SUCCESSION CASE DOCTRINES

CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO

I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE LAW ON SUCCESSION:

1
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE
16 Solivio v. Special Proceedings; Settlement of Estate; Courts; Jurisdiction; Trial court has On October 11, 1959, Esteban WON the estate of the
CA no jurisdiction to entertain an action for partition and recovery of properties Javellana, Jr.’s mother Salustia died deceased was subject to
belonging to the estate of a deceased person, while the probate proceedings leaving all her property, including a reservatroncal and that it
for the settlement of said estate are still pending in another branch of the same house and lot in La Paz, Iloilo City, to pertains to her as his only
court.—After a careful review of the records, we find merit in the petitioner’s him. Esteban Jr,” died a bachelor, relative within the third
contention that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, lacked jurisdiction to without descendants, ascendants, degree on his mother’s
entertain Concordia Villanueva’s action for partition and recovery of her share brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces. side
of the estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr. while the probate proceedings (Spl. His only surviving relatives are: (1) his
Proc. No. 2540) for the settlement of said estate are still pending in Branch 23 maternal aunt, petitioner
of the same court, there being as yet no orders for the submission and CeledoniaSolivio, the spinster half-
approval of the administratrix’s inventory and accounting, distributing the sister of his mother, SalustiaSolivio;
residue of the estate to the heir, and terminating the proceedings (p. 31, and (2) the private
Record) x x x In the interest of orderly procedure and to avoid confusing and respondent, Concordia Javellana-
conflicting dispositions of a decedent’s estate, a court should not interfere with Villanueva, sister of his deceased
probate proceedings pending in a co-equal court. Thus, did we rule in Guilas v. father, Esteban Javellana, Sr.
1. The person obliged to reserve is the
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, L-26695, January 31, 1972, Pursuant to an agreement between
43 SCRA 111, 117, where a daughter filed a separate action to annul a project Concordia and Celedonia, the latter
of partition executed between her and her father in the proceedings for the would take care of the proceedings
settlement of the estate of her mother: “The probate court loses jurisdiction of leading to the formation of the
an estate under administration only after the payment of all the debts and the foundation. Celedonia in good faith
remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same. The finality and upon the advice of her counsel,
of the approval of the project of partition by itself alone does not terminate the filed for a Special Proceeding for
probate proceeding (Timbol v. Cano, 1 SCRA 1271, 1276, L-15445, April 29, her appointment as special
1961; Siguiong v. Tecson, 89 Phil. pp. 28, 30). As long as the order of the administratrix of the estate of Esteban
distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the probate proceedings Javellana, Jr., praying that letters of
cannot be deemed closed and terminated (Siguiong v. Tecson, supra); because administration be issued to her; that
a judicial partition is not final and conclusive and does not prevent the heirs she be declared sole heir of
from bringing an action to obtain his share, provided the prescriptive period the deceased; and that after payment
therefore has not elapsed (Mari v. Bonilla, 83 Phil. 137). The better practice, of all claims and rendition of inventory
however, for the heir who has not received his share, is to demand his share and
law. (p. 692, Civil Law by Padilla, Vol.
through a proper motion in the same probate or administration proceedings, or accounting, the estate be adjudicated
for reopening of the probate or administrative proceedings if it had already to her.
Clearly, the property of the deceased, Esteban Javellana,
been closed, and not through an independent action, which would be tried by Concordia filed a civil case in the RTC
another court or Judge which may thus reverse a decision or order of the of Iloilo for partition, recovery
probate or intestate court already final and executed and re-shuffle properties of possession, ownership and
long ago distributed and disposed of.” (Ramos v. Ortuzar, 89 Phil. 730, damages. Celedonia averred that the
741-742; Timbol v. Cano, supra; Jingco v. Daluz, L-5107, April 24, 1953, 92 estate of Esteban Jr. was subject to
Phil. 1082; Roman Catholic v. Agustines, L-14710, March 29, 1960, 107 Phil. reservatroncal and thus it should
455, 460-461; Italics supplied)
redound to her as a relative within mother’s side. The reservatroncal applies to properties
the 3rd degree on his mother side.
2
HELD RATIO
NO There is no merit in the petitioner’s argument that the
estate of the deceased was subject to reservatroncal,
and that it pertains to her as his only relative within
the third degree on his mother’s side. The reservatroncal
provision of the Civil Code is found in Article 891 which
reads as follows:
ART. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his
descendant any property which the latter may have
acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a
brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as
he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit
of relatives who are within the third degree and who
belong to the line from which said property came.
The persons involved in reservatroncal are:
reservor (reservista)—the

ascendant who inherits by operation
of law property from his descendants.
2. The persons for whom the property is
reserved are the reservees
(reservatarios)—relatives within the
third degree counted from the
descendant (propositus), and
belonging to the line from which
the property came.
3. The propositus—the descendant who
received by gratuitous title and died
without issue, making his other
ascendant inherit by operation of
II, 1956 Ed.)
Jr., is not reservable property, for Esteban, Jr. was not an
ascendant, but the descendant of his mother, Salustia
Solivio, from whom he inherited the properties in
question. Therefore, he did not hold his inheritance
subject to a reservation in favor of his aunt, Celedonia
Solivio, who is his relative within the third degree on his
inherited by an ascendant from a descendant who
inherited it from another ascendant or a brother or sister.
It does not apply to property inherited by a
descendant from his ascendant, the reverse of the
situation covered by Article 891.
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Same; Same; Probate proceedings are proceedings in rem, publication of the
notice of the proceedings is constructive notice to the whole world.—The
probate proceedings are proceedings in rem. Notice of the time and place of
hearing of the petition is required to be published (Sec. 3, Rule 76 in relation to
Sec. 3, Rule 79, Rules of Court). Notice of the hearing of Celedonia’s original
petition was published in the “Visayan Tribune” on April 25, May 2 and 9, 1977
(Exh. 4, p. 197, Record). Similarly, notice of the hearing of her amended
petition of May 26, 1977 for the settlement of the estate was, by order of the
court, published in “Bagong Kasanag” (New Light) issues of May 27, June 3
and 10, 1977 (pp. 182-305, Record). The publication of the notice of the
proceedings was constructive notice to the whole world. Concordia was not
deprived of her right to intervene in the proceedings for she had actual, as well
as constructive notice of the same.

Same; Same; Same; Annulment of judgment; Extrinsic fraud; Failure to disclose

to the adverse party, or to the court, matters which will defeat one’s own claim
or defense does not constitute extrinsic fraud that will justify vacation of
judgment.—Celedonia’s allegation in her petition that she was the sole heir of
Esteban within the third degree on his mother’s side was not false. Moreover, it
was made in good faith and in the honest belief that because the properties of
Esteban had come from his mother, not his father, she, as Esteban’s nearest
surviving relative on his mother’s side, is the rightful heir to them. It would have
been self-defeating and inconsistent with her claim of sole heirship if she
stated in her petition that Concordia was her co-heir. Her omission to so state
did not constitute extrinsic fraud. “Failure to disclose to the adversary, or to the
court, matters which would defeat one’s own claim or defense is not such
extrinsic fraud as will justify or require vacation of the judgment.” (49 C.J.S.
489, citing Young v. Young, 2 SE 2d 622; First National Bank & Trust Co. of
King City v. Bowman, 15 SW 2d 842; Price v. Smith, 109 SW 2d 1144, 1149)

3
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Wills and Succession; Reserva Troncal; Reserva troncal does not apply to
property inherited by a descendant from his ascendant.—Clearly, the property
of the deceased, Esteban Javellana, Jr., is not reservable property, for Esteban,
Jr. was not an ascendant, but the descendant of his mother, Salustia Solivio,
from whom he inherited the properties in question. Therefore, he did not hold
his inheritance subject to a reservation in favor of his aunt, Celedonia Solivio,
who is his relative within the third degree on his mother’s side. The reserva
troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a descendant who
inherited it from another ascendant or a brother or sister. It does not apply to
property inherited by a descendant from his ascendant, the reverse of the
situation covered by Article 891.

Evidence; Judicial Admissions; Judicial admissions are conclusive and no

evidence is required to prove the same.—However, inasmuch as Concordia
had agreed to deliver the estate of the deceased to the foundation in honor of
his mother, Salustia Solivio Vda. de Javellana (from whom the estate came), an
agreement which she ratified and confirmed in her “Motion to Reopen and/or
Reconsider Order dated April 3, 1978” which she filed in Spl. Proceeding No.
2540: “4. That x x x prior to the filing of the petition they (petitioner Celedonia
Solivio and movant Concordia Javellana) have agreed to make the estate of the
decedent a foundation, besides they have closely known each other due to
their filiation to the decedent and they have been visiting each other’s house
which are not far away for (sic) each other.” (p. 234, Record; emphasis
supplied) she is bound by that agreement. It is true that by that agreement, she
did not waive her inheritance in favor of Celedonia, but she did agree to place
all of Esteban’s estate in the “Salustia Solivio Vda. de Javellana Foundation”
which Esteban, Jr., during his lifetime, planned to set up to honor his mother
and to finance the education of indigent but deserving students as well. Her
admission may not be taken lightly as the lower court did. Being a judicial
admission, it is conclusive and no evidence need be presented to prove the
agreement (Cunanan v. Amparo, 80 Phil. 227; Granada v. Philippine National
Bank, L-20745, Sept. 2, 1966, 18 SCRA 1; Sta. Ana v. Maliwat, L-23023, Aug.
31, 1968, 24 SCRA 1018; People v. Encipido, G.R. 70091, Dec. 29, 1986, 146
SCRA 478; and Rodillas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 58652, May 20, 1988, 161
SCRA 347).

