreadsuchwill.
Ordinaryvs.holographicwills.Thedifferenceliesinthenatureofwills.Inholographicwills,theonly
guaranteeofauthenticityisthehandwritingitself;inordinarywills,thetestimonyofthesubscribingor
instrumentalwitnessesandofthenotary.Thelossoftheholographicwillentailsthelossoftheonly
mediumofproof;iftheordinarywillislost,thesubscribingwitnessesareavailabletoauthenticate.
Rodelasv.Aranza(1982)[122]
ExceptiontotheGanruling.
Issue:whetheralostholographicwillcanbeprovedbymeansofaphotostaticcopy.
Evidently,thephotostaticorxeroxcopyofthelostordestroyedholographicwillmaybeadmitted
becausetheauthenticityofthehandwritingofthedeceasedcanbedeterminedbytheprobatecourt(i.e.,
comparisoncanbemadewiththestandardwritingsofthetestator.
Art.814
Kalawv.Relova(1984)[125]
Effectofnoncompliance.
Issue:whethertheoriginalunalteredtextaftersubsequentalterationsandinsertionswerevoidedbythe
TrialCourtforlackofauthenticationbyfullsignatureofthetestatrix,shouldbeprobatedornot.
Velascov.Lopez:whenanumberoferasures,corrections,andinterlineationsmadebythetestatorina
holographicwillhavenotbeennotedunderhissignature,thewillisnottherebyinvalidatedasawhole,but
atmostonlyasrespectstheparticularwords,erased,orinterlined.
However,whenasinthiscase,theholographicwillindisputehadonlyonesubstantialprovision,which
wasalteredbysubstitutingtheoriginalheirwithanother,butwhichalterationdidnotcarrytherequisiteof
fullauthenticationbythefullsignatureofthetestator,theeffectmustbethattheentirewillisvoidedor
revokedforthesimplereasonthatnothingremainsinthewillafterthatwhichcouldremainvalid.Tostate
thatthewillasfirstwrittenshouldbegivenefficacyistodisregardtheseemingchangeofmindofthe
testatrix.Butthatchangeofmindcanneitherbegiveneffectbecauseshefailedtoauthenticateitinthe
mannerrequiredbylaybyaffixingherfullsignature.
Velascorulingmustbeheldconfinedtosuchinsertions,cancellations,erasuresoralterationsina
holographicwill,whichaffectonlytheefficacyofthealteredwordsthemselvesbutnottheessenceand

validityofthewillitself.
Subsection4WitnessestoWills
Article821
Gonzalesvs.CA
Underthelaw,thereisnomandatoryrequirementthatthewitnesstestifyinitiallyoratanytimeduringthe
trialastohisgoodstandinginthecommunity,hisreputationfortrustworthinessandreliableness,his
honestyanduprightnessinorderthathistestimonymaybebelievedandacceptedbythetrialcourt.Itis
enoughthatthequalificationsenumeratedinArticle820oftheCivilCodearecompliedwith,suchthatthe
soundnessofhismindcanbeshownbyordeducedfromhisanswerstothequestionspropoundedtohim,
thathisage(18yearsormore)isshownfromhisappearance,testimony,orcompetentlyprovedotherwise,
aswellasthefactthatheisnotblind,deafordumbandthatheisabletoreadandwritetothesatisfaction
oftheCourt,andthathehasnoneofthedisqualificationsunderArticle821oftheCivilCode.The
attributesofthegoodstandingofthewitnessinthecommunity,hisreputationfortrustworthinessand
reliableness,hishonestyanduprightnessarepresumedofthewitnessunlessthecontraryisproved
otherwisebytheopposingparty.
Inprobateproceedings,theinstrumentalwitnessesarenotcharacterwitnessesfortheymerelyattestthe
executionofawillortestamentandaffirmtheformalitiesattendanttosaidexecution.
Crediblewitnesses'meancompetentwitnessesandnotthosewhotestifytofactsfromoruponhearsay.
Subsection6
Article830
Malotovs.CA
Itisclearthatthephysicalactofdestructionofawill,likeburninginthiscase,doesnotperseconstitutean
effectiverevocation,unlessthedestructioniscoupledwithanimusrevocandionthepartofthetestator.Itis
notimperativethatthephysicaldestructionbedonebythetestatorhimself.Itmaybeperformedbyanother
personbutundertheexpressdirectionandinthepresenceofthetestator.Ofcourse,itgoeswithoutsaying
thatthedocumentdestroyedmustbethewillitself."Animusrevocandiisonlyoneofthenecessary
elementsfortheeffectiverevocationofalastwillandtestament.Theintentiontorevokemustbe
accompaniedbytheovertphysicalactofburning,tearing,obliterating,orcancellingthewillcarriedoutby
thetestatororbyanotherpersoninhispresenceandunderhisexpressdirection.
Gagovs.Mamuyac
Thelawdoesnotrequireanyevidenceoftherevocationorcancellationofthewilltobepreserved.It
thereforebecomesdifficultattimestoprovethecancellationorrevocationofwills.Thefactthatsuch
cancellationorrevocationhastakenplacemusteitherremainunprovedorbeinferredfromevidence
showingthatafterduesearchtheoriginalwillcannotbefound.Whereawillwhichcannotbefoundis
showntohavebeeninthepossessionofthetestator,whenlastseen,thepresumptionisintheabsenceof
othercompetentevidence,thatthesamewascancelledordestroyed.Thesamepresumptionariseswhereit
isshownthatthetestatorhadreadyaccesstothewillanditcannotbefoundafterhisdeath.Itwillnotbe
presumedthatsuchwillhasbeendestroyedbyanyotherpersonwithouttheknowledgeorauthorityofthe
testator.

