SUCCESSION

I.

General Provisions
A.

Definition and Concept

Article 774. Succession is a mode of
acquisition by virtue of which the property,
rights and obligations to the extent of the
value of the inheritance, of a person are
transmitted through his death to another or
others either by his will or by operation of
law.
Article 712. Ownership is acquired
occupation and by intellectual creation.

by

Ownership and other real rights over property

are acquired and transmitted by law, by
donation,
by
testate
and
intestate
succession, and in consequence of certain
contracts, by tradition.
They may also be acquired by means of
prescription.
Article 1311. Contracts take effect only
between the parties, their assigns and heirs,
except in case where the rights and
obligations arising from the contract are not
transmissible by their nature, or by
stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is
not liable beyond the value of the property he
received from the decedent.
If a contract should contain some stipulation
in favor of a third person, he may demand its
fulfillment provided he communicated his
acceptance to the obligor before its
revocation. A mere incidental benefit or
interest of a person is not sufficient. The
contracting parties must have clearly and
deliberately conferred a favor upon a third
person.
B. Law Governing Form
1.

As to time of execution
Article 795. The validity of a will as to its
form depends upon the observance of the law
in force at the time it is made.

2.

As to place of execution
Article 17. The forms and solemnities of
contracts, wills, and other public instruments

shall be governed by the laws of the country

in which they are executed.
When the acts referred to are executed
before the diplomatic or consular officials of
the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign
country, the solemnities established by
Philippine laws shall be observed in their
execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their
acts or property, and those which have for
their object public order, public policy and
good customs shall not be rendered
ineffective
by
laws
or
judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or
conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
Article 810. A person may execute a
holographic will which must be entirely
written, dated, and signed by the hand of the
testator himself. It is subject to no other form,
and may be made in or out of the Philippines,
and need not be witnessed.
Article 815. When a Filipino is in a foreign
country, he is authorized to make a will in
any of the forms established by the law of the
country in which he may be. Such will may be
probated in the Philippines.
Article 816. The will of an alien who is
abroad produces effect in the Philippines if
made with the formalities prescribed by the
law of the place in which he resides, or
according to the formalities observed in his
country, or in conformity with those which
this Code prescribes.
Article 817. A will made in the Philippines by
a citizen or subject of another country, which
is executed in accordance with the law of the
country of which he is a citizen or subject,
and which might be proved and allowed by
the law of his own country, shall have the
same effect as if executed according to the
laws of the Philippines.
Article 818. Two or more persons cannot
make a will jointly, or in the same instrument,
either for their reciprocal benefit or for the
benefit of a third person.
Article
819. Wills, prohibited by the
preceding article, executed by Filipinos in a
foreign country shall not be valid in the
Philippines, even though authorized by the
laws of the country where they may have
been executed.

In re Will of Rev. Abadia - August 9, 1954

Montemayor, J.
Facts:
On September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia,
parish priest of Talisay, Cebu, executed a
document purporting to be his Last Will and
Testament. He later died on Jan 4, 1943 in Cebu
where he was an evacuee, leaving properties
amounting to P8k.
On October 2, 1946, one Andres Enriquez, one
of the legatees in the Will filed a petition for its
probate in CFI Cebu. Some cousins and
nephews who would inherit the estate of the
deceased if he left no will, filed opposition.
During the hearing, the lone surviving attesting
witness testified without contradiction that in
his presence and in the presence of his cowitnesses

Father Sancho wrote out in longhand his

Will in Spanish which the testator spoke
and understood;

that the testator signed on the left hand

margin of the front page of each of the
three folios or sheets of which the
document is composed, and numbered the
same with Arabic numerals, and

finally signed his name at the end of his

writing at the last page,

all this, in the presence of the three

attesting witnesses after telling that it was
his last will and that the said three
witnesses signed their names on the last
page after the attestation clause in his
presence and in the presence of each
other.
The oppositors did not submit evidence.
CFI: Declared the Will to be a Holographic Will.

That although at the time it was executed

and at the time of the testator's death,
holographic wills were not permitted by law
still, because at the time of the hearing and
when the case was to be decided the new
Civil Code was already in force

Such Code allowed the execution of

holographic wills, under a liberal view, and
to carry out the intention of the testator
which according to the trial court is the
controlling factor and may override any
defect in form

Admitted the Will to probate

Issue: W/N the NCC may be applied to the will,

thus overriding any defect in form (N)
Ratio:
It is a fact that at the time that the will was
executed in 1923 and at the time that Father
Abadia died in 1943, holographic wills were not
permitted, and the law at the time imposed
certain requirements1 for the execution of wills
requirements which were not complied with2 in
the will. By jurisprudence, such defects vitiate
the testament, and constitutes an obstacle to
its probate.
NCC795 states that "The validity of a will as to
its form depends upon the observance of the
law in force at the time it is made."