4
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
17 PADURA DOCTRINE: The division of the reservable property among the reservees is the Agustin Padura contracted two WON the reserved NO The nephews of the whole blood should take a share
vs subject matter of the following decision. The court rejected the theory of marriages during his lifetime. With his properties should, as the twice as large as that of the nephews of the half blood.
BALDOVI reserva integral espoused by Spanish commentators such as Scaevola, and first wife Gervacia Landig, he had one trial court held, be The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to
NO categorically adopted the theory of delayed intestacy. The reason for rejecting child, Manuel Padura. With the apportioned among the assure the return of the reservable property to the third
the first theory is clearly discussed below.
second wife, Benita Garing, he had heirs equally. degree relatives belonging to the line from which the
two children, Fortunato and property originally came, and avoid its being dissipated
Candelaria Padura. Agustin died on into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant
Apr 26, 1908, leaving a last will and (reservista). Article 891 of the Code provides:
Gervacia Agustin Benita
testament, duly probated, wherein he ART 891. The ascendant who inherits from his
bequeathed his properties among his descendant any property which the latter may have
three children and his surviving acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a
Manuel Fortunato Candelaria
spouse, Benita Garing. brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as
Fortunato was adjudicated four he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit
parcels of land. He died unmarried on of relatives who are within the third degree and who
Dionisia Cristeta
May 28, 1908, without having belong to the line from which said property came.
Felisa Melania
executed a will; and not having any The purpose of the reserva troncal is accomplished once
Flora Anicia
issue, the parcels of land were the property has devolved to the specified relatives of the
Cornelio Pablo
inherited exclusively by his mother line of origin. But from this time on, there is no further
Francisco
Benita. Benita was issued a Torrens occasion for its application. In the relations between one
Juana
Certificate of Title in her name, reservatario and another of the same degree, there is no
Severino
subject to the condition that the call for applying Art 891 any longer; the respective share
properties were reservable in favor of of each in the reversionary property should be governed
relatives within the third degree by the ordinary rules of interstate succession.
belonging to the line from which said
property came.

5
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS
On Aug 26, 1934, Candelaria died,
leaving as her heirs her four legitimate
children: Cristeta, Melania, Anicia, and
Pablo Baldovino (Oppositors-
appellants). On Oct 6, 1940, Manuel
also died, survived by his legitimate
children Dionisia, Felisa, Flora,
Cornelio, Francisco, Juana, and
Severino Padura (Petitioners-
appellees) Upon the death of
Benita (the reservista) on Oct 15,
1952, the heirs took possession of the
reservable properties. CFI Laguna
declared the children of Manuel and
Candelaria to be the rightful
reservees, and as such, entitled to the
reservable properties (the original
reservees, Candelaria and Manuel,
having predeceased the reservista)
The Baldovino heirs filed a petition
seeking to have the properties
partitioned, such that one-half be
adjudicated to them, and the other
half to the appellees, allegedly on the
basis that they inherited by right of
representation from their respective
parents, the original reservees.
Padura heirs opposed, maintaining
that they should all be deemed as
inheriting in their own right, under
which, they claim, each should have
an equal share.
(In essence, the Baldovino heirs, who
are whole blood relatives of the
reservista, were contending that they
should get more than their half-blood
relatives, the Padura heirs. They
anchor their claim on Articles 1006
and 1008 of the Civil Code)
RTC RULING
Declared all the reservees, without
distinction, “co-owners, pro-indiviso,
in equal shares of the parcels of land.”
6
ISSUE HELD RATIO
Florentino v Florentino (as restated in the case): upon the
death of the ascendant reservista, the reservable
property should pass, not to all the reservatorios as a
class, but only to those nearest in degree to the
descendant (prepositus), excluding those reservatarios of
more remote degree... And within the third degree of
relationship from the descendant (prepositus), the right of
representation operates in favor of nephews.
Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic
principles of ordinary intestate succession; so is the rule
that whole blood brothers and nephews are entitled to
share double that of brothers and nephews of half-blood.
If in determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se,
proximity of degree and the right of representation of
nephews are made to aply, the rule of double share for
immedaite collaterals of the whole blood should likewise
be operative.
In other words, reserva troncal merely determines the
group of relatives (reservatarios) to whom the property
should be returned; but within that group, the individual
right to the property should be decided by the applicable
rules of ordinary intestate succession, since Art 891 does
not specify otherwise. The reserva being an exceptional
case, its application should be limited to what is strictly
needed to accomplish the purpose of the law.
Even during the reservista’s lifetime, the reservatarios,
who are the ultimate acquirers of the property, can
already assert the right to prevent the reservista from
doing anything that might frustrate their reversionary
right: and for this purpose they can compel the
annotation of their right in the Registry of Property even
while the reservista is alive. This right is incompatible
with the mere expectancy that corresponds to the natural
heirs of the reservista. It is also clear that the reservable
property is not part of the estate of the reservista, who
may not dispose of them by will, so long as there are
reservatarios existing. The latter, therefore, do not inherit
from the reservista, but from the descendant prepositus,
of whom the reservatarios are the heirs mortis causa,
subject to the condition that they must survive the
reservista.
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
18 Florentino 1. 1.
 Apolonio Florentino II married Antonia WON the property left at YES. It was The property enumerated by the plaintiffs in paragraph 5
v. RESERVABLE PROPERTY.—The property proceeding from an ascendant Faz de Leon, they have 11 children. the death of Apolonio III, invested of their complaint came, without any doubt whatsoever,
Florentino or from a brother of a deceased descendant—who may have acquired One of the children is Encarnacion, the posthumos son of with the from the common ancestor Apolonio Isabelo II, and
same by lucrative title and from whom afterwards another ascendant of plaintiff in this case. Apolonio became Apolonio Isabelo II, was character of when, on the death of Apolonio III without issue the same
deceased will inherit—is by law invested with the character of reservable a widower and married again, he invested with the reservable passed by operation of law into the hands of his
property in favor of said deceased's relatives, within the third degree, of married Severina Faz de Leon, they character of reservable property. legitimate mother, Severina Faz de Leon, it became
the line from whence such property proceeds. (Art. 811 of the Civil had 2 children, Mercedez Florentino property when it was reservable property, in accordance with the provision of
Code.)
and Apolinio III. Mercedez was the received by his mother, article 811 of the Code, with the object that the same
2. 2.
 defendant in this case.
Severina Faz de Leon? should not fall into the possession of persons other than
ID.; WHEN IT LOSES THIS CHARACTER.—The ascendant, who inherits those comprehended within the order of person other
property of a reservable character from his deceased descendant who Apolinio Florentino died.
than those comprehended within the order of succession
has a relative within the third degree still living, is no more than a life traced by the law from Apolonio Isabelo II, the source of
usufructuary or a fiduciary of said reservable property. But if, during the That on January 17 and February 13, said property.

lifetime of the said ascendant, all the relatives, within the third degree, of 1890, Apolonio Isabelo Florentino
his predecessor in interest should die or disappear, according to law the executed a will before the notary Reservable property neither comes, nor falls under, the
condition of reservation with which the property had been burdened public of Ilocos Sur, instituting as his absolute dominion of the ascendant who inherits and
ceases to exist, and said property now becomes a part of the legitimate universal heirs his aforementioned 11 receives same from his descendant, therefore it does not
legitime of the ascendant who had inherited same through the death of children, the posthumos Apolonio III form part of his own property nor become the legitimate
those for whom it had been reserved (reservatarios). and his widow Severina Faz de Leon; of his forced heirs. It becomes his own property only in
that he declared, in one of the case that all the relatives of his descendant shall have
paragraphs of said will, all his died (reservista) in which case said reservable property
property should be divided among all losses such character.

of his children of both marriages.

7
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
1. That, in the partition of the said
2. 3.
 testator's estate, there was given to With full right Severina Faz de Leon could have disposed
ID.; RIGHTS OF SUCCESSION.—According to the order of succession Apolonio Florentino III, his posthumos in her will of all her own property in favor of her only
prescribed by law for legitimes, when there are relatives within the third son, the property marked with the living daughter, Mercedes Florentino, as forced heiress.
degree of the deceased descendant, the right of the relative's nearest letters A, B, C, D, E, and F in the But whatever provision there is in her will concerning the
reservative (reservatario) to the property excludes that of the one more complaint, a gold rosary, pieces of reservable property received from her son Apolonio III, or
remote. Wherefore the property ought to be handed over to said relative gold, of silver and of table service, rather, whatever provision will reduce the rights of the
by the reservist (reservista), without it being possible to allege a right of livestock, palay, some personal other reservatarios, the half brothers and nephews of her
representation when he who attempts the same is not comprehended property and other objects mentioned daughter Mercedes, is unlawful, null and void, inasmuch
within the third degree, among the predecessor-in-interest's relatives. in the complaint.
as said property is not her own and she has only the right
Inasmuch as the right conceded by the aforementioned article 811 of the of usufruct or of fiduciary, with the obligation to preserve
Civil Code is, in the highest degree, for the personal and exclusive That Apolonio Florentino III, the and to deliver same to the reservatarios, one of whom is
benefit of the persons pointed out by law, in no 4.
 posthumos son of the second her own daughter, Mercedes Florentino.

ID. ; NATURE OF.—Reservable property neither comes nor falls under the marriage, died in 1891; that his
absolute dominion of the ascendant who inherits and receives same from mother, Severina Faz de Leon, For the foregoing reasons it follows that with the reversal
his deceased descendant and; therefore, neither forms part of his estate succeeded to all his property of the order of decision appealed from we should
nor integrates the legitime of his forced heirs. It becomes the described in the complaint; that the declare, as we hereby do, that the aforementioned
ascendant's own property, received as an inheritance, only under the widow, Severina Faz de Leon died on property, inherited by the deceased Severina Faz de
condition that all of the deceased descendant's relatives, within the third November 18, 1908, leaving a will Leon from her son Apolonio Florentino III, is reservable
degree, shall have died. Under these circumstances the property, instituting as her universal heiress her property; that the plaintiffs, being relatives of the
transmitted by the predecessor in interest to his ascendant, has lost its only living daughter, Mercedes deceased Apolonio III within the third degree, are entitled
character of reservation.
Florentino.
to six-sevenths of said reservable property; that the
1. 5.
 defendant Mercedes is entitled to the remaining seventh
ID. ; ID.—Reservable property left, through a will or otherwise, by the part thereof.

death of ascendant (reservista) together with his own property in favor of

another of his descendants as forced heir, forms no part of the latter's
lawful inheritance nor of the legitime, for the reason that, as said property
continued to be reservable, the heir receiving same as an inheritance
from his ascendant has the strict obligation of its delivery to the relatives,
within the third degree, of the predecessor in interest, without prejudicing
the right of the heir to an aliquot part of property, if he has at the same
time the right of a reservatario.