Subsection8AllowanceandDisallowanceofWills
Article838
Guevaravs.Guevara
Theproceedingfortheprobateofawillisoneinrem,withnoticebypublicationtothewholeworldand
withpersonalnoticetoeachoftheknownheirs,legatees,anddeviseesofthetestator.Althoughnot
contested,thedueexecutionofthewillandthefactthatthetestatoratthetimeofitsexecutionwasof
soundanddisposingmindandnotactingunderduress,menace,andundueinfluenceorfraud,mustbe
provedtothesatisfactionofthecourt,andonlythenmaythewillbelegalizedandgiveneffectbymeansof
acertificateofitsallowance,signedbythejudgeandattestedbythesealofthecourt;andwhenthewill
devisesrealproperty,attestedcopiesthereofandofthecertificateofallowancemustberecordedinthe
registerofdeedsoftheprovinceinwhichthelandlies.Itwillreadilybeseenfromtheaboveprovisionsof
thelawthatthepresentationofawilltothecourtforprobateismandatoryanditsallowancebythecourtis
essentialandindispensabletoitsefficacy.
Theheirsmaynotdisregardtheprovisionsofthewillunlessthoseprovisionsarecontrarytolaw.Neither
maytheydoawaywiththepresentationofthewilltothecourtforprobate,becausesuchsuppressionofthe
williscontrarytolawandpublicpolicy.Thelawenjoinstheprobateofthewillandpublicpolicyrequires
it,becauseunlessthewillisprobatedandnoticethereofgiventothewholeworld,therightofapersonto
disposeofhispropertybywillmayberenderednugatory,
DelaCernavs.Potot
Inacasewhereajointwillbetweenhusbandandwifewasexecutedandthewillwasprobatedwhenthe
husbanddiedbeforetheeffectivityoftheCivilCode,thefinaldecreeofprobatehasconclusiveeffectasto
thelastwillandtestament,despitethefactthateventhentheCivilCodealreadydecreedtheinvalidityof
jointwills.Afinaljudgmentrenderedonapetitionfortheprobateofawillisbindinguponthewhole
worldandpublicpolicyandsoundpracticedemandthatattheriskofoccasionalerrors,judgmentofcourts
shouldbecomefinalatsomedefinitedatefixedbylaw.Theprobatedecreeofthewillofthehusbandcould
onlyaffecttheshareofthedeceasedhusband.Itcouldnotincludethedispositionoftheshareofthewife
whowasthenstillalive,andoverwhoseinterestintheconjugalpropertiestheprobatecourtacquiredno
jurisdiction,preciselybecauseherestatecouldnotthenbeinissue.Itfollowsthatthevalidityofthejoint
will,insofarastheestateofthewifewasconcerned,mustbe,onherdeath,reexaminedandadjudicatedde
novo,sinceajointwillisconsideredaseparatewillofeachtestator.Thus,probateofthewifeswillis
deniedasjointwillsarenowprohibitedbytheCivilCode.
Gallanosavs.Arcangel
Adecreeofprobateisconclusiveastothedueexecutionorformalvalidityofawill.Thatmeansthatthe
testatorwasofsoundanddisposingmindatthetimewhenheexecutedthewillandwasnotactingunder
duress,menace,fraud,orundueinfluence;thatthewillwassignedbyhiminthepresenceoftherequired
numberofwitnesses,andthatthewillisgenuineandisnotaforgery.Accordingly,thesefactscannotagain
bequestionedinasubsequentproceeding,noteveninacriminalactionfortheforgeryofthewill.Afterthe
finalityoftheallowanceofawill,theissueastothevoluntarinessofitsexecutioncannotberaised
anymore.
Thefollowingareincludedinthetermformalvalidityandthereforeareconclusivelysettledbyafinal
decreeofprobate:
i.thatthetestatorwasofsoundanddisposingmind
ii.thathisconsentwasnotvitiated
iii.thatthewillwassignedbytherequisitenumberofwitnesses

iv.thatthewillisgenuine
Nepomucenovs.CA
Thegeneralruleisthatinprobateproceedings,thecourt'sareaofinquiryislimitedtoanexaminationand
resolutionoftheextrinsicvalidityoftheWill.Therule,however,isnotinflexibleandabsolute.Given
exceptionalcircumstances,theprobatecourtisnotpowerlesstodowhatthesituationconstrainsittodo
andpassuponcertainprovisionsoftheWill.Theprobateofawillmightbecomeanidleceremonyifonits
faceitappearsintrinsicallyvoid.Wherepracticalconsiderationsdemandthattheintrinsicvalidityofthe
willbepassedupon,evenbeforeitisprobated,thecourtshouldmeettheissue.