The validity of a will is to be judged not by

the law enforce at the time of the testator's
death or at the time the supposed will is
presented in court for probate or when the
petition is decided by the court but at the
time the instrument was executed

One reason in support of the rule is that

although the will operates upon and after
the death of the testator, the wishes of the
testator about the disposition of his estate
among his heirs and among the legatees is
given solemn expression at the time the
will is executed, and in reality, the legacy
or bequest then becomes a completed act.

SC: It is a wholesome doctrine and should

be followed.
On the View that the Intention of the Testator
should be the controlling factor

We should not forget that from the day of

the death of the testator, if he leaves a will,
the title of the legatees and devisees under
it becomes a vested right, protected under
the due process clause of the constitution
against a subsequent change in the statute
adding
new
legal
requirements
of
execution of wills which would invalidate
such a will.

By parity of reasoning, when one executes

a will which is invalid for failure to observe
and follow the legal requirements at the
time of its execution then upon his death
he should be regarded and declared as

1 Such as numbering correlatively each page (not folio or

sheet) in letters and signing on the left hand margin by the

testator and by the three attesting witnesses, one, not even
by the testator and were not numbered, and as to the three
front pages, they were signed only by the testator.

Appeal to SC on pure question of law.

2 Because the back pages of the first two folios of the will
were not signed by any

having died intestate, and his heirs will

then inherit by intestate succession, and no
subsequent
law
with
more
liberal
requirements or which dispenses with such
requirements as to execution should be
allowed to validate a defective will and
thereby divest the heirs of their vested
rights in the estate by intestate succession.
The general rule is that the Legislature
cannot validate void wills
Held: In view of the foregoing, the order
appealed from is reversed, and Exhibit "A" (the
will) is denied probate. With costs.
Fleumer v. Hix (March 17, 1930)
Malcolm, J.
Petitioner: A.W. FLUEMER
Oppositor: ANNIE COUSHING HIX
Facts:
The special administrator of the estate of
Edward Randolph Hix appeals from a decision
of Judge of First Instance Tuason denying the
probate of the document alleged to be the last
will and testament of the deceased.
Fleumers theory is that

the alleged will was executed in Elkins,

West Virginia, on November 3, 1925, by Hix
who had his residence in that jurisdiction

that the laws of West Virginia Code,

Annotated, by Hogg, Charles E., vol. 2,
1914, p. 1690, and as certified to by the
Director of the National Library [were
applicable]
Issues:
1. W/N the West Virginia Code could be
applied (N)
2. W/N the alleged will was duly executed (N)
Ratio:
As to Foreign Laws
The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove
themselves in our courts. The courts of the
Philippine Islands are not authorized to take
[the] American Union[s]. Such laws must be
proved as facts.

CAB: Here the requirements of the law

were not met. There was no was printed or
published under the authority of the State
of West Virginia, as provided in section 300
of the Code of Civil Procedure

Nor was the extract from the law attested

by the certificate of the officer having
charge of the original, under the [seal] of
the State of West Virginia, as provided in
section 301 of the Code of Civil Procedure

No evidence was introduced to show that

the extract from the laws of West Virginia

was in force at the time the alleged will

was executed
As To Due Execution
The due execution of the will was not
established.

The only evidence on this point is to be

found in the testimony of the petitioner.
o Aside from this, there was nothing
to indicate that the will was
acknowledged by the testator in
the presence of two competent
witnesses, of that these witnesses
subscribed the will in the presence
of the testator and of each other as
the law of West Virginia seems to
require.

On the supposition that the witnesses to

the will reside without the Philippine
Islands, it would then be the duty of the
petitioner to prove execution by some
other means
On Proving Domicile

It was also necessary for the petitioner to

prove that the testator had his domicile in
West Virginia, and not establish this fact
consist[ing] of the recitals in the will and
the testimony of the petitioner.

Also
in
beginning
administration
proceedings orginally in the Philippine
Islands, the petitioner violated his own
theory by attempting to have the principal
administration in the Philippine Islands.
On Documents presented pending appeal
The attorney for the appellant presented an
unverified petition asking the court to accept
as part of the evidence the documents
attached to the petition.