8
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
19 Edroso v. 1.
Marcelina Edroso was married to WON the Court of Land YES The Court held that applicant is entitled to register in her
Sablan ESTATES; DUTY OF ASCENDANT, WHO INHERITS THROUGH A Victoriano Sablan until his death on Registration erred in own name the two parcels of land which are the subject
DECENDANT, TO RESERVE THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; September 22, 1882. In this marriage denying the matter of the applicants, recording in the registration the
ARTICLE 811, CIVIL CODE.—Property which an ascendant inherits by they had a son named Pedro who at registration of the right required by the law to be reserved to either or both
operation of law from his descendant and which was inherited by the latter f his father’s death inherited the two reservable properties by of the opponents, Pablo Sablan and Basilio Sablan,
rom another ascendant of his, must be reserved by the ascendant heir in favor said parcels. Pedro also died on July reservista, Edroso. should they survive her.

of uncles of the descendant from whom the inheritance proceeded, who are
his father's brothers, because they are relatives within the third degree, if they
belong to the line whence the property proceeded, according to the provisions
of article 811 of the Civil Code.
his mother, Marcelina Edroso. Hence
15, 1902, unmarried and without issue The reservista has all the rights inherent in ownership, he
and by this decease the two parcels can use, enjoy, dispose of and recover it; and if, in
of land passed through inheritance to addition to usufructuary, he is in fact and in law the real
owner and can alienate it, although under a condition.

1. 2.
 the hereditary title whereupon is The ascendants who inherits from descendants, whether
ID.; ID.; RIGHTS OF PERSONS FOR WHOM SUCH PROPERTY IS based the application for registration by the latter’s wish or by operation of law, requires the
RESERVED.—Since the reservation does not imply coöwnership of any of her ownership.
inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly
kind between the reservor and the reservees, that is, between the Two legitimate brothers of transferring absolute ownership. All the attributes of the
ascendant who is the immediate heir of the person from whom the VictorianoSablan — that is, two right of ownership belong to him exclusively — use,
inheritance proceeded and who is the actual owner of the property to be uncles german of Pedro Sablan — enjoyment, disposal and recovery.

reserved and the relatives within the third degree of such person, who appeared in the case to oppose the During the whole period between the constitution in legal
are merely in their turn and eventually his possible heirs in second place, registration, claiming one of form of the right required by law to be reserved and the
if they outlive the heir who .must make the reservation, such reservees, two things: Either that the registration extinction thereof, the relatives within the third degree,
with only the expectation of inheriting, are not in law entitled to act and be denied, “or that if granted to her after the right that in their turn may pertain to them has
be regarded as though they actually participated in the ownership of the the right reserved by law to the been assured, have only an expectation, and therefore
property to be registered by taking part or pretending to take part in the opponents be recorded in the they do not even have the capacity to transmit
application for registration which the reservor presents; the fact being registration of each parcel.”
that expectation to their heirs.
that with such expectation of inheriting, which is neither a real nor a The Court of Land Registration denied
personal right, but at most a legitimate expectation of a right, they the registration.

cannot be better off than a mortgagee who has a real right to the Registration was denied because the
property that his debtor attempts to register, and yet the Land trial court held that the parcels of land
Registration Act (No. 496, sec. 19 b) only grants him the right that the in question partake of the nature of
application of the mortgagor cannot be presented without his consent in property required by law to be
writing.
reserved and that in such a case
1. 3.
 application could only be presented
ID. ; ID. ; RIGHT OF ASCENDANT TO DISPOSE OF OR REGISTER THE jointly in the names of the mother
PROPERTY IN His OWN NAME.—The heir of real property who has and the said two uncles of Pedro
beyond any doubt the rights of using and enjoying it, and even of Sablan.
alienating it, is not prevented from himself alone registering the title to the
property he has inherited, merely because to his right of disposal there is
annexed a condition subsequent arising from the expectation of a right,
when the reservees who have that expectation of a right agreed thereto,
provided that, in accordance with the law, the reservable character of
such property in their favor be entered in the record.

9
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
20 Sienes v. Succession; Reserva troncal; Reservor has legal title over property subject to a Lot 3368 originally belonged to WON the sale made by NO The Court held that the reservista has the legal title and
Esparcia resolutory condition.—In reserva troncal the reservor has the legal title and Saturnino Yaeso. With his first wife, the reservista Andrea was dominion to the reservable property but subject to a
dominion over the reservable property but subject to a resolutory condition. He Teresa Ruales, he had four children void there being no right resolutory condition; that he is like a life usufructuary of
may alienate the same but subject to the reservation, i.e., the rights acquired named Agaton, Fernando, Paulina to dispose the same. the reservable property; that he may alienate the same
by the transferee are revoked upon the survival of reservees at the time of and Cipriana, while with his second but subject to reservation, said alienation transmitting
death of the reservor.
wife, Andrea Gutang, he had an only only the revocable and conditional ownership of the
Same; Eight of reservee is alienable, subject to a resolutory condition.—The son named Francisco. OCT No. 10275 reservists, the rights acquired by the transferee being
reserva instituted by law in favor of the heirs within the third degree belonging covering Lot 3368, his inheritance, revoked or resolved by the survival of reservatarios at the
to the line from which the reservable property came constitutes a real right was issued in the name of Francisco. time of the death of the reservista.

which the reservee may alienate and dispose of, although conditionally, the Because Francisco was a minor at the The sale made by Andrea Gutang in favor of appellees
condition being that the alienation would transfer ownership to the vendee only time, his mother administered was, therefore, subject to the condition that the vendees
if and when the reservee survives the reservor.
the property.
would definitely acquire ownership, by virtue of
When reservee becomes exclusive owner.—-Upon the death of the reservor, When Francisco died single and the alienation, only if the vendor died without being
there being a surviving reservee, the reservable property passes in exclusive without any descendant, his mother survived by any person entitled to the reservable
ownership to the latter. Andrea, as his sole heir, executed an property. Inasmuch much as when Andrea Gutang died,
EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND Cipriana Yaeso was still alive, the conclusion becomes
SALE whereby, among other things, inescapable that the previous sale made by the former in
for and in consideration of the sum of favor of appellants became of no legal effect and the
P800.00 she sold the property in reservable property subject matter thereof passed in
question to appellants.
exclusive ownership to Cipriana.

When thereafter said vendees On the other hand, it is also clear that the sale executed
demanded from Paulina Yaeso and by the sisters Paulina and CiprianaYaeso in favor of the
her husband Jose Esparcia, the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes was subject
surrender of OOCT No. 10275 — to a similar resolutory condition. The reserve instituted by
which was in their possession — the law in favor of the heirs within the third degree belonging
latter refused.
to the line from which the reservable property came,
Thereafter, Cipriana and Paulina constitutes a real right which the reservee may alienate
Yaeso, the surviving half-sisters of and dispose of, albeit conditionally, the condition being
Francisco, and who as such had that the alienation shall transfer ownership to the vendee
declared the property in their name, only if and when the reservee survives the person
on January 1, 1951 executed a deed obliged to reserve. In the present case, CiprianaYaeso,
of sale in favor of the spouses Fidel one of the reservees, was still alive when Andrea
Esparcia and Paulina Sienes. Gutang, the person obliged to reserve, died. Thus the
former became the absolute owner of the reservable
property upon Andrea’s death.

10
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
21 Gonzales Property; Succession; “Reserva Troncal” explained.—In reserva troncal, (1) a Benito Legarda y De la Paz, the son of WON the subject NO In reservatroncal:

v. CFI descendant inherited or acquired by gratuitous title property from an Benito Legarda y Tuason, died in properties are subject to 1. A descendant inherited or acquired by gratuitous
ascendant or from a brother or sister; (2) the same property is inherited by Manila on June 17, 1933. He was ReservaTroncal title property from an ascendant or from a brother
another ascendant or is acquired by him by operation of law from the said survived by his widow Filomena and or sister;

descendant, and (3) the said ascendant should reserve the said property for their seven children: four daughters 2. The same property is inherited by another
the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree from the deceased and three sons.
ascendant or is acquired by him by operation of law
descendant (prepositus) and who belong to the line from which the said The real properties left by Benito from said descendant, and

property came.
Legarda y Tuason were partitioned in 3. The said ascendant should reserve the said
three equal portions by his daughters, property for the benefit of relatives who are within
Same; Same; Same.—So, three transmissions are involved: (1) a first Consuelo and Rita, and the heirs of the third degree from the deceased descendants
transmission by lucrative title (inheritance or donation) from an ascendant or his deceased son Benito Legarda y (prepositus) and who belong to the line from which
brother or sister to the deceased descendant; (2) a posterior transmission, by De la Paz who were represented by the said properties came.

operation of law (intestate succession or legitime) from the deceased Benito F. Legarda. Filomena Legarda So three transmissions are involved:

descendant (causante de la reserva)in favor of another ascendant, the reservor died intestate and without issue on 1. A first transmission by lucrative title (inheritance or
or reservista, which two transmissions precede the reservation, and (3) a third March 19, 1943. Her sole heiress was donation) from an ascendant or brother or sister to
transmission of the same property (in consequence of the reservation) from the her mother, Filomena Roces Vda. de the deceased descendant;

reservor to the reservees (reservatarios) or the relatives within the third degree Legarda. Mrs. Legarda executed on 2. A posterior transmission, by operation of law
from the deceased descendant belonging to the line of the first ascendant, May 12, 1947 an affidavit adjudicating (intestate succession or legitime) from the
brother or sister of the deceased descendant.
to herself the properties, which she deceased descendant (causante de la reserva) in
Same; Same; Same.—The persons involved in reserva troncal are (1) the inherited from her deceased daughter, favor of another ascendant, the reservor or
ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property was received by the Filomena Legarda, which were the reservista, which two transmissions precede the
descendant by lucrative or gratuitous title, (2) the descendant or prepositus properties in litigation in this case. As reservation; and,

(propositus) who received the property, (3) the reservor (reservista), the other a result of the affidavit of adjudication, 3. A third transmissions of the property (in
ascendant who obtained the property from the prepositus by operation of law Filomena Roces Legarda succeeded consequence of the reservation) from the reservor
and (4) the reservee (reservatario) who is within the third degree from the her deceased daughter as co-owner to the reserves (reservatarios) or the relatives within
prepositus and who belongs to the line (linea o tronco) from which the property of the properties held pro indiviso by the third degree from the deceased descendant
came and for whom the property should be reserved by the reservor.
her other six children.
belonging to the line of the first ascendant, brother
Same; Same; The reservor is a usufructuary of the reservable property and Mrs. Legarda executed two or sister of the deceased descendant.

holds title subject to a resolutory condition.—The reservor has the legal title handwritten identical documents THUS, if there is only two transmission there is no
and dominion to the reservable property but subject to the resolutory condition wherein she disposed of the reserva.

that such title is extinguished if the reservor predeceased the reservee. The properties, which she inherited from The persons involved in reservatroncal are:

reservor is a usufructuary of the reservable property. He may alienate it subject her daughter in favor of her 1. The ascendant or brother or sister from whom the
to the reservation. The transferee gets the revocable and conditional ownership son’s children, a total of 16 property was received by the descendant by
of the reservor. The transferee’s rights are revoked upon the survival of the grandchildren all in all. Mrs. Legarda lucrative or gratuitous title;

reservees at the time of the death of the reservor but become indefeasible and her six surviving 2. The descendant or prepositus who received the
when the reservees predecease the reservor.
property;

11
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
22 Same; Same; The reservee has only an inchoate right. He cannot impugn a children partitioned all the properties
conveyance made by the reservor.—On the other hand, the reservee has only consisting of the 1/3 share in the 3. The reservor (reservista), the other ascendant who
an inchoate, expectant or contingent right. His expectant right would estate of Benito Legarda y Tuason, obtained the property from the prepositus by
disappear if he predeceased the reservor. It would become absolute should the which the children inherited, in operation of law; and,

reservor predecease the reservee. The reservee cannot impugn any representation of their father, Benito 4. The reservee who is within the third degree from
conveyance made by the reservor but he can require that the reservable Legarda y De la Paz.
the prepositus and who belongs to the line (linea or
character of the property be recognized by the purchaser.
Mrs. Legarda died and her will was tronco) from which the property came and for
admitted to probate as a holographic whom the property should be reserved by the
Same; Same; A reservee may sell his right but may not renounce it.—There is a will. In the testate proceeding, Beatriz reservor.

holding that the renunciation of the reservee’s right to the reservable property Legarda, a daughter of the testatrix The person from whom the degree should be reckoned is
is illegal for being a contract regarding future inheritance (Velayo Bernardo vs. filed a motion to exclude from the the descendant, or the one at the end of the line from
Siojo, 58 Phil. 89, 96). And there is a dictum that the reservee’s right is a real inventory of her mother’s estate the which the property came and upon whom the
right which he may alienate and dispose of conditionally. The condition is that properties, which she inherited from property last revolved by descent. He is called the
the alienation shall transfer ownership to the vendee only if and when the her deceased daughter on the ground propositus.

reservee survives the reservor (Sienes vs. Esparcia, 111 Phil. 349, 353).
that said properties are The reserva creates two resolutory conditions, namely:

Same; Same; Case at bar involve a reserva troncal.—In the instant case, the reservable properties, which should 1. The death of the ascendant obliged to reserve; and,

properties in question were indubitably reservable properties in the hands of be inherited by FilomenaLegarda.
2. The survival, at the time of his death, of relatives
Mrs. Legarda Undoubtedly, she was a reservor. The reservation became a Without awaiting the resolution on the within the third degree belonging to the line from
certainty when at the time of her death the reservees or relatives within the motion, Beatriz filed an ordinary civil which the property came.

third degree of the prepositus Filomena Legarda were living or they survived action against her brothers, sisters, The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the
Mrs. Legarda.
nephews and nieces and her mother’s reservable property but subject to the resolutory
Same; Same; All reservees are equally entitled to share in reserva troncal.—This estate for the purpose of serving a condition that such title is extinguished if the
Court noted that, while it is true that by giving the reservable property to only declaration that said properties are reservor predeceased the reservee. The reservor is a
one reservee it did not pass into the hands of strangers, nevertheless, it is reservable properties which Mrs. usufructuary of the reservable property. He may alienate
likewise true that the heiress of the reservor was only one of the reservees and Legarda could not bequeath in her will it subject to the reservation. The transferee gets the
there is no reason founded upon law and justice why the other reservees to her grandchildren to the exclusion revocable and conditional ownership of the reservor. The
should be deprived of their shares in the reservable property (pp. 894-5). of her sons and daughters. transferee’s rights are revoked upon the survival of the
reservees at the time of the death of the reservor but
become indefeasible when the reservees predecease the
reservor.

12
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
The reservor’s alienation of the reservable property is
subject to a resolutory condition, meaning that if at the
time of the reservor’s death, there are reservees,
the transferee of the property should deliver it to the
reservees. If there are no reservees at the time of the
reservor’s death, the transferee’s title would become
absolute. On the other hand, the reservee has only an
inchoate, expectant or contingent right. His expectant
right would disappear if he predeceased the reservor. It
would become absolute should the reservor predecease
the reservee.

Even during the reservista’s lifetime, the reservatarios,

who are the ultimate acquirers of the property, can
already assert the right to prevent the reservista
from doing anything that might frustrate their
reversionary right, and, for this purpose, they can compel
the annotation of their right in the registry of property
even while the reservista is alive.

The reservable property is not part of the estate of the

reservista who may not dispose of them by will, so long
as there are reservatarios existing. The
reservatarios, therefore, do not inherit from the reservista
but frm the descendant prepositus, of whom the
reservatarios are the heirs mortis causa, subject to the
condition that they must survive the reservista.

Hence, upon the reservista’s death, thereservatario

nearest to the propositus becomes automatically and by
operation of law, the owner of the reservable
property. The reservee CANNOT impugn any conveyance
made by the reservor BUT he can require that the
reservable character of the property be recognized by
the purchaser. In this case, the properties in question
were indubitably reservable property in the hands of Mrs.
Legarda. Undoubtedly, she was a reservor. The
reservaton became a certainty when at the time of her
death the reservees or relatives within the third degree of
the prepositus Filomena Legarda were living or they
survived Mrs. Legarda.

13
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
22 Cano v. 1. SUCCESSION; RESERVA TRONCAL; RECORD RESERVA; DEATH OF Land Registration Case No. 12: CFI of WON Guererro is entitled YES The requisites enumerated by appellants have already
Director RESERVISTA; ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF TlTLE TO RESERVEE.— Sorsogon decreed the registration of to the land in question. been declared to exist by the decree of registration
Once an original certificate of title by virtue of the final decree of the land Lots Nos. 1798 and 1799 of the Juban wherein the rights of the appellee as reservatario troncal
court was duly issued in the name of the reservista, subject to reserva, (Sorsogon) Cadastre under the were expressly recognized. Lot No. 1799 was acquired
troncal, and subsequently the latter died, the registration court, in view of following conditions: xx that the two by the applicant Maria Cano by inheritance from her
the said recorded reserva has authority under Sec. 112 of Act 496 to parcels of land described in plan deceased daughter, Lourdes Guerrero who, in turn,
order the reservatario; for the reason that the death of the reservista SWO-24152, known as Lots Nos. inherited the same from her father Evaristo Guerrero and,
vested the ownership of the property in the sole reservatario troncal.
1798 and 1799 of the Cadastral hence, falls squarely under the provisions of Article 891
2. 2.
 Survey of Juban, with their of the Civil Code. Eustaquia Guerrero, being the nearest
ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXCEPTION.—Where, however, the registration improvements, be registered in the of kin, excludes all the other private oppositors, whose
decree merely specifies the reservable character of the property, without name of Maria Cano (reservista), degree of relationship to the decedent is remoter.

determining the identity of the reservatario (as in the case of Director of Filipina, 71 years of age, widow and This decree having become final, all persons are barred
Lands vs. Aguas, 63 Phil., 279) or where several reservatories dispute the resident of Juban, province of thereby from contesting the existence of the constituent
property among themselves, further proceedings would be unavoidable.
Sorsogon, with the understanding that elements of the reserva. The only requisites for the
3. 3.
 Lot No. 1799 shall be subject to the passing of the title from the reservista to the appellee
ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUISITES TO VEST TITLE IN RESERVE.—The only right of reservation in favor of are: (1) the death of the reservista; and (2) the fact that
requisites for the passing of the title from the reservista to the reservee Eustaquia Guerrero pursuant to Article the reservatario has survived the reservista. It is a
are (1) the death of the reservista; and (2) the fact that the reservatario 891 of the Civil Code xx.The decision consequence of these principles that upon the death of
has survived the reservista.
being final, the decree and the the reservista, the reservatario nearest to the prepositus
4. 4.
 Certificate of Title (No. 0-20) were (the appellee in this case) becomes, automatically and by
ID.; ID.; RESERVATION NOT RESERVISTA'S SUCCESSOR MORTIS issued in the name of Maria Cano, operation of law, the owner of the reservable property. It
CAUSA.—The reservatario is not the reservista's successor mortis causa subject to reserva troncal in favor of is equally well settled that the reservable property can
nor is the reservable property part of the reservista's estate; the Eustaquia Guerrero. Counsel for the not be transmitted by a reservista to her or his own
reservatario receives the property as a conditional heir of the descendant reservee (reservatorio) Guerrero filed a successors mortis causa, (like appellants herein) so long
(prepositus), the property merely reverting to the line of origin from which motion with the Cadastral Court, as a reservatorio within the third degree from the
it had temporarily and accidentally strayed during the reservista's alleging the death of the original prepositus and belonging to the line whence the property
lifetime. The authorities are all agreed that there being reservatarios that registered owner and reservista, Maria came, is in existence when the reservista dies. The rights
survive the reservista, the latter must be deemed to have enjoyed no Cano, on September 8, 1955, and of the reservataria Eustaquia Guerrero have been
more than a life interest In the reservable property.
praying that the original Certificate of expressly recognized, and it is nowhere claimed that
5. 5.
 Title be ordered cancelled and a new there are other reservatarios of equal or nearer degree. It
ID.; ID.; DEATH OF RESERVISTA; RESERVATARIO AUTOMATICALLY one issued in favor of movant is thus apparent that the heirs of the reservista are merely
BECOMES OWNER OF RESERVABLE PROPERTY.—Upon the death of Eustaquia Guerrero.
endeavoring to prolong their enjoyment of the reservable
the reservatario nearest to the prepositus becomes, automatically and by property to the detriment of the party lawfully entitled
operation of law, the owner of the reservable property.
thereto.
6. 6.

ID.; ID.; RESERVABLE PROPERTY CANNOT BE TRANSMITTED MORTIS
CAUSA BY RESERVISTA.—The reservable property cannot be
transmitted by a reservista to her or his own successors mortis causa so
long as a reservatario, within the third degree from the prepositus and
belonging to the line whence the property came, is in existence when the
reservista dies.

14
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
This was opposed by the sons of the
reservista. who contended that the
application and operation of the
reserva troncal should be ventilated in
an ordinary contentious proceeding,
and that the Registration Court did
not have jurisdiction to grant the
motion. The lower court granted the
petition for the reason that the death
of the reservista vested the ownership
of the property in the petitioner as the
sole reservatario troncal. The
oppositors, heirs of the reservista
Maria Cano, duly appealed from the
order, insisting that the ownership of
the reservatario can not be decreed in
a mere proceeding under sec. 112 of
Act 496, but requires a judicial
administration proceedings. In this
connection, appellants argue that the
reversion in favor of the reservatario
requires the declaration of the
existence of the following facts:

a.The property was received by a

descendant by gratuitous title from an
ascendant or from a brother or sister

b.Said descendant dies without issue;

c.The property is inherited by another

ascendant by operation of law; and

d.The existence of relatives within the

third degree belonging to the line from
which said property came.

15
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
23 Vizconde Civil Law; Property; Settlement of Estate; Collation; Essence of Collation.— Spouses Rafael and Salud Nicolas WON the inclusion of NO The enumeration of compulsory heirs in Article 887 of the
v. CA Collation is the act by virtue of which descendants or other forced heirs who have five children, namely: Estrellita petitioner Vizconde in the Civil Code is exclusive, which negates the rulings of the
intervene in the division of the inheritance of an ascendant bring into the Nicolas-Vizconde (wife of herein intestate estate RTC and CA that Lauro shall be included in the
common mass, the property which they received from him, so that the division petitioner LauroVizconde); Antonio proceeding regarding proceeding as a compulsory heir for he is only a son-in-
may be made according to law and the will of the testator. Collation is only Nicolas; Ramon Nicolas; Teresita Rafael’s estate is proper. law of decedent Rafael. Thus, petitioner who was not
required of compulsory heirs succeeding with other compulsory heirs and Nicolas de Leon; and Ricardo Nicolas, even shown to be a creditor of decedent is considered a
involves property or rights received by donation or gratuitous title during the an incompetent. On June 30, 1991, third person or stranger. Petitioner may not be dragged
lifetime of the decedent. The purpose is to attain equality among the Estrellita and her two daughters were into the proceeding herein instituted; neither may he be
compulsory heirs in so far as possible for it is presumed that the intention of killed. In an Extra-Judicial Settlement permitted to intervene as he has no personality or
the testator or predecessor in interest in making a donation or gratuitous of the Estate of Deceased Estrellita, interest in the said proceeding. Thus, petition is granted.
transfer to a forced heir is to give him something in advance on account of his Rafael and Salud, together with
share in the estate, and that the predecessor’s will is to treat all his heirs petitioner Vizconde, inherited from
equally, in the absence of any expression to the contrary. Collation does not Estrellita’s estate.

impose any lien on the property or the subject matter of collationable donation. Subsequently, when Rafael died in
What is brought to collation is not the property donated itself, but rather the 1992, an intestate estate proceeding
value of such property at the time it was donated, the rationale being that the was instituted by one of the heirs of
donation is a real alienation which conveys ownership upon its acceptance, Rafael. Private respondent Ramon,
hence any increase in value or any deterioration or loss thereof is for the among other things, averred that
account of the heir or donee.
petitioner should be impleaded as one
Same; Same; Same; Same; Succession; Petitioner, a son-in-law of Rafael, is of Rafael’s children “by right of
not one of Rafael’s compulsory heirs.—The probate court erred in ordering the representation as the widower of
inclusion of petitioner in the intestate estate proceeding. Petitioner, a son-in- deceased legitimate daughter
law of Rafael, is not one of Rafael’s compulsory heirs.
Estrellita.” Pursuant to the order of the
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Petitioner may not be dragged into the probate court, petitioner filed a
intestate estate proceeding.—With respect to Rafael’s estate, therefore, Manifestation contending that he was
petitioner who was not even shown to be a creditor of Rafael is considered a neither a compulsory heir nor an
third person or a stranger. As such, petitioner may not be dragged into the intestate heir of Rafael and he has no
intestate estate proceeding. Neither may he be permitted or allowed to interest to participate in the
intervene as he has no personality or interest in the said proceeding, which proceedings. The trial court granted
petitioner correctly argued in his manifestation.
Ramon’s motion. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the
RTC.

16
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Same; Same; Same; Probate; The interpretation of the deed and the true intent
of the contracting parties, as well as the presence or absence of consideration,
are matters outside the probate court’s jurisdiction.—As a rule, the probate
court may pass upon and determine the title or ownership of a property which
may or may not be included in the estate proceedings. Such determination is
provisional in character and is subject to final decision in a separate action to
resolve title. In the case at bench, however, we note that the probate court
went beyond the scope of its jurisdiction when it proceeded to determine the
validity of the sale of the Valenzuela property between Rafael and Estrellita and
ruled that the transfer of the subject property between the concerned parties
was gratui-tous. The interpretation of the deed and the true intent of the
contracting parties, as well as the presence or absence of consideration, are
matters outside the probate court’s jurisdiction. These issues should be
ventilated in an appropriate action.

17
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
27 Same; Same; Same; Same; Compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the II. 
 The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity
validity of the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of An action was instituted by the of Void Marriages marks the beginning of the end of the
nullity but upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the petitioner against respondents right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to bring a
estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.—While A.M. No. regarding the shares of the land which nullity of marriage case against the surviving spouse. But
02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of lead to compromise agreements in the Rule never intended to deprive the compulsory or
marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that relation to the divisions of proceeds in intestate heirs of their successional rights. It is
the compulsory or intestate heirs are without any recourse under the law. They the sale of the lands.
emphasized, however, that the Rule does not apply to
can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale of the (In 1994, petitioner instituted a suit cases already commenced before March 15, 2003
Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity against respondents. The parties although the marriage involved is within the coverage of
of Void Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of executed a deed of the Family Code.

the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but extrajudicialpartition, dividing the Petitioner commenced the nullity of marriage case
upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of remaining land of the first parcel against respondent Felicidad in 1995.  The marriage in
the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.
between them. Petitioner and controversy was celebrated on May 14, 1962.  Which law
Same; Same; Same; Same; A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply to cases respondents enteredinto two more would govern depends upon when the marriage took
already commenced before March 15, 2003 although the marriage involved is contracts in August 1994. Under the place.

within the coverage of the Family Code.—It is emphasized, however, that the contracts, the parties equally divided The marriage having been solemnized
Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before March 15, 2003 between them the third and fourth prior to the effectivity of the Family Code which took
although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family Code. This parcels of land (extrajudicial effect on August 3, 1988, the applicable law is the Civil
is so, as the new Rule which became effective on March 15, 2003 is partition)).
Code which was the law in effect at the time of its
prospective in its application. Thus, the Court held in Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Subsequently, in 1995, petitioner celebration.  

Medinaceli, viz.: As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers commenced an action against But the Civil Code is silent as to who may bring an action
marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines, and is prospective in its respondents before the RTC for, to declare the marriage void.  Does this mean that any
application.
among others, declaration of nullity of person can bring an action for the declaration of nullity of
marriage of his late brother Teofilo and marriage?

respondent Felicidad in view of the

absence of the required marriage
license.

18
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Same; Same; Same; Same; The absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot The reason for the action is that SC responded in the negative.  The absence of a
be construed as a license for any person to institute a nullity of marriage case; petitioner alleges that the marriage is provision in the Civil Code cannot be construed as a
Plaintiff must be the real party-in-interest.—The marriage having been null and void, thus the lands should license for any person to institute a nullity of marriage
solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the be reconveyed to him.
case.  Such person must appear to be the party who
Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration. But the (The other causes of actions were the stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
Civil Code is silent as to who may bring an action to declare the marriage void. following causes of action: (a) suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
Does this mean that any person can bring an action for the declaration of declaration of nullity of marriage; (b) suit.  Elsewise stated, plaintiff must be the real party-in-
nullity of marriage? We respond in the negative. The absence of a provision in status of a child; (c) recovery of interest.  For it is basic in procedural law that every
the Civil Code cannot be construed as a license for any person to institute a property; (d) reconveyance; and (e) action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of
nullity of marriage case. Such person must appear to be the party who stands sum of money and damages.)
the real party-in-interest.

to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to Respondents contended in their Interest within the meaning of the rule means material
the avails of the suit. Elsewise stated, plaintiff must be the real party-in- answer that the lack of details interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the
interest. For it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted regarding the requisite marriage decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from
and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.
license did not invalidate Felicidad’s mere curiosity about the question involved or a mere
Civil Law; Property; Succession; The presence of legitimate, illegitimate, or marriage to Teofilo.  They prayed for incidental interest.  One having no material interest to
adopted child or children of the deceased precludes succession by collateral the dismissal of the case on the protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as
relatives.—Only the presence of descendants, ascendants or illegitimate grounds of lack of cause of action and plaintiff in an action.  When plaintiff is not the real party-
children excludes collateral relatives from succeeding to the estate of the lack of jurisdiction over subject in-interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack
decedent. The presence of legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children matter.
of cause of action.

of the deceased precludes succession by collateral relatives. Conversely, if The case must be remanded to determine whether or not
there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving petitioner is a realparty ininterest to seek the declaration
spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the of nullity of the marriage in controversy.

decedent. Under the law on succession, successional rights are

transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent
and the compulsory heirs are called to succeed by
operation of law.

19
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
RTC rendered judgment, granting Under Article 887 of the civil code, the following are
petitioner’s counter motion for considered as compulsory heirs:

summary judgment. Declaring the (1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to
marriage between defendant Felicidad their legitimate parents and ascendants;

Sandoval and Teofilo Carlos null and (2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and
void ab initio for lack of the requisite ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and
marriage license. He likewise descendants;

maintainedthat his deceased brother (3) The widow or widower;


was neither the natural nor the (4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children
adoptive father of respondent Teofilo by legal fiction;

Carlos II.
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287 of
In the appeal, respondents the Civil Code.

argued, inter alia, that the trial court A brother is not among those considered as compulsory
acted without or in excess of heirs. But although a collateral relative, such as a brother,
jurisdiction in rendering summary does not fall within the ambit of a compulsory heir, he still
judgment annulling the marriage of has a right to succeed to the estate if 1) Should brothers
Teofilo, Sr. and Felicidad.
and sisters or their children survive with the widow or
CA reversed and set aside widower, the latter shall be entitled to onehalf of the
the RTC ruling. Basis: The Civil inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children
Code expressly prohibit the rendition to the other half.
of decree of annulment of a marriage
upon a stipulation of facts or a
confession of judgment. Hence this
appeal.

And 2) If there are no descendants, ascendants,

illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral
relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
deceased in accordance with the following articles

If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate

children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives
shall succeed to the entire estate of the decedent.[

If respondent Teofilo II is declared and finally proven not

to be the legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted son of
Teofilo, petitioner would then have a personality to seek
the nullity of marriage of his deceased brother with
respondent Felicidad. This is so, considering that
collateral relatives, like a brother and sister, acquire
successional right over the estate if the decedent dies
without issue and without ascendants in the direct line.

The records reveal that Teofilo was predeceased by his

parents. He had no other siblings but petitioner. Thus, if
Teofilo II is finally found and proven to be not a
legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted son of Teofilo,
petitioner succeeds to the other half of the estate of his
brother, the first half being allotted to the widow pursuant
to Article 1001 of the New Civil Code.

20
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
This makes petitioner a realpartyinterest to seek the
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage of his
deceased brother with respondent Felicidad. If the
subject marriage is found to be void ab initio, petitioner
succeeds to the entire estate.

It bears stressing, however, that the legal personality of

petitioner to bring the nullity of marriage case is
contingent upon the final declaration that Teofilo II is not
a legitimate, adopted, or illegitimate son of Teofilo.

If Teofilo II is proven to be a legitimate, illegitimate, or

legally adopted son of Teofilo, then petitioner has no
legal personality to ask for the nullity of marriage of his
deceased brother and respondent Felicidad. This is
based on the ground that he has no successional right to
be protected, hence, does not have proper interest.

Thus, the Court finds that a remand of the case for trial
on the merits to determine the validity or nullity of the
subject marriage is called for. But the RTC is strictly
instructed to dismiss the nullity of marriage case for lack
of cause of action if it is proven by evidence that Teofilo II
is a legitimate, illegitimate, or legally adopted son of
Teofilo Carlos, the deceased brother of petitioner.

21
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
27 Garcia v Remedial Law; Evidence; Dead Man’s Statute; If one party to the alleged Makapugay owned a lot and had it WON, the 1996 NO Petition is without merit.

Caparas transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental tilled by Eugenio.
agreement is valid based Under Rule 130, a person cannot testify against the
disabilities, the other party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his Both parties were substituted by on the strength of testimony of a dead man or person of unsound mind that
own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.—DARAB Amanda and Pedro.
Amanda, as executor’s was made by them before such death or insanity as it
Case No. R-03-02-3520-96, which was filed in 1996 or long after Pedro’s death It turned out that Pedro had two other testimony that he was would create an undue advantage of being unrefutable
in 1984, has no leg to stand on other than Amanda’s declaration in her July 10, siblings, herein petitioners which were deceived by the by the dead or insane person. This is in regards to issues
1996 Affidavit that Pedro falsely represented to Makapugay and to her that he left out from succeeding the leasehold deceased Pedro regarding succession.

is the actual cultivator of the land, and that when she confronted him about this tenancy in 1979, of their father
and the alleged alternate farming scheme between him and petitioners, Pedro Eugenio.
Thus under agricultural rules on leasehold tenancy being
allegedly told her that “he and his two sisters had an understanding about it Because of this, a new agreement transmitted to the heirs, Amanda, as administrator and
and he did not have the intention of depriving them of their cultivatory rights.” was held in 1996 by Amanda and the heir of the estate was presumed to have made a choice
Petitioners have no other evidence, other than such verbal declaration, which two petitioners.
within the 30 day period after the death of Makapugay
proves the existence of such arrangement. No written memorandum of such This was based on the claim of that Pedro is the sole and rightful heir of the leasehold
agreement exists, nor have they shown that they actually cultivated the land Amanda that she was deceived by the tenancy agreement.

even if only for one cropping. No receipt evidencing payment to the late Pedro into thinking that he was
landowners of the latter’s share, or any other documentary evidence, has been the only heir to the tenancy.

put forward. What the PARAD, DARAB and CA failed to consider and realize is Petitioners brought this matter to
that Amanda’s declaration in her Affidavit covering Pedro’s alleged admission court to nullify the agreement of 1979
and recognition of the alternate farming scheme is inadmissible for being a and honor the 1996 agreement.

violation of the Dead Man’s Statute, which provides that “[i]f one party to the PARAD and CA ruled in favor of
alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other Respondent Heirs of Pedro stating
mental disabilities, the other party is not entitled to the undue advantage of that the petitioners never showed
giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.” evidence of cultivating the land.

Thus, since Pedro is deceased, and Amanda’s declaration which pertains to

the leasehold agreement affects the 1996 “Kasunduan sa Buwisan ng Lupa”
which she as assignor entered into with petitioners, and which is now the
subject matter of the present case and claim against Pedro’s surviving spouse
and lawful successor-in-interest Dominga, such declaration cannot be
admitted and used against the latter, who is placed in an unfair situation by
reason of her being unable to contradict or disprove such declaration as a
result of her husband-declarant Pedro’s prior death.

22
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
28 Solla V 1.
Dona Maria Solla’s will read: "I desire What were the orders and NO In order to determine the testator’s intention, the court
Ascueta DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION ; PRESCRIPTION OF OWNERSHIP.—Under and hereby name Leandro Serrano, requests that Maria Solla should place itself as near as possible in his position,
the provisions of articles 1940 and 1957 of the Civil Code, as well as the my grandson and I desire him to wanted her grandson and Where the language of the will is ambiguous or doubtful,
provisions of sections 38, 40 and 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the comply with the obligation to give or his heirs to faithfully the court should take into consideration the situation of
plaintiffs have lost by, extinctive prescription, not only all right of action to to deliver to the parish priest of this comply with? Did she the testator and the facts and circumstances surrounding
recover the ownership of the property left to their predecessors in interest, but town a sufficient sum of money want Leandro’s heirs to him at the time the will was executed. Where the
also whatever right of ownership they may have had to the same because of necessary for a yearly novena and for continue the distribution testator’s intention was manifested from the context of
Leandro Serrano's exclusive, open, peaceful and continuous possession which an ordinary requiem mass for the 1st of legacies too?
the will and surrounding circumstances, but was
was adverse to all the world, including the legatees and their successors, for to 8th days thereof and on the 9th or obscured by inapt and inaccurate modes of expression,
the period of thirty-nine years under claim of ownership, evidenced not only by last day, a solemn requiem mass with the language will be subordinated to the intention, in
his applications for possessory information, but also by his exclusive a vigil and a large bier (a stand on order to give effect to such intention, as far as possible.
enjoyment of the products of said property,—even if it is considered that the which a corpse or coffin is placed The court may depart from the strict wording and read
legatees have not renounced their part in the legacy—has given him, by before burial), - for these masses are the word or phrase in a sense different from that which
operation of law, exclusive and absolute title to said property. (Bargayo vs. for the repose of my soul and those of was ordinarily attributed to it, and for such purpose, may
Camumot, 40 Phil., 857, 869.)
my parents, husband, children, and mould or change the language of the will,

other relatives. I repeat and insist that such as restricting its application or supplying words or
1. 
 my heir shall execute and comply with phrases. In this case, it clearly appeared that it was
WILLS; INTERPRETATION ; TESTATOR'S INTENTION.—In order to this request without fail. And at the Maria Solla’s intention to insist upon compliance of her
determine the testator's intention, the court should place itself as near as hour of his death, he will insist that his order by Leandro’s heirs, that the latter should comply
possible in his position, and hence, where the language of the will is heirs comply with all that I have here with the pious orders and that was nor referring to her
ambiguous or doubtful, it should take into consideration the situation of ordered". In the earlier part of the will, order concerning the legacies. The will should only be
the testator and the facts and circumstances surrounding him at the time Dona Maria ordered the distribution of interpreted in so far as the pious orders are concerned
the will was executed. (40 Cyc., 1392.)
legacies to her brothers, nephew, (the prayers and masses).

protégées and servant.

23
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
2. 
 Leandro Serrano’s will on the other
ID. ; ID. ; ID.—Where the testator's intention is manifest from the context hand read: "I command my executor
of the will and surrounding circumstances, but is obscured by inapt and to put all of my property in order. I
inaccurate modes of expression, the language will be subordinated to order my son Simeon not to forget
the intention, and in order to give effect to such intention, as far as annually all the souls of the relatives
possible, the court may depart from the strict wording and read a word of my grandmother and also of mine
or phrase in a sense different from that which is ordinarily attributed to it, and to have a mass said on the 1st
and for such purpose may mold or alter the language of the will, such as and 9th days of the yearly novena and
restricting its application or supplying omitted words or phrases. (40 that he erect a 1st class bier. I
Cyc., 1399.) sincerely desire that the property of
my deceased grandmother, Capitana
Maria (Solla) be disposed of in
conformity with all the provisions of
her will and of mine". Leandro named
his son Simeon Serrano, as executor
of his will and that he directed him to
put all of his property in order and to
separate

that which came from his deceased

grandmother, Maria

Solla. Leandro took possession of the
property left by his grandmother when
she died on June 11, 1883. He
continued in possession of the same
until his death on August 5, 1921. The
petitioners (grandnieces and
grandnephews) now assail his
continued possession. The
respondent is the widow of Leandro
Serrano.

24
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
29 Vda. De Wills and testaments; Interpretation; Intent of testator must govern.—The Don Nicolas Villaflor executed a will in NO The intention of the testator here was to merely give
Villanueva intention and wishes of the testator, when clearly expressed in his will, Spanish in his own handwriting, usufructuary right to his wife Doňa Fausta because in his
v. Juico constitute the fixed law of interpretation, and all questions raised at the trial, devising and bequeathing in favor of WON the petitioner is will he provided that Doňa Fausta shall forfeit the
relative to its execution and fulfillment, must be settled in accordance his wife, Dona Faustina ½ of all his entitled to the ownership properties if she fails to bear a child and because she
therewith, following the plain and literal meaning of the testator's words, unless real and personal properties giving the of the properties upon the died without having begotten any children with the
it clearly appears that his intention was otherwise. (In re Estate of Calderon, 26 other half to his brother Don Fausto.
death of Dona Faustina. deceased then it means that Doňa Fausta never acquired
Phil. 233.) ownership over the property. Upon her death, because
Petitioner filed an action against the she never acquired ownership over the property, the said
administrator contending that upon properties are not included in her estate.  Those
the widow’s death, she became properties actually belong to Villaflor. That was the
vested with the ownership of the intention of the testator.  Otherwise, if the testator
properties bequeathed under clause 7 wanted to give the properties to Doňa Fausta then he
pursuant to its 8th clause of the will.
should have specifically stated in his will that
ownership should belong to Doňa Fausta without
mentioning any condition.

25
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
30 Baltazar v. Civil Law; Wills; Testamentary Succession; Due execution of the will or its Paciencia was a 78 years old spinster WON the authenticity and YES A careful examination of the face of the Will shows
Laxa extrinsic validity pertains to whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely when she made her last will and due execution of the will faithful compliance with the formalities laid down by law.
executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.—Due testament in the Pampango dialect on was sufficiently The signatures of the testatrix, Paciencia, her
execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to whether the testator, Sept. 13, 1981. The will, executed in established to warrant its instrumental witnesses and the notary public, are all
being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities the house of retired Judge Limpin, allowance for probate. present and evident on the Will. Further, the attestation
prescribed by law. These formalities are enshrined in Articles 805 and 806 of was read to Paciencia twice. After clause explicitly states the critical requirement that the
the New Civil Code, to wit: Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, which, Paciencia expressed in the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses attested and
must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the presence of the instrumental subscribed to the Will in the presence of the testator and
testator’s name written by some other person in his presence, and by his witnesses that the document is her of one another. In fact, even the petitioners acceded that
express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible last will and testament. She thereafter the signature of Paciencia in the Will may be authentic
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The testator or affixed her signature at the end of the although they question of her state of mind when she
the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses said document on page 3 and then on signed the same as well as the voluntary nature of said
of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the left margin of pages 1, 2 and 4 act.

the last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in thereof.
The burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind
letters placed on the upper part of each page. The attestation shall state the Childless and without any brothers or at the time of the execution of the will lies on the
number of pages used upon which the will is written, and the fact that the sisters, Paciencia bequeathed all her shoulders of the petitioners. The SC agree with the
testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person properties to respondent Lorenzo position of the CA that the state of being forgetful does
to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of the Laxa and his wife Corazon Laza and not necessarily make a person mentally unsound so as
instrumental witnesses, and that the latter wit-nessed and signed the will and their children Luna and Katherine. to render him unfit to execute a Will. Forgetfulness is not
all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. If the Lorenzo is Paciencia’s nephew whom equivalent to being of unsound mind. Besides, Art. 799
attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be she treated as her own son. of the NCC states: “To be of unsound mind, it is not
interpreted to them. Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary Conversely, Lorenzo came to know necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his
public by the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be and treated Paciencia as his own reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken,
required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the Office of the Clerk mother. Six days after the execution unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other
of Court.
of the Will, Paciencia left for USA. cause. It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the
Same; Same; Same; The state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a There, she resided with Lorenzo and time of making the Will to know the nature of the estate
person mentally unsound so as to render him unfit to execute a Will.—We agree his family until her death.
to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and
with the position of the CA that the state of being forgetful does not necessarily Four years after the death of the character of the testamentary act.”
make a person mentally unsound so as to render him unfit to execute a Will. Paciencia, Lorenzo filed a petition with
Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind. Besides, Article 799 the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga for the
of the New Civil Code states: Art. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary probate of the Will of Paciencia and
that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his for the issuance of Letters of
mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or Administration in his favor. Antonio
other cause.  It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making Baltazar, petitioner filed an opposition
the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects to Lorenzo’s petition and averred that
of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
the properties subject of Paciencia’s
Will belong to Nicomeda

26
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
31 Same; Same; Same; A purported will is not to be denied legalization on Mangalindan, his predecessor-in-
dubious grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of testamentary succession will interest; hence, Paciencia had no right
be shaken to its foundation, for even if a will has been duly executed in fact, to bequeath them to Lorenzo.

whether it will be probated would have to depend largely on the attitude of For petitioners, Rosie testified that her
those interested in the estate of the deceased.—It is worth stressing that bare mother and Paciencia were first
arguments, no matter how forceful, if not based on concrete and substantial cousins and that that Paciencia was
evidence cannot suffice to move the Court to uphold said allegations. referred to as magulyan or forgetful
Furthermore, “a purported will is not [to be] denied legalization on dubious because she would sometimes leave
grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of testamentary succession will be her wallet in the kitchen then start
shaken to its foundation, for even if a will has been duly executed in fact, looking for it moments later. On cross
whether x x x it will be probated would have to depend largely on the attitude examination, it was established that
of those interested in [the estate of the deceased].”
Rosie was neither a doctor nor a
Same; Same; Same; The very existence of the Will is in itself prima facie proof psychiatrist, that her conclusion that
that the supposed testatrix has willed that her estate be distributed in the Paciencia was magulyan was based
manner therein provided, and it is incumbent upon the state that, if legally on her personal assessment.

tenable, such desire be given full effect independent of the attitude of the Petitioners filed an Amended
parties affected thereby.—It Opposition asking the RTC to deny
the probate of Paciencias Will on the
grounds that Paciencia was mentally
incapable to make a Will at the time of
its execution, that she was forced to
execute the Will under duress or
influence of fear or threat and that the
execution of the Will had been
procured by undue and improper
pressure and influence by Lorenzo.

Lorenzo testified that at the time of

Paciencias death, she did not suffer
from any mental disorder and was of
sound mind, was not blind, deaf or
mute. Lorenzo belied and denied
having used force, intimidation,
violence, coercion or trickery upon
Paciencia to execute the Will as he
was not in the Philippines when the
same was executed.

RTC denies the petition for probate of

the will and concluded that when
Paciencia signed the will, she was no
longer possessed of the sufficient
reason or strength of mind to have the
testamentary capacity. On appeal, CA
reversed the decision of the RTC and
granted the probate of the will. The
petitioner went up to SC for a petition
for review on Certiorari.

27
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
31 Torres vs. 1.
Tomas Rodriguez y Lopez, single, (1) Whether or not Tomas YES
Tomas Rodriguez has testamentary capacity to
Lopez, WILLS; TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY; DEFINITION.—Testamentary capacity is died on February, 25, 1924 leaving all Rodriguez has constitute a will. Though there was conflict of medical
the capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction in which the testator his estate to Vicente Lopez. On testamentary capacity to YES opinions on the soundness of mind of the testator. (Drs.
is engaged at the time, to recollect the property to be disposed of and the August 10, 1923, Tomas Rodriguez consider the will valid?
Calderon, Domingo, Herrera claimed that testator had full
persons who would naturally be supposed to have claims upon the testator, designated Vicente Lopez as (2) Whether or not there understanding of the acts he was performing and that
and to comprehend the manner in which the instrument will distribute his administrator of his property due to was undue influence in they were witnesses in the said signing of the will; Drs.
property among the objects of his bounty. (Bugnao vs. Ubag [1909], 14 Phil., his feeble health, such was the procurement of the Delos Angeles, Tietze and Burke certified that Rodriguez
163; Bagtas vs. Paguio [1912], 22 Phil., 227; and Jocson vs. Jocson [1922], 46 questioned by Margarita Lopez, CFI of signature of Tomas was of unsound mind and is diagnosed of senile
Phil., 701.)
Manila concluded Vicente Lopez as Rodriguez in the will?
dementia).

1. 2.
 Tomas Rodriguez’s guardian.

Code of Civil procedure prescribes a requisite that the
ID; ID.; TIME AS OF WHICH CAPACITY TO BE DETERMINED.—The Tomas Rodriguez voiced out the need testator be of “sound mind”, a sound mind is a disposing
mental capacity of the testator is determined as of the date of the to form a will, and Vicente Lopez has mind. One of the grounds of disallowing a will is if the
execution of his will.
procured Judge Maximino Mina. testator is insane or otherwise incapable of the
2. 3.
 Manuel Torres, one of the executors execution. With such the Court has adopted a definition
ID. ; ID. ; TESTS OF CAPACITY.—Neither old age, physical infirmities, named in the will, asked the will to be of “Testamentary Capacity” as: The capacity to
feebleness of mind, weakness of the memory, the appointment of a allowed. Such was contested by comprehend the nature of the transaction in which the
guardian, nor eccentricities are sufficient singly or jointly to show Manuel Lopez on the grounds: testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the property
testamentary incapacity. The nature and rationality of the will is of some (a) that testator lacked to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally
practical utility in determining capacity. Each case rests on its own facts mental capacity because at the time be supposed to have claims upon the testator, and to
and must be decided by its own facts.
of institution he was suffering “senile comprehend the manner in which the instrument will
3. 4.
 dementia” and was under distribute his property among the objects of his
ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE.—On the issue of testamentary capacity, the guardianship;
bounty .The presumption is that every adult is sane. It is
evidence should be permitted to take a wide range in order that all facts only when those seeking to overthrow the will have
(b) that undue influence
may be brought out which will assist in determining the question. The clearly established the charge of mental incapacity that
had been exercised by the persons
testimony of subscribing witnesses to a will concerning the testator's the courts will intervene to set aside a testamentary
benefited; and

mental condition is entitled to great weight where they are truthful and document.

(c) that  the signature of

intelligent. The evidence of those present at the execution of the will and
Rodriguez was obtained through
of the attending physician is also to be relied upon.

fraud and deceit.(Luz Lopez allegedly

4. 5.

deceived Tomas Rodriguez  to sign by
ID.; ID,; PRESUMPTIONS.—The presumption is that every adult is sane.
stating that such document he was
But where the question of insanity is put in issue in guardianship
about to sign was in connection with
proceedings, and a guardian is named for the person alleged to be
a complaint against Dr. Boanan, one
incapacitated, a presumption of the mental infirmity of the ward is
of the witness of the signing of the
created; the burden of proving sanity in such case is cast upon the
will).

proponents of the will.

Trial Court denied legalization of the

5.
will on the ground of “lack of mental
capacity” at the signing of the will by
the testator.

28
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
1. 6.

ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN.—The effect of an
order naming a guardian for an incapacitated person is not conclusive
with respect to the condition of the person, pursuant to the provisions of
section 306 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree does not
conclusively show that the testamentary capacity of a person under
guardianship is entirely destroyed. The presumption created by the
appointment of a guardian may be overcome by evidence proving that
such person at the time he executed a will was in fact of sound and
disposing mind and memory.

1. 7.

ID.; ID.; MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE; INSANITY.—A will to be valid must,
under sections 614 and 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure, be made by
a testator of sound mind. The question of mental capacity is one of
degree. There are many gradations from the highest degree of mental
soundness to the lowest conditions of diseased mentality which are
denominated as insanity and idiocy. (Bagtas vs. Paguio [1912], 22 Phil.,
227, and Bugnao vs. Ubag [1909], 14 Phil., 163.)

2. 8.

ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.—To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not
necessary that the mind shall be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or
unshattered by disease or otherwise, or that the testator should be in the
full possession of his reasoning faculties. The question is not so much,
what was the degree of memory possessed by the testator, as, had he a
disposing memory? (Buswell on Insanity, sec. 365; Campbell vs.
Campbell [1889], 130 111., 466, and Bagtas vs. Paguio [1912], 22 Phil.,
227.)

3. 9.

ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; "SENILE DEMENTIA."—Senile dementia is
childishness. In the first stages of the disease, a person may possess
reason and have will power.

4. 10.

ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; PHILIPPINE CASES ON TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY
EXAMINED.—An examination of the Philippine cases on testamentary
capacity discloses a consistent tendency to protect the wishes of the
deceased whenever it be legally possible. These decisions also show
great tenderness on the part of the court towards the last will and
testament of the aged.

29
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
1. 11.

ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR.—On January 3, 1924, when the testator,
Tomas Rodriguez, made his will, he was 76 years old, physically decrepit,
weak of intellect, suffering from a loss of memory, had a guardian of his
person and his property, and was eccentric, but he still possessed that
spark of reason and of life, that strength of mind to form a fixed intention
and to summon his enfeebled thoughts to enforce that intention, which
the law terms "testamentary capacity." Two of the subscribing witnesses
testified clearly to the regular manner in which the will was executed, and
one did not. The attending physician and three other doctors who were
present at the execution of the will expressed opinions entirely favorable
to the capacity of the testator. Three other members of the medical
profession expressed opinions entirely unfavorable to the capacity of the
testator and certified that he was of unsound mind. Held, That Tomas
Rodriguez on January 3, 1924, possessed sufficient mentality to make a
will which would meet the legal test regarding testamentary capacity;
that the proponents of the will have carried successfully the burden of
proof and have shown him of sound mind on that date; and that it was
reversible error on the part of the trial court not to admit his will to
probate.

2. 12.

ID.; UNDUE INFLUENCE; DEFINITION.—Undue influence as used in
connection with the law of wills, may be defined as that which compels
the testator to do that which is against the will from fear, the desire of
peace, or from other feeling which he is unable to resist.

3. 13.

ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR.—Held, That the theory that undue influence
was exercised by the persons benefited in the will in conjunction with
others who acted in their behalf, and that there was a preconceived plan
on the part of the persons who surrounded Tomas Rodriguez to secure
his signature to the testament, must be rejected as not proved

30
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
32 Dela Evidence; Factual findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed on appeal; The basic issue involved in this case WON Carmelita de la NO Carmelita cannot claim support and successional rights
Puerta vs. Exceptions.—This is a factual finding that we do not see fit to disturb, absent is the filiation of private respondent Puerta can claim support to the estate of Domingo Revuelta.

Court of any of those circumstances we have laid down in a long line of decisions that Carmelita de la Puerta, who claims and successional rights As a spurious child of Vicente, Carmelita is barred from
Appeals, will justify reversal. Among these circumstances are: (1) the conclusion is a successional lights to the estate of her to the estate of Dominga inheriting from Dominga because of Article 992 of the
finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the alleged grandmother.
Revuelta, the mother of Civil Code, which lays down the barrier between the
inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) Dominga Revuelta died on July 3, Vicente legitimate and illegitimate families. This article provides
the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact 1966, at the age of 92, with a will quite clearly:

are conflicting; (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case leaving her properties to her three Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellees; surviving children, namely, Alfredo, intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his
(7) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial Vicente and Isabel, all surnamed de la father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives
court; (8) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific Puerta. Isabel was given the free inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child.

evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well portion in addition to her legitime and The so-called spurious children or illegitimate children
as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; was appointed executrix of the will. 1
other than natural children, commonly known as
and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the The petition for the probate of the will bastards, include adulterous children or those born out
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
filed by Isabel was opposed by her of wedlock to a married woman cohabiting with a man
Persons and Family Relations; Illegitimate Children; Proof of Filiation; The rules brothers, who averred that their other than her husband or to a married man cohabiting
on proof of filiation of natural children or the rule on voluntary and compulsory mother was already senile at the time with a woman other than his wife. They are entitled to
acknowledgment for natural children may be applied to spurious children.— of the execution of the will and did not support and successional rights (Art. 287, CC). But their
fully comprehend its meaning. filiation must be duly proven.(Ibid, Art. 887)

Turning now to the evidence required to prove the private respondent’s filiation, Moreover, some of the properties Ab Intestato is a Latin term which means “"by
we reject the petitioner’s contention that Article 278 of the Civil Code is not listed in the inventory of her estate intestacy." It refers to laws governing the succession of
available to Carmelita. It is error to contend that as she is not a natural child belonged to them exclusively. 2
property after its previous owner dies without a valid will.
but a spurious child (if at all) she cannot prove her status by the record of birth, Meantime, Isabel was appointed Indeed, even as an adopted child, Carmelita would still
a will, a statement before a court of record, or any authentic writing. On the special administratrix by the probate be barred from inheriting from Dominga Revuelta for
contrary, it has long been settled that: The so-called spurious children or court. 3 Alfredo subsequently died, there would be no natural kindred ties between them and
illegitimate children other than natural children, commonly known as bastards, leaving Vicente the lone oppositor. 4
consequently, no legal ties to bind them either. As aptly
include adulterous children or those born out of wedlock to a married woman On August 1, 1974, Vicente de la pointed out by Dr. Arturo M. Tolentino:

cohabiting with a man other than her husband or to a married man cohabiting
with a woman other than his wife. They are entitled to support and
successional rights (Art. 287, CC). But their filiation must be duly proven. (Ibid,
Art. 887) How should their filiation be proven? Article 289 of the Civil Code
allows the investigation of the paternity or maternity of spurious children under
the circumstances specified in Articles 283 and 284 of the Civil Code. The
implication is that the rules on compulsory recognition of natural children are
applicable to spurious children. Spurious children should not be in a better
Puerta filed with the Court of First If the adopting parent should die before the adopted
Instance of Quezon a petition to adopt child, the latter cannot represent the former in the
Carmelita de la Puerta. After hearing, inheritance from the parents or ascendants of the
the petition was granted. 5 However, adopter. The adopted child is not related to the deceased
the decision was appealed by Isabel in that case, because the filiation created by fiction of law
to the Court of Appeals. During the is exclusively between the adopter and the adopted. "By
pendency of the appeal, Vicente died, adoption, the adopters can make for themselves an heir,
prompting her to move for the but they cannot thus make one for their kindred. 23

position than natural children. The rules on proof of filiation of natural children
The result is that Carmelita, as the spurious daughter of
or the rule on voluntary and compulsory acknowledgment for natural children
may be applied to spurious children.
dismissal of the case 6
Vicente de la Puerta, has successional rights to the
intestate estate of her father but not to the estate of
Dominga Revuelta. Her claims for support and
inheritance should therefore be filed in the proceedings
for the settlement of her own father's

estate 24 and cannot be considered in the probate of
Dominga Revuelta's Will.

31
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Succession; Right of Representation; Even assuming that Carme-lita is a On November 20, 1981, Carmelita, The reason for this rule was explained in the recent case
legitimate child of the deceased, she still cannot invoke right of representation having been allowed to intervene in of Diaz v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 21 thus:

considering that her father did not predecease her grandmother whose estate the probate proceedings, filed a
is under consideration.—Finally, we move to the most crucial question, to wit: motion for the payment to her of a
May Carmelita de la Puerta claim support and successional rights to the estate monthly allowance as the
of Dominga Revuelta? x x x The answer to the question posed must be in the acknowledged natural child of Vicente
negative. The first reason is that Vicente de la Puerta did not predecease his de la Puerta. 7 At the hearing on her
mother; and the second is that Carmelita is a spurious child. x x x It is settled motion, Carmelita presented evidence
that___In testamentary succession, the right of representation can take place to prove her claimed status to which
only in the following cases: first, when the person represented dies before the Isabel was allowed to submit counter-
testator; second, when the person represented is incapable of succeeding the evidence.
and incompatibility. The illegitimate child is disgracefully
testator; and third, when the person represented is disinherited by the testator. On November 12,1982, the probate
In all of these cases, since there is a vacancy in the inheritance, the law calls court granted the motion, declaring
the children or descendants of the person represented to succeed by right of that it was satisfied from the evidence
representation. x x x The law is clear that there is representation only when at hand that Carmelita was a natural
relatives of a deceased person try to succeed him in his rights which he would child of Vicente de la Puerta and was
have had if still living. In the present case, however, said deceased had already entitled to the amounts claimed for
succeeded his aunt, the testatrix herein, x x x It is a fact that at the time of the her support. The court added that
death of the testatrix, Reynaldo Cuison was still alive. He died two months "the evidence presented by the
Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or
iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab
intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate
children and relatives of the father or mother of said
legitimate child. They may have a natural tie of blood, but
this is not recognized by law for the purpose of Article
992. Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate
family there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism
looked down upon by the legitimate family; the family is
in turn, hated by the illegitimate child the latter considers
the privileged condition of the former, and the resources
of which it is thereby deprived; the former in turn sees in
the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin,
palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life; the law
does no more than recognize this truth, by avoiding
further ground of resentment. 22

after her (testatrix’s) death. And upon his death, he transmitted to his heirs, the petitioner against it (was) too weak to
petitioners herein Elisa Cuison et al., the legacy or the right to succeed to the discredit the same
legacy. x x x In other words, the herein petitioners-appellants are not trying to
succeed to the right to the property of the testatrix, but rather to the right of
the legatee Reynaldo Cuison in said property. Not having predeceased
Dominga Revuelta, her son Vicente had the right to inherit from her directly or
in his own right. No right of representation was involved, nor could it be
invoked by Carmelita upon her father’s death, which came after his own
mother’s death. It would have been different if Vicente was already dead when
Dominga Revuelta died. Carmelita could then have inherited from her in
representation of her father Vicente, assuming the private respondent was a
lawful heir.

32
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Same; Same; As a spurious child of Vicente, Carmelita is barred from inheriting
from Dominga, her paternal grandmother, because of the barrier created by Art.
992, between legitimate and illegitimate families.—But herein lies the crux, for
she is not. As a spurious child of Vicente, Carmelita is barred from inheriting
from Dominga because of Article 992 of the Civil Code, which lays down the
barrier between the legitimate and illegitimate families. This article provides
quite clearly: Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato
from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such
children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child.
Applying this rule in Leonardo v. Court of Appeals, this Court declared: . . .
even if it is true that petitioner is the child of Sotero