SECTION2InstitutionofHeir
Article850
Austriavs.Reyes
Beforetheinstitutionofheirsmaybeannulledunderarticle850oftheCivilCode,thefollowingrequisites
mustconcur:First,thecausefortheinstitutionofheirsmustbestatedinthewill;second,thecausemustbe
showntobefalse;andthird,itmustappearfromthefaceofthewillthatthetestatorwouldnothavemade
suchinstitutionifhehadknownthefalsityofthecause.

Article854
Reyesvs.BarrettoDatu
Ifthereisacompulsoryheirinthedirectline,suchheirisinstitutedinthewill,andthetestamentary
dispositiongiventosuchheirislessthanherlegitime,thereisnopreterition.Thereisnototalomission,
inasmuchastheheirreceivedsomethingfromtheinheritance.Theremedyisforcompletionoflegitime
underArticles906and907.
Aznarvs.Duncan
Manresadefinespreteritionastheomissionoftheheirinthewill,eitherbynotnaminghimatallor,while
mentioninghimasfather,son,etc.,bynotinstitutinghimasheirwithoutdisinheritinghimexpressly,nor
assigningtohimsomepartoftheproperties.Inacasewherethetestatorlefttoonewhowasaforcedheira
legacyworthlessthanthelegitime,butwithoutreferringtothelegateeasanheirorevenasarelative,and
willedtherestoftheestatetootherpersons,itwasheldthatArticle815applied,andtheheircouldnotask
thattheinstitutionofheirsbeannulledentirely,butonlythatthelegitimatebecompleted.
Acainvs.IAC
Anadoptedchild,iftotallyomittedintheinheritance,ispreteritedandcaninvokeitsprotectionand
consequences.Sinceanadoptedchildisgivenbylawthesamerightsasalegitimatechild,theadopted
childcan,inpropercases,invokeArticle854inthesamemanneralegitimatechildcan.
Nuguidvs.Nuguid

To'annul'meanstoabrogate,tomakevoid.Thewordannulemployedinthestatute(Article854)means
thattheuniversalinstitutionofpetitionertotheentireinheritanceresultsintotallyabrogatingthewill.
Because,thenullificationofsuchinstitutionofuniversalheirwithoutanyothertestamentarydisposition
inthewillamountstoadeclarationthatnothingatallwaswritten.Carefullywordedandinclearterms,
Article854offersnoleewayforinferentialinterpretation.Givingitanexpansivemeaningwilltearupby
therootsthefabricofthestatute.(Notethatwhatwasinvolvedherewasauniversalinstitutionofasole
heir,nothingmore.Article854annulshisinstitution,thusnomoreheirsareleft.Hence,theentirewillis
void.)

SECTION3SubstitutionofHeirs
Article863
Palaciosvs.Ramirez
Whatismeantby"onedegree"fromthefirstheirisexplainedbyTolentinoasfollows:
"Scaevola,Maura,andTraviesasconstrue'degree'asdesignation,substitution,ortransmission.The
SupremeCourtofSpainhasdecidedlyadoptedthisconstruction.Fromthispointofview,therecanbeonly
onetransmissionorsubstitution,andthesubstituteneednotberelatedtothefirstheir.Manresa,Morell,
andSanchezRoman,however,construetheword'degree'asgeneration,andthepresentCodehas
obviouslyfollowedthisinterpretation,byprovidingthatthesubstitutionshallnotgobeyondonedegree
'fromtheheiroriginallyinstituted.'TheCodethusclearlyindicatesthatthesecondheirmustberelatedto
andbeonegenerationfromthefirstheir.
"Fromthis,itfollowsthatthefideicommissarycanonlybeeitherachildoraparentofthefirstheir.These
aretheonlyrelativeswhoareonegenerationordegreefromthefiduciary."
PCIBankvs.Escolin
Ifthereisnoabsoluteobligationimposeduponthefirstheirtopreservethepropertyandtransmitittoa
secondheir,thereisnofideicomisaria.Theinstitutionisnotnecessarilyvoid;itmaybevalidassomeother
disposition,butitisnotafideicomisaria.
SECTION5Legitime
Article887
Rosalesvs.Rosales
ThesurvivingspousereferredtoinArticle887whoisentitledtothelegitime,isthespouseofthedecedent
andnotthespouseofachildwhohaspredeceasedthedecedent.
Lapuzvs.Eufemio
Anactionforlegalseparationwhichinvolvesnothingmorethanthebedandboardseparationofthe
spouses(therebeingnoabsolutedivorceinthisjurisdiction)ispurelypersonal.Beingpersonalin
character,itfollowsthatthedeathofonepartytotheactioncausesthedeathoftheactionitselfactio
personalismoriturcumpersona.Thus,deathofeitherpartyduringthependencyofapetitionforlegal
separationresultsinthedismissalofthecase.

Nialvs.Badayog
Maytheheirsofadeceasedpersonfileapetitionforthedeclarationofnullityofhismarriageafterhis
death?Petitionsforthedeclarationofthevoidabilityofamarriagecanonlybebroughtduringthelifetime
ofthepartiesandnotafterthedeathofeither.Avoidmarriage,ontheotherhand,canbebroughteven
afterthedeathofeitherparty.TheCodeissilentastowhocanfileapetitionfordeclarationofnullityof
marriage.Anyproperinterestedparty(heirsofthedeceasedhusband)mayattackavoidmarriage.
Barituavs.CA
Legitimateascendants(parentsofthedeceased)succeedonlywhenthedescendantdieswithouta
legitimateascendant.Thesurvivingspouseconcurswithallclassesofheirs.Thus,whereanobligationhas
beenpaidtothespouseanddescendants,theobligationisextinguishedandthelegitimateascendantshave
norighttoclaimupontheobligation.
Article891
Soliviovs.CA
Thereservatroncalonlyappliestopropertiesinheritedbyanascendantorabrotherorsister.Itdoesnot
applytopropertyinheritedbyadescendantfromhisascendant,thereverseofthesituationcoveredby
Article891.
Paduravs.Baldovino
Thereservatroncalisaspecialruledesignedprimarilytoassurethereturnofthereservablepropertytothe
thirddegreerelativesbelongingtothelinefromwhichthepropertyoriginallycame,andavoiditsbeing
dissipatedintoandbytherelativesoftheinheritingascendant.
Thereservamerelydeterminesthegroupofrelativestowhomthepropertyshouldbereturned;butwithin
thatgrouptheindividualrighttothepropertyshouldbedecidedbytheapplicablerulesofordinary
intestatesuccession,sinceArticle891doesnotspecifyotherwise.(RFB:Thosereservatariosnearerin
degreetothepreposituswillexcludethemoreremotelyrelated.)
Florentinovs.Florentino
IAnyascendantwhoinheritsfromhisdescendantanyproperty,whilethereareliving,withinthethird
degree,relativesofthelatter,isnothingbutalifeusufructuaryorafiduciaryofthereservableproperty
received.Heis,however,thelegitimateownerofhisownpropertywhichisnotreservablepropertyand
whichconstituteshislegitime,accordingtoarticle809oftheCivilCode.Butif,afterwards,allofthe
relatives,withinthethirddegree,ofthedescendant(fromwhomcamethereservableproperty)dieor
disappear,thesaidpropertybecomesfreeproperty,byoperationoflaw,andistherebyconvertedintothe
legitimeoftheascendantheirwhocantransmititathisdeathtohislegitimatesuccessorsortestamentary
heirs.Thispropertyhasnowlostitsnatureofreservableproperty,pertainingtheretoatthedeathofthe
relatives,calledreservatarios,whobelongedwithinthethirddegreetothelinefromwhichsuchproperty
came.
Therightofrepresentationcannotbeallegedwhentheoneclamingsameasareservatarioofthereservable
propertyisnotamongtherelativeswithinthethirddegreebelongingtothelinefromwhichsuchproperty
came,inasmuchastherightgrantedbytheCivilCodeinarticle811isinthehighestdegreepersonaland
fortheexclusivebenefitofdesignatedpersonswhoaretherelatives,withinthethirddegree,oftheperson
fromwhomthereservablepropertycame.Therefore,relativesofthefourthandthesucceedingdegreescan
neverbeconsideredasreservatarios,sincethelawdoesnotrecognizethemassuch.
(RFB:Actuallytherewillbeonlyoneinstanceofrepresentationamongthereservatarios,i.e.,acaseofthe

Prepositusbeingsurvivedbybrothers/sistersandchildrenofapredeceasedorincapacitatedbrotheror
sister.)
Edrosovs.Sablan
1.Thereservistasrightoverthereservedpropertyisoneofownership.
2.Theownershipissubjecttoaresolutorycondition,i.e.theexistenceofreservatariosatthetimeofthe
reservistasdeath.
3.Therightofownershipisalienable,butsubjecttothesameresolutorycondition.
4.Thereservistasrightofownershipisregistrable.
Theconclusionisthatthepersonrequiredbyarticle811toreservetherighthas,beyondanydoubtatall,
therightsofuseandusufruct.Hehas,moreover,forthereasonssetforth,thelegaltitleanddominion,
althoughunderaconditionsubsequent.Clearlyhehas,underanexpressprovisionofthelaw,therightto
disposeofthepropertyreserved,andtodisposeofistoalienate,althoughunderacondition.Hehasthe
righttorecoverit,becauseheistheonewhopossessesorshouldpossessitandhavetitletoit,althougha
limitedandrevocableone.Inaword,thelegaltitleanddominion,eventhoughunderacondition,residein
himwhilehelives.Aftertherightrequiredbylawtobereservedhasbeenassured,hecandoanythingthat
agenuineownercando.
Ontheotherhand,therelativeswithinthethirddegreeinwhosefavortherightisreservedcannotdispose
oftheproperty,firstbecauseitisnoway,eitheractually,constructivelyorformally,intheirpossession;
and,moreover,becausetheyhavenotitleofownershiporoffeesimplewhichtheycantransmittoanother,
onthehypothesisthatonlywhenthepersonwhomustreservetherightshoulddiebeforethemwillthey
acquireit,thuscreatingafeesimple,andonlythenwilltheytaketheirplaceinthesuccessionofthe
descendantofwhomtheyarerelativeswithinthethirddegree,thatistosay,asecondcontingentplacein
saidlegitimatesuccessioninthefashionofaspirantstoapossiblefuturelegacy.
Sienesvs.Esparcia
1.Thereservatarioshavearightofexpectancyovertheproperty.
2.Therightissubjecttoasuspensivecondition,i.e.theexpectancyripensintoownershipifthe
reservatariossurvivethereservista.
3.Therightisalienable,butsubjecttothesamesuspensivecondition.
4.Therightisregistrable.
(Query:Edrosocasesaysreservatariosrightisnotalienable,Sienessaysitis.Resolve.Personally,Ithink
Sienesisright.)
Gonzalesvs.CFI
Canareservistaconveybywill,reservablepropertytorelervatariosinthethirddegreeandbypassthosein
thesecond?NO.Article891clearlyindicatesthatthereservablepropertiesshouldbeinheritedbyallthe
nearestrelativeswithinthethirddegreefromtheprepositus.Shecouldnotselectthereserveestowhomthe
reservablepropertyshouldbegivenanddeprivetheotherreserveesoftheirsharetherein.
Thereservablepropertydoesnotformpartofthereservistasestateandshouldbegiventoalltheseven
reservatariosornearestrelativesofthepreposituswithinthethirddegree.Whileitistruethatbygivingthe
reservablepropertytoonlyonereservatario,itdidnotpassintothehandsofstrangers,nevertheless,itis
likewisetruethatthereservistawasonlyoneofthereservatariosandthereisnoreasonfoundeduponlaw
andjusticewhytheotherreservatariosshouldbedeprivedoftheirsharesinthereservableproperty.The
propertypassesbystrictoperationoflaw.
Canovs.Director

Uponthedeathofthereservista,thereservatarionearesttotheprepositusbecomes,automaticallyandby
operationoflaw,theownerofthereservableproperty.Thatpropertyisnopartoftheestateofthe
reservista,anddoesnotevenanswerforthedebtsofthelatter.Hence,itsacquisitionbythereservatario
maybeenteredinthepropertyrecordswithoutnecessityofestateproceedings,sincethebasicrequisites
thereforappearofrecord.Itisequallywellsettledthatthereservablepropertycannotbetransmittedbya
reservistatoherorhisownsuccessorsmortiscausa,solongasareservatariowithinthethirddegreefrom
theprepositusandbelongingtothelinewhencethepropertycame,isinexistencewhenthereservistadies.
Chapter3LegalorIntestateSuccession
Article977
Section1GeneralProvisions
Subsection2RightofRepresentation
Teoticovs.DelVal
Therelationshipestablishedbyadoptionislimitedsolelytotheadopterandtheadopteddoesnotextendto
therelativesoftheadoptingparentsoroftheadoptedchildexceptonlyasexpresslyprovidedforbylaw.
Hence,norelationshipiscreatedbetweentheadoptedandthecollateralsoftheadoptingparents.Asa
consequence,theadoptedisanheiroftheadopterbutnotoftherelativesoftheadopter.Thus,anadopted
canneitherrepresentnorberepresented.
Section2OrderofIntestateSucession
Subsection1DescendingDirectLine
Article979
Saysonvs.CA
Thephilosophyunderlyingthisarticleisthataperson'slovedescendsfirsttohischildrenand
grandchildrenbeforeitascendstohisparentsandthereafterspreadsamonghiscollateralrelatives.Itisalso
supposedthatoneofhispurposesinacquiringpropertiesistoleavethemeventuallytohischildrenasa
tokenofhisloveforthemandasaprovisionfortheircontinuedcareevenafterheisgonefromthisearth.
Thereisnoquestionthatalegitimatedaughterofapersonwhopredeceasedhisparents,andthustheir
granddaughter,hasarighttorepresentherdeceasedfatherinthedistributionoftheintestateestateofher
grandparents.UnderArticle981,sheisentitledtotheshareherfatherwouldhavedirectlyinheritedhadhe
survived,whichshallbeequaltothesharesofhergrandparents'otherchildren.
Butadifferentconclusionmustbereachedforpersonstowhomthegrandparentsweretotalstrangers.
Whileitistruethattheadoptedchildshallbedeemedtobealegitimatechildandhavethesamerightas
thelatter,theserightsdonotincludetherightofrepresentation.Therelationshipcreatedbytheadoptionis
betweenonlytheadoptingparentsandtheadoptedchildanddoesnotextendtothebloodrelativesofeither
party.
Subsection3IllegitimateChildren
Article992
Corpusvs.Administrator
Thereisasuccessionalbarrierbetweenthelegitimateandillegitimaterelativesofthedeceased.Therulein
article943isnowfoundinarticle992oftheCivilCodewhichprovidesthat"anillegitimatechildhasno
righttoinheritabintestatofromthelegitimatechildrenandrelativesofhisfatherormother;norshallsuch
childrenorrelativesinheritinthesamemannerfromtheillegitimatechild".
Thatruleisbasedonthetheorythattheillegitimatechildisdisgracefullylookeduponbythelegitimate
familywhilethelegitimatefamilyis,inturn,hatedbytheillegitimatechild.Thelawdoesnotrecognizethe