One of the documents discloses that a

paper writing was presented for probate on
June 8, 1929 to the clerk of Randolph
Country, West Virginia
o That it was duly proven by the
oaths of Dana Wamsley and Joseph
L.
MAdden,
the
subscribing
witnesses thereto , and ordered to
be recorded and filed

Another document disclosed that said clerk

appointed
a
Claude
Maxwell
as
administrator, cum testamento annexo, of
the estate of Edward Randolph Hix,
deceased
SC: In this connection, it is to be noted that the
application for the probate of the will in the
Philippines was filed on February 20, 1929,
while the proceedings in West Virginia appear
to have been initiated on June 8, 1929.

These facts are strongly indicative of an

intention to make the Philippines the
principal administration and West Virginia
the ancillary administration.
However this may be, no attempt has been
made to comply with Civil Procedure, for no
hearing on the question of the allowance of
a will said to have been proved and
allowed in West Virginia has been
requested.
There is no showing that the deceased left
any property at any place other than the
Philippine Islands and no contention that
he left any in West Virginia.

Held: For all of the foregoing, the judgment

appealed from will be affirmed, with the costs
of this instance against the appellant.
Estate of Giberson (June 30, 1952)
Case is in Spanish
Paul, J.
Facts:
Lela Dalton presented on Feb 10 1949 an
application for the legalization of a document
which she claims to be the holographic will of
William Giberson

Will [executed] on April 29, 1920 in SF,

California

that Giberson was a citizen of the state of

Illinois, United States, and a resident of
Cebu; and

died
on August
6,
1943
in
the
concentration camp at the University of
Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines.
Spring GIberson, legitimate son of William
Giberson presented an opposition claiming that

the will is apocryphal;

that it does not represent the true will of

the decedent Giberson: and

has not been [executed] according to the

law.

That the application did not allege that the

will had already been legalized in California
He filed an MTD claiming that before a will
executed in another country be legalized in the
Philippines, it must be shown that the will had
been legalized in such other country, accdg to
Rule 78, Article 1
CFI: dismissed the application

Under our Existing rules only Those wills

That Have Previously Been PROVED and
allowed in the United States, or any state
or territory thereof, or any foreign country,
ACCORDING to the laws of Such state,
territory, or country, may be allowed, or

Recorded filed in the court of first instance

proper in the Philippines....
Springs Argument
Art 6353 of the Code of Civil Procedure was
repealed by Rule 78 under Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution
Issue:
W/N a will authenticated in another country
may be allowed in the Philippines (Y)
Ratio:
The granting of a will is a legal act that can be
done in the Philippines or abroad

if it is granted in a foreign country, it has to

be done according to the laws of that
country, which is the universally adopted
rule.

Art 635, respecting the freedom of the

testator to grant his will anywhere, is a
substantive provision
o It creates the rights of the
beneficiaries of the will
o They are assured to legalize
Philippine wills granted outside the
Islands if they can be legalized in
the country in which they were
granted, giving them cause of
action for a court order compliance
with the last will of the testator
whatever the place of execution .
By amending the Code of Civil Procedure, the
Court only amended the procedural part, not
the substantive portion, which is contained in
Art 637.
Art 637 is not in conflict with 635, and in fact is
nothing more than its corollary

If a will made in a foreign country can be

legalized according to the laws of that
country may also be legalized in the
Philippines, with greater reason wills
already legalized in foreign countries
according to the laws of those countries,
can be legalized also in the Philippines.
Rule 78, Art 1 is nothing more
transplantation4 of Art 637

than a

Held: Revoking the order appealed from

Dela Cerna v. Potot (Dec 23, 1064)

3 The testament granted outside of the Philippine Islands,

which may be authenticated and legalized under the laws of
the state or country where I was granted, could be
authenticated, legalized and registered in the Philippines,
and will have the same efficacy Quesi has been granted in
accordance with the laws of these Islands.

Reyes, JBL, J.
P: Paula dela Cerna, et al
R: MANUELA REBACA POTOT, ET AL., and THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:
On May 9, 1939, the spouses, Bernabe de la
Serna and Gervasia Rebaca, executed a joint
last will and testament in the local dialect
whereby they willed that

Our two parcels of land 5 acquired during

our
marriage
together
with
all
improvements thereon shall be given to
Manuela Rebaca, our niece, whom we have
nurtured since childhood, because God did
not give us any child in our union, Manuela
Rebaca being married to Nicolas Potot",
and

that "while each of the testators is yet

living, he or she will continue to enjoy the
fruits of the two lands aforementioned"
Bernabe dela Serna died on August 30, 1939,
and the aforesaid will was submitted to probate
by said Gervasia and Manuela before CFI Cebu

CFI Admitted to probate (decision was in

Spanish)
Upon the death of Gervasia Rebaca on October
14, 1952, another petition for the probate of
the same will insofar as Gervasia was
concerned was filed on November 6, 1952

for failure of the petitioner, Manuela R.

Potot and her attorney, Manuel Potot to
appear, for the hearing of said petition, the
case was dismissed on March 30, 1954
CFI ordered the petition heard and declared the
testament null and void, for being executed
contrary to the prohibition of joint wills in the
Civil Code
CA Reversed on the ground that the decree of
probate in 1939 was issued by a court of

4 RULE 78 - SECTION 1. Wills PROVED outside Philippines

May be allowed here . - PROVED Wills and allowed in a

foreign country, According to the laws of Such country, may
be allowed, filed, and Recorded by the Court of First Instance
proper in the Philippines.
SEC. 637. Wills islands outside PROVED May be allowed
here . - Wills PROVED and allowed in the United States, or
any State or Territory thereof, or in a foreign state or
country, According to the laws of Such State, Territory, or
country, may be allowed, filed, and Recorded in the Court of
First Instance of the province in Which the testator has real
personal or estate on May Which Such will operate .

5 both situated in sitio Bucao, barrio Lugo, municipality of

Borbon, province of Cebu

probate jurisdiction and conclusive on the due

execution of the testament.

this form of will has long been sanctioned

by use, and the same has continued to be
used; and when, as in the present case,
one such joint last will and testament has
been admitted to probate by final order of
a Court of competent jurisdiction, there
seems to be no alternative except to give
effect to the provisions thereof that are not
contrary to law, as was done in the case
of Macrohon vs. Saavedra
Issue:
W/N the will is void because of the prohibition
against joint wills (Y, but it may be given effect)
As to Bernabde dela Cerna (may be given
effect)
The final decree of probate entered in 1939 has
conclusive effect as to his last will and
testament despite the fact that even then the
Civil Code already decreed the invalidity of
joint wills

A final judgment rendered on a petition for

the probate of a will is binding upon the
whole world

public policy and sound practice demand

that at the risk of occasional errors
judgment of courts should become final at
some definite date fixed by law. Interest rei
publicae ut finis set litium

The heirs and successors of the late

Bernabe de la Cerna are concluded by the
1939 decree admitting his will to probate
As to Gervasia Rebaca (may not be given
effect)
The probate decree in 1989 could only affect
the share of the deceased husband, Bernabe
de la Cerna
It could not include the disposition of the share
of the wife, Gervasia Rebaca, who was then still
alive, and over whose interest in the conjugal
properties the probate court acquired no
jurisdiction

Be it remembered that prior to the new

Civil Code, a will could not be probated
during the testator's lifetime.
It follows that the validity of the joint will, in so
far as the estate of the wife was concerned,
must be, on her death, reexamined and
adjudicated de novo, since a joint will is
considered a separate will of each testator.

Therefore, the undivided interest of

Gervasia Rebaca should pass upon her
death to her heirs intestate, and not
exclusively to the testamentary heir, unless
some other valid will in her favor is shown

to exist, or unless she be the only heir

intestate of said Gervasia.
Held: WITH THE FOREGOING MODIFICATION,
the judgment of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. No. 23763-R is affirmed. No Costs.
Estate of Rodriguez (Found on internet)
Testate
estate
of
the
late
Bernabe
Rodriguez.MARTINA ARANIEGO vs. ANTONIO
RODRIGUEZ ET AL. No. 1627-R. (July 1, 1948)
Facts: Martine Araniego, widow of the
deceased, filed a petition for probate of the
latters alleged will before the CFI of Bulacan.
Herein respondents, the deceaseds brother,
niece and heirs of Bernabes brother, opposed
the petition alleging
among others that the will was obtained by
undue influence, that the deceased had no
mental capacity to execute the same and such
was not the will of Bernabe.
The will was then admitted for probate by the
court. Oppositors then alleged that the

deceased named petitioner as universal heir

and was likewise named the deceased by the
latter as her universal heir in her own will,
making them reciprocal beneficiaries of each
other, thus violating the prohibition on joint
wills under the Civil Code.
Issue: Whether the will is valid, given that it
violates the prohibition on joint wills under the
Civil Code (Y)
Ratio:
It will be noted that the law prohibits two or
more persons to make a will conjointly or in the
same document. In the case at bar, the subject
wills are not conjoint since they are in a
separate documents. Hence, the provision in
the Civil code does not apply.
As to other allegations of the respondents, no
sufficient evidence was presented. In fact,
there is a testimony by a medical doctor that
testator is of sound mind when the will was
executed. Hence, the decision was affirmed.