Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
XII. Acceptance and repudiation of the inheritance; executors and Article 1046. Public official establishments can neither accept nor
administrators repudiate an inheritance without the approval of the government. (994)
SECTION 3
Acceptance and Repudiation of the Inheritance
Article 1048. Deaf-mutes who can read and write may accept or
repudiate the inheritance personally or through an agent. Should they
Article 1041. The acceptance or repudiation of the inheritance is an not be able to read and write, the inheritance shall be accepted by
act which is purely voluntary and free. (988)
their guardians. These guardians may repudiate the same with judicial
approval. (996a)
Article 1043. No person may accept or repudiate an inheritance unless An express acceptance must be made in a public or private document.
The right to accept an inheritance left to the poor shall belong to the (1) If the heirs sells, donates, or assigns his right to a stranger, or to his
persons designated by the testator to determine the beneficiaries and co-heirs, or to any of them;
his own creditors, the latter may petition the court to authorize them to
accept it in the name of the heir.
If they do not do so within that time, they are deemed to have
accepted the inheritance. (n)
Article 1054. Should there be several heirs called to the inheritance, Article 1059. If the assets of the estate of a decedent which can be
some of them may accept and the others may repudiate it. (1007a)
applied to the payment of debts are not sufficient for that purpose, the
provisions of articles 2239 to 2251 on Preference of Credits shall be
Article 1055. If a person, who is called to the same inheritance as an observed, provided that the expenses referred to in article 2244, No. 8,
heir by will and ab intestato, repudiates the inheritance in his capacity shall be those involved in the administration of the decedent's estate.
as a testamentary heir, he is understood to have repudiated it in both (n)
capacities.
may belong to me and assign the said share to Luciano Lopez and
Felisa Martinez, or to their lawful heirs." Under the Civil Code, Case #2: MICHAEL C. GUY, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF
repudiation of the inheritance is an act entirely voluntary and free, APPEALS, HON. SIXTO MARELLA, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC,
made without consideration. An heir cannot renounce his inheritance in Branch 138, Makati City and minors, KAREN DANES WEI and
favor of a designated heir or heirs, or any other person. (The substitute KAMILLE DANES WEI, represented by their mother, REMEDIOS
referred to in paragraph 3 of article 1912 is the person designated by OANES, respondents. [G.R. No. 163707. September 15, 2006.]
Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, and that Kamille and Karen
It having been clearly shown that Crispulo Martinez owed, on the 30th should have established their status as illegitimate children during the
day of August, 1908, Luciano Lopez and Felisa Martinez the sum of lifetime of Sima Wei pursuant to Article 175 of the Family Code. This
P2,500, money loaned him while he was in school, and he being of was supported by Manifestation/Motion as Supplement to the Joint
mature age, Exhibit No. 2 was, in truth and in law, an assignment by Motion to Dismiss, which was filed by the other co-heirs alleging that
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 5 of 20
Karen and Kamille’s claims had been paid, waived, abandoned or do not have such right. Hence, Michael's invocation of waiver on
otherwise extinguished by reason of Remedios' June 7, 1993 Release the part of Karen and Kamille must fail. It was remanded to the
and Waiver of Claim stating that in exchange for the financial and RTC for further proceedings.
while the Release and Waiver of Claim was signed by Remedios, it had
not been established that she was the duly constituted guardian of her In this case, we find that there was no waiver of hereditary rights. The
minor daughters. Thus, no renunciation of right occurred.
Release and Waiver of Claim does not state with clarity the purpose of
its execution. It merely states that Remedios received P300,000.00 and
CA RULING: Affirmed RTC decision.
an educational plan for her minor daughters "by way of financial
assistance and in full settlement of any and all claims of whatsoever
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: Michael argues that the Release and nature and kind . . . against the estate of the late Rufino Guy Susim."
Waiver of Claim executed by Remedios released and discharged the 15 Considering that the document did not specifically mention private
Guy family and the estate of Sima Wei from any claims or liabilities; respondents' hereditary share in the estate of Sima Wei, it cannot be
and that Karen and Kamille does not have the legal personality to construed as a waiver of successional rights.
Leodegario appeared and stated under oath that he had made the
payments without the proper prior authorization for the purpose of
saving, as he succeeded in doing, some P3,000 to the estate by
Case #3: TOMAS SISON, guardian of the minor children of the making compromises and forestalling the presentation of claims for
deceased Ignacio Bellosillo, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEODEGARIO greater amounts to the committee of appraisal; that from the P19,000
AZARRAGA, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. 8470. March 19, 1915.]
collected by him on account of the largest credit, he had deducted for
himself the sum of P8,000, the value of the machinery of the hacienda
FACTS: On April 27. 1911, Isidro Azarraga executed his final will and that Isidro had sold, which machinery was his property and had never
testament, in which he appointed his son respondent Leodegario
belonged to his Isidro At the direction of the court, Leodegario
Azarraga as executor, and also in his will, Isidro directed to distribute
submitted on April 10, 1912, an inventory of Isidro’s property that was
his property among his children and other relatives. Leodegario
in his possession, making therein the notation that the sum of P8,000
receiving a certain number of carabaos (clause 5 of the will) and a
belongs to him as the value of two steam engines which are his
legacy of P8,115.72 for the valuable services rendered to Isidro (clause
property and which were sold by Isidro along with his hacienda; that
6); Isidro further instituted as his sole and universal heirs his two
the properties indicated by the letters G and H of the inventory, along
grandchildren called Maria Felisa and Jesus, both surnamed Bellosillo
with some 30 carabaos, also belong to him; and that the property
y Azarraga, children of the deceased spouses Ignacio Bellosillo and
indicated by the letter F therein belongs to Feliciana Panis.
(3) that as the estate has no debts and the heirs instituted in the will
FACTS: Monsignor Juan Bautista Perfecto Gorordo, retired Bishop of are all of age and are willing, according to them, to secure payment of
Cebu, died in Cebu on December 20, 1934, and left a will instituting his all the legacies, there is no necessity of making the estate incur such
sister, Maria Gorordo Viuda de Jaen, as the universal heir to his estate, unnecessary expenses as the executor's fees and expenses and his
and in case of her death, his nieces Telesfora Jaen and Cesarea attorneys' fees;
and in the absence of the latter Father Alejandro Espina, parish priest
of the Cebu Cathedral. Later on, Juan’s will was probated without (5) that Attorney Margarito E. Revilles, married to the heir Cesarea
opposition and consequently the Court of First Instance of Cebu Gorordo, is willing to render professional services to the estate free of
confirmed the appointment of Father Emiliano Mercado as executor charge.
appeal. The appellants' opposition to the appointment of Father Issue: Whether Fr. Espina is unfit or unworthy of the trust of being
named executor of the estate?
own, in his capacity as petitioner for the probate of the will of Bishop
Monsignor Juan Bautista Perfecto Gorordo. It shows further that the
special agreement he had with said attorneys was to the effect that
their fees would only be that determined and fixed by the court.
“To the poor of Cebu, Opon, and San Nicolas, I bequeath ten thousand
pesos (P10,000) under the administration and at the discretion of
whomsoever may be the Most Reverend Bishop of the Diocese.”
FACTS: Petitioner Gliceria C. Liwanag is the special administratrix of The Rules of Court do not expressly prohibit making the special
the estate of Pio D. Liwanag. Respondent Manuel Agregado administratrix a defendant in a suit against the estate. Otherwise,
commenced against her as such special administratrix, Civil Case No. creditors would find the adverse effects of the statute of limitations
50897 of the same court, for the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage running against them in cases where the appointment of a regular
constituted in his favor by said Pio D. Liwanag during his lifetime administrator is delayed. So that if We are not to deny the present
moved to dismiss Agregado's complaint, upon the ground that as action on this technical ground alone, and the appointment of a regular
special administratrix she cannot be sued by a creditor of the administrator will be delayed, the very purpose for which the mortgage
deceased.
was constituted will be defeated.
administrator, and may can be sued on the ground of (2) foreclose his
mortgage or realize upon his security by an action in court, FACTS: Respondent Mauricia Sotto is the administratrix of the estate
making the executor or administrator a party defendant, and if of Claro Ong. Meanwhile petitioner Pacific Commercial was a supplier
there is a deficiency after the sale of the mortgaged property, he of La Fortuna Bakery = It delivered merchandise amounting to
may prove the same in the testate or intestate proceedings.
P3,303.75 (P1,200 was paid and remaining balance was P2,103.75).
Claro Ong was the owner of La Fortuna Bakery and sold the same to
Section 7 of Rule 86 of the New Rules of Court provides that a creditor Mamerto Laudico who later on sold it to Matias Ubaldo. Both Laudico
holding a claim against the deceased, secured by a mortgage or other and Ubaldo assumed all liabilities
collateral security, may pursue any of these remedies: (1) abandon his
security and prosecute his claim and share in the general distribution Pacific knew about the sale to Laudico but not of the sale to Ubaldo.
of the assets of the estate; (2) foreclose his mortgage or realize The 3rd owner, Ubaldo made several payments to Pacific but P399
upon his security by an action in court, making the executor or remains unpaid. When the original owner died, Pacific Commercial
administrator a party defendant, and if there is a deficiency after presented its claim to commissioners of Ong’s estate. Commissioners
the sale of the mortgaged property, he may prove the same in the denied claim of Pacific, it was instituted with the trial court.
ISSUES:
presented after the appeal had been taken, makes the estate of Claro
Ong, defendant, represented by Mauricia Sotto. If any objection was
(1) Whether the estate of Ong is liable?
ever made upon this point in the court below or before the
commissioners, our attention has not been called to it in the briefs. The
(2) Whether there is a special administratrix is allowed to pay the
first time the question was raised was in the printed briefs filed in this
estate’s debt? - No
court. The correctness of the plaintiff's claim has been fully considered
by the court below after hearing and the presentation of all the
RULINGS: Yes, the estate of Ong is liable. Also, Sotto cannot just be
testimony by both parties. The fact that Mauricia Sotto is only the
allowed to pay the estate’s debt even if he is the special administrator.
supposed last will and testament of the late Eugene Arthur Perkins 2. Whether the opposition of the surviving spouse of the
and the appointment of Alfonso Ponce Enrile as special administrator deceased that she is entitled to a large portion of the personal
of the estate. Court approved appointment of special administrator properties in question should be entertained ?
sale at this time over the strong opposition and objection of oppositor-
appellant who may later be adjudged owner of a substantial portion of FACTS: It appears that two women are claiming to be the legal wife of
the personal estate in question.3.It does not appear that appellant was Tan Po Pic, deceased, petitioner Marta Torres and a Chinese woman
given a reasonable opportunity to point out which items in the named Yu Teng New. Marta Torres objected to the appointment of any
inventory she did not want sold. In fact, her opposition to the proposed one except herself, while respondents Juan Cailles Tan Poo, on
sale and later her motion for reconsideration to the order approving the behalf of the Chinese woman, opposed the appointment of Marta
same were overruled by the court without so much as stating reasons Torres. The probate court being unable to determine who, if either, was
why the grounds for her opposition were not well-founded; the records the lawful wife of the deceased, appointed a disinterested third person
do not even show that an inquiry was made as to the validity of the to act as administrator.
It appears that Tan Y. Soc was appointed administrator of the said Tan
Po Pic, deceased, the Court of First Instance of Manila under the
misapprehension that Tan Po Pic was a resident of the city of Manila at
the time of his death. After it had been ascertained that the deceased
was a resident of the Province of Rizal, the Court of First Instance of
Manila transferred the case to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. In
that court, as we have already seen, the appointment by the Court of
First Instance of Manila was disregarded the proceedings were begun
for the appointment of an administrator by the Court of First Instance
of Rizal.
It must be remembered that the probate court did not find as a fact
that there was a wife in China; nor does his appointment of a third
person determine the fact of the existence of another wife in China.
The court considered the facts and circumstances as they were
presented in the proceedings and upon the whole believed it for the
best interest of all concerned to appoint as administrator a
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 14 of 20
disinterested third person, particularly in view of the fact that there was Esler alleged that the trial court erred in appointing Manuel Locsin as
likely to be litigation between Marta Torres and the Chinese wife as to administrator in this proceeding without the consent of Rosario Esler
which is in fact his legal wife and entitled to an interest in the estate of Vda. de Tad-Y and the minor Jose E. Tad-Y.
the deceased Tan Po Pic. We do not find the errors assigned sufficient
to warrant any action on the part of this court.
ISSUE: Whether Locsin’s appointment as special administrator is
valid?
We do not believe the court erred in this respect. The court had a right
in view of the controversy between the women to name a disinterested RULING: YES, Locsin’s appointment as special administrator is
third person as administrator and leave the controversy between them valid. After considering the reason given in the briefs of both
to be settled in the administration proceedings at the proper time.
parties, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the appeal is
groundless. If the administrator Manuel Locsin was appointed by
We are of the opinion that the decision of the probate court is so far the court as special administrator, section 660 of the Code of Civil
correct that it must be affirmed. Section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not permit any appeal from the appointment of
Procedure requires that letters of administration should be granted, said administrator. If Manuel Locsin was appointed by the trial
first, to the surviving husband or wife; second, to other relatives in the court as administrator of the intestate estate in accordance with
order named; third, in case the surviving wife or next of kin or person section 642 of Act No. 190, the trial court had discretion to issue
selected by them be unsuitable, the administration may be granted to the letters of administrator to any of the persons mentioned in
some other person, such as one of the principal creditors; and fourth, if said section, and unless there has been an abuse of discretion,
there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, the which does not appear to have been committed in the present
administration may go to such person as the court may appoint.
case, the appointment shall not be revoked on appeal.
Case #9: In the matter of the intestate estate of VICENTE TAD-Y, Case #10: B.E. JOHANNES, husband of Carmen Theodora
deceased. JOSE E. TAD-Y, represented by his guardian ad litem Johannes, deceased, as administrator; CARLOS D' ALMEIDA and
JUAN JAMORA, appellant, MARIA TAD-Y, with her husband IDA JOHANNES, with her husband, J.E. JOHANNES,relators, vs.
CASIMIRO ARGUELLES and MANUEL LOCSIN, judicial Honorable GEORGE R. HARVEY, as judge of First Instance of
administrator, appellees. [G.R. No. 22104. December 2, 1924.
Manila, ALFRED D' ALMEIDA, brother of Carmen Johannes, as
administrator, and PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, as late guardian
FACTS: Vicente Tad-Y died leaving a will survived by his wife and son. for a certain cash deposit of Carmen Johannes, respondents.
The will cannot be admitted to probate because in its execution the [G.R. No. 18600. March 9, 1922.]
solemnities required by the law were not complied with. Hence, an FACTS: CARMEN THEODORA JOHANNES died intestate in
intestate proceeding was instituted.
Singapore. His heirs are: petitioner B.E Johannes, husband, Frederick
The Court appointed Locsin as special administrator, he being one of Charles, Alfred, and Ida D’Almeida, her siblings. All the heirs lives in
the persons named by the testator Vicente Tad-y as executors in his Singapore except for brother Alfred.
will.
Case #12: FELICISIMO C. JOSON, administrator-appellee, vs.
1955: Sison filed an accounting of his administration, wherein, he EDUARDO JOSON, ET AL., heirs-appellants. [G.R. No. L-9686. May
included of the expenses of administration the amount he had paid 30, 1961.]
Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation for the renewal of his bond.
FACTS:
Narcisa F. Teodoro, one of the heirs, objected, claiming that the sums
• Tomas Joson died on July 5, 1945 in Quezon, Nueva Ecija
paid for renewal of Sison’s bond was not a necessary expenses of
leaving behind heirs and properties.
• He married three times and was survived by nine (9) heirs: two
ISSUE: Whether a judicial administrator serving without compensation, (2) children and grandchildren by his first wife Eufemia de la
is entitled to charge as an expense of administration the premiums
Cruz; two (2) daughters by his second wife Pomposa Miguel
paid on his bond?
• Upon his death, his will was presented to the Court of First
RULING: NO, a judicial administrator serving without
Instance of Nueva Ecija by his son Felicisimo Joson for
compensation, is not entitled to charge as an expense of
probate. In August, 1945, said will having been duly probated,
administration the premiums paid on his bond
It is proper for the law to safeguard the estates of deceased persons • The administrator prepared accounts that were never approved
by requiring the administrator to give a suitable bond, and that the by the court.
ability to give this bond is in the nature of a qualification for the office.
• Eduardo Joson, one of the heirs, filed an opposition to all the
accounts filed by the administrator where he alleged that the
The ability to give this bond is in the nature of a qualification for the administrator diminished the shares of the heirs in the yearly
office. The execution and approval of the bond constitute a condition produce of the properties and had padded his expenses of
precedent to acceptance of the responsibilities of the trust.If an administration.
individual does not desire to assume the position of executor or • In the meantime, the heirs were able to compromise their
administrator, he may refuse to do so. It is far-fetched to conclude that differences and entered into an extrajudicial settlement and
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 17 of 20
partition of the entire estate. This settlement was contained in (1) Whether the duty of an administrator to make an accounting of his
two documents wherein they manifested that they are entering administration a mere incident, which can be avoided once the estate
into it because of their desire to put an end to the judicial has been settled? No.
• But, as the court was never informed of this extrajudicial (2) Whether the proceedings are deemed terminated by the mere
settlement either by the administrator or by the heirs, it issued execution of an extrajudicial partition of the estate without the
an order requiring the administrator to file an accounting of his necessity of having the accounts of the administrator heard and
administration from 1949 to 1954, which accordingly the approved by the court? No.
• However, on November 25, 1954, without said accounts having (3) Is the administrator ipso facto relieved of his duty of proving his
been heard or approved, the administrator filed a motion to account from the moment said partition has been executed? No.
The duty of an administrator to render an account is not a mere One of the creditors of the deceased, [herein respondent] Absolute
incident of an administration proceeding which ran be waived or Management Corporation, filed a claim on [sic] the estate
him of his administration and of his accounts, the heirs who objected
thereto objected likewise to the closing of the proceedings invoking Absolute Management Corporation, suspecting that the documents
their right to be heard but the court ignored their opposition and attached to Betty T. Chua’s reply were spurious and simulated, filed a
granted the motion setting forth as reasons therefor what we quoted in motion for the examination of the supposed transferees. xxx It
the early part of this decision.
premised its motion on Section 6, Rule 87.
The fact that all the heirs of the estate have entered into an TRIAL COURT RULING: Denied the motion.
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ordered the trial court In the present case, some of the transferees of the shares of stock do
to give due course to the Motion for Examination? Yes
not appear to be heirs of the decedent. Neither do they appear to be
parties to the intestate proceedings. Third persons to whom the
RULING: YES, the Court of Appeals correctly ordered the trial decedent’s assets had been conveyed may be cited to appear in court
court to give due course to the Motion for Examination. Section 6 and examined under oath as to how they came into possession of the
of Rule 87 seeks to secure evidence from persons suspected of decedent’s assets. In case of fraudulent conveyances, a separate
having possession or knowledge of the properties left by a action is necessary to recover these assets.
rights or credits are left out from the inventory. In such a case, it is
likewise the court’s duty to hear the observations of such party. The
court has the power to determine if such observations deserve
attention and if such properties belong prima facie to the estate.
and predeceased Dona Adela, while the latter died testate years later,
appointing Dra. Olivia Pascual as executrix of her will. Petitioner 1. file an action against the executor or administrator, but in his/
Salonga Hernandez is a professional law partnership and their services her personal capacity and not as administrator or executor
the total gross estate as well as the fruits thereof based on the court
approved inventory of the estate. Salonga Hernandez Law Firm
> Resort to option 2 means all the heir must be notified of the claim
> BUT it did not serve notice to all the heirs of Dona Adela Pascual
RULING: YES, a lawyer who renders legal services to the executor or > Payment of such attorney’s fees necessarily diminishes the estate of
administrator of an estate can claim attorney’s fees against the estate the decedent, and may effectively diminish the value of the
instead of the executor or administrator. Attorney’s fees chargeable testamentary dispositions made by the decedent