bloodtieandseekstoavoidfurthergroundsofresentment
Leonardovs.CA
Anillegitimatecannot,byrightofrepresentation,claimashareoftheestateleftbythelegitimaterelatives
leftbyhisfatherconsideringthat,asfoundagainbytheCourtofAppeals,hewasbornoutsidewedlockas
shownbythefactthatwhenhewasbornonSeptember13,1938,hisallegedputativefatherandmother
werenotyetmarried,andwhatismore,hisallegedfather'sfirstmarriagewasstillsubsisting.Atmost,
petitionerwouldbeanillegitimatechildwhohasnorighttoinheritabintestatofromthelegitimatechildren
andrelativesofhisfather.
Diazvs.CA
Article992oftheNewCivilCodeprovidesabarrierorironcurtaininthatitprohibitsabsolutelya
successionabintestatobetweentheillegitimatechildandthelegitimatechildrenandrelativesofthefather
ormotherofsaidlegitimatechild.Theymayhaveanaturaltieofblood,butthisisnotrecognizedbylaw
forthepurposesofArt.992.Betweenthelegitimatefamilyandtheillegitimatefamilythereispresumedto
beaninterveningantagonismandincompatibility.Theillegitimatechildisdisgracefullylookeddownupon
bythelegitimatefamily;thefamilyisinturn,hatedbytheillegitimatechild;thelatterconsidersthe
privilegedconditionoftheformer,andtheresourcesofwhichitistherebydeprived;theformer,inturn,
seesintheillegitimatechildnothingbuttheproductofsin,palpableevidenceofablemishbrokeninlife;
thelawdoesnomorethanrecognizethistruth,byavoidingfurthergroundsofresentment.Sothatwhile
Art,992preventstheillegitimateissueofalegitimatechildfromrepresentinghimintheintestate
successionofthegrandparent,theillegitimatesofanillegitimatechildcannowdoso.
Diazvs.CA
Therightofrepresentationisnotavailabletoillegitimatedescendantsoflegitimatechildreninthe
inheritanceofalegitimategrandparent.Itmaybeargued,asdonebypetitioners,thattheillegitimate
descendantofalegitimatechildisentitledtorepresentbyvirtueoftheprovisionsofArticle982,which
providesthat"thegrandchildrenandotherdescendantsshallinheritbyrightofrepresentation."Sucha
conclusioniserroneous.Itwouldallowintestatesuccessionbyanillegitimatechildtothelegitimateparent
ofhisfatherormother,asituationwhichwouldsetatnaughttheprovisionsofArticle992.Article982is
inapplicabletoinstantcasebecauseArticle992prohibitsabsolutelyasuccessionabintestatobetweenthe
illegitimatechildandthelegitimatechildrenandrelativesofthefatherormother.Itmaynotbeamissto
statethatArticle982isthegeneralruleandArticle992theexception.
Theword"relative"asusedinArticle992isbroadenoughtocomprehendallthekindredoftheperson
spokenof.Theword"relatives"shouldbeconstruedinitsgeneralacceptation.AmicuscuriaeProf.Ruben
Balanehasthistosay:
AccordingtoProf.Balane,tointerpretthetermrelativesinArticle992inamorerestrictivesensethanitis
usedandintendedisnotwarrantedbyanyruleofinterpretation.Besides,hefurtherstatesthatwhenthe
lawintendstousetheterminamorerestrictivesense,itqualifiesthetermwiththewordcollateral,asin
Articles1003and1009oftheNewCivilCode.
Subsection4SurvivingSpouse
Article996
Santillonvs.Miranda
ThereisaconflictwithwhattheCivilCodeprovidesaslegitimeofaspouseandwhatheorshemay
receivebywayofintestacy.Art.892oftheNewCivilCodefallsunderthechapteronTestamentary
Succession;whereasArt.996comesunderthechapteronLegalorIntestateSuccession.Art.892merely
fixesthelegitimeofthesurvivingspouseandArt.888thereof,thelegitimeofchildrenintestate

succession.Whileitmayindicatetheintentofthelawwithrespecttotheidealsharesthatachildanda
spouseshouldgetwhentheyconcurwitheachother,itdoesnotfixtheamountofsharesthatsuchchild
andspouseareentitledtowhenintestacyoccurs.Thus,uponintestacy,theprovisionsofArt.996applies.
Chapter4ProvisionsCommontoTestateandIntestateSuccession
Section2CapacitytoSucceedbyWillorbyIntestacy
Article1025
ParishPriestofRomanCatholicChurchvs.Rigor
Whereapriestmakesaprovisioninhiswillthatcertainlegaciesshallpasstohisnearestmalerelativewho
pursuespriesthood,itissaidtobelimitedtothoselivingatthetimeoftheexecutionofthewill.Wehold
thatthesaidbequestreferstothetestator'snearestmalerelativelivingatthetimeofhisdeathandnotto
anyindefinitetimethereafter."Inordertobecapacitatedtoinherit,theheir,deviseeorlegateemustbe
livingatthemomentthesuccessionopens,exceptincaseofrepresentation,whenitisproper"(Art.1025,
CivilCode).
Section5Collation
Article1061
Vizcondevs.CA
Collationistheactbyvirtueofwhichdescendantsorotherforcedheirswhointerveneinthedivisionofthe
inheritanceofanascendantbringintothecommonmass,thepropertywhichtheyreceivedfromhim,so
thatthedivisionmaybemadeaccordingtolawandthewillofthetestator.Collationisonlyrequiredof
compulsoryheirssucceedingwithothercompulsoryheirsandinvolvespropertyorrightsreceivedby
donationorgratuitoustitleduringthelifetimeofthedecedent.Thepurposeistoattainequalityamongthe
compulsoryheirsinsofaraspossibleforitispresumedthattheintentionofthetestatororpredecessorin
interestinmakingadonationorgratuitoustransfertoaforcedheiristogivehimsomethinginadvanceon
accountofhisshareintheestate,andthatthepredecessorswillistotreatallhisheirsequally,inthe
absenceofanyexpressiontothecontrary.Collationdoesnotimposeanylienonthepropertyorthesubject
matterofcollationabledonation.Whatisbroughttocollationisnotthepropertydonateditself,butrather
thevalueofsuchpropertyatthetimeitwasdonated,therationalebeingthatthedonationisareal
alienationwhichconveysownershipuponitsacceptance,henceanyincreaseinvalueoranydeterioration
orlossthereofisfortheaccountoftheheirordonee.
Thus,itisanerrortorequireasoninlawofthedecedenttobeincludedinthecollationasheisnota
compulsoryheir.
Section6PartitionandDistributionoftheEstate
Subsection1Partition
Fajardovs.Fajardo
Thereareonlytwowaysinwhichsaidpartitioncouldhavebeenmade:Byanactintervivos,orbywill.In
eithercasetherewereformalitieswhichmustbefollowed.Ifthepartitionwasmadebyanactintervivos,it
shouldhavebeenreducedinwritinginapublicinstrument,becauseitwasaconveyanceofrealestate.If
bylastwillandtestament,thelegalrequisitesshouldhavebeenobserved.
Chavezvs.IAC
Art.1080oftheCivilCodeclearlygivesapersontwooptionsinmakingapartitionofhisestate;eitherby
anactintervivosorbywill.Whenapersonmakesapartitionbywill,itisimperativethatsuchpartition
mustbeexecutedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthelawonwills;however,whenapersonmakesthe

partitionofhisestatebyanactintervivos,suchpartitionmayevenbeoralorwritten,andneednotbein
theformofawill,providedthatthepartitiondoesnotprejudicethelegitimeofcompulsoryheirs.(RFB:
Thisrulingshouldnotbeusedasitraiseseyebrowsveryhigh.Itgivesapartitionanirrevocablecharacter
andallowsaconveyanceofthecompulsoryheirsoftheirlegitimesevenduringtheirlifetimes.)
Legastovs.Verzosa
Atestatormay,byanactintervivos,partitionhisproperty,buthemustfirstmakeawillwithallthe
formalitiesprovidedforbylaw.Anditcouldnotbeotherwise,forwithoutawilltherecanbenotestator;
whenthelaw,therefore,speaksofthepartitionintervivosmadebyatestatorofhisproperty,itnecessarily
referstothatpropertywhichhehasdevisedtohisheirs.Apersonwhodisposesofhispropertygratisinter
vivosisnotcalledatestator,butadonor.Inemployingtheword"testator,"thelawevidentlydesiredto
distinguishbetweenonewhofreelydonateshispropertyinlifeandonewhodisposesofitbywilltotake
effectafterhisdeath.
Article1082
Tuasonvs.TuasonJr.
Whereheirscontractedwithathirdpersontodeveloptheircoownedlot,withthestipulationthattheco
ownershipshallsubsistuntilallthelotshavebeensold,isnotaviolationofArt.400,andisonlyamere
incidenttothemainobjectofthepartnership,whichistodissolvethecoownership.
Article1088
Garciavs.Calaliman
Writtennoticeisrequiredfortheperiodofonemonthfortheothercoheirstoredeembeginstorun.Both
theletterandspiritofthenewCivilCodeargueagainstanyattempttowidenthescopeofthenotice
specifiedinArticle1088byincludingthereinanyotherkindofnotice,suchasverbalorbyregistration.
Writtennoticeisindispensable,actualknowledgeofthesaleacquiredinsomeothermannersbythe
redemptioner,notwithstanding.Heorsheisstillentitledtowrittennotice,asexactedbytheCode,to
removealluncertaintyastothesale,itstermsanditsvalidity,andtoquietanydoubtthatthealienationis
notdefinitive.Thelawnothavingprovidedforanyalternative,themethodofnotificationsremains
exclusive,thoughtheCodedoesnotprescribeanyparticularformofwrittennoticenoranydistinctive
methodforwrittennotificationofredemption
PostedbyElmerBrabanteat10:24PM

Nocomments:
PostaComment

Linkstothispost
CreateaLink
NewerPostOlderPostHome
Subscribeto:PostComments(Atom)

AboutMe

ElmerBrabante
Studentoflaw,professoronleave,armchairsocialactivist,culturevoyeur,oragon.
Viewmycompleteprofile

Listed

Rate My Blog

JSKitComments
Therewasanerrorinthisgadget

randomwisdom
Tomeasureyoubyyoursmallestdeedistoreckonthepoweroftheoceanbythefrailtyofitsfoam;to
judgeyoubyyourfailuresistocastblameupontheseasonsfortheirinconstancy.KahlilGibran

BlogArchive

2011(2)

2010(7)

2009(28)

2008(56)
o

December(3)

October(1)

September(10)

July(4)

June(28)

Jun26(9)

Jun25(1)

Jun22(2)

Jun19(15)

VATOutline

IntellectualPropertyLawReviewer

CriminalLawINotesByJudgeOscarPimentel

InsuranceReviewer

WillsCaseDoctrines

TaxationReviewer8

TaxationReviewer7

TaxationReviewer6

TaxationReviewer5

TaxationReviewer4

TaxationReviewer3

TaxationReviewer2

TaxationReviewer1

SpecialPenalLaws,Reviewer2

SpecialPenalLawsReviewer,Part1

Jun15(1)

March(3)

February(2)

January(5)

RandomLinks

Ara

ArellanoUniversityLaw

ArnelMateo

Atty.FredPamaos

Atty.JoandeVenecia

Atty.Ma.FlorinaBinalay

Atty.Macka

Atty.Oman

Atty.Punzi

Atty.RalphSarmiento

Atty.RalphSarmiento2

Atty.RenatoBautista

Atty.RinchelAurellana

BaaoBlog

Balangibog

BanBalikatan

Batasnatin

BAYANMUNA

BAYANMUNA

BenP

BertM.Drona

Bicolhomepage

BicolNet

Blimpi(Grace)

ButchGuerrero

Catholic.org

Celio

ChanRoblesLawLibrary

ConradodeQuiroz

CrisBonoan

DeanFrancisAlfar

EdSamar

ElbertOr

ElmerBrabante:Facebook

ElmerBrabante:Friendster

ElmerBrabante:PaceLexetSapientia

EmmanuelDumlao

EricGamalinda

EricJohnCalagui

EugeneEvasco

F.SionilJose

FCJArtPanganiban

FrankPeones

Guilders(CEGP)

IanRosalesCasocot

IbonFactsandFigures

IntegratedBarofthePhilippines

JasonChangcoco

JazzLlana

JessicaZafra

JLPLaw

JocelynBisua

JoseDalisay

JoseLacaba

JoseWendellCapili

Kabulig

KenIshikawa

KristianCordero

LakambiniSitoy

LarryYpil

Legal.friendhood.net

LitoBasilio

LorilleT.Dacasin

MackyRamirez

MarjuevePalencia

MarkAngeles

MarneKilates

MerlindaBobis

MykelAndrada

OhmarCullang

PalenciaYahooGroup

phBar.org

PinoyLawStude

Pinoylaw.net

Rax

RaymundVillanueva

Remontado

RizaldyManrique

RolandTolentino

SamasaPUP

SansBalderdash

Smoke

SupremeCourt

TeddyCasio

TerayCarabuena

TheCitizenOnMars

TheWarriorLawyer

UgatIriga

UMExclusive

Umpil

VicNierva

VimNadera

Vincetoy

VirgilioRivas

VladGonzales

WilfredoPascual

WilsondeJesus

Yedylicious

YolJamendang

ZosimoQuibilanJr.

SearchThisBlog

Howdoyouratethisblog?
Followers
Therewasanerrorinthisgadget

SlangoftheDay
Therewasanerrorinthisgadget
Therewasanerrorinthisgadget

QuotationoftheDay
UselessKnowledge

Therewasanerrorinthisgadget

Ina

St.RoseofLima,thePhilippinepatroness

St.BartholomewParish

Therewasanerrorinthisgadget
Therewasanerrorinthisgadget

SintangPaaralan

BryleNapay'sWinningDrawingfromShootNations

fromshootnations

anotherfromshootnations

NationalGeographicPOD

EndangeredAnimaloftheDay
FriendsandComrades

From1999inBicol,clockwisefromleft:BuboyAguay,Dr.EdjamMeceda,Prof.JoBisua,moi;during
lightmomentsinbetweenantiVFAcampaigns.

What'stheretodonext?

Therewasanerrorinthisgadget

TheArtofRenoir
SubscribeTo
Posts
Comments

Fromshootnations

RandomFun
PictureWindowtemplate.PoweredbyBlogger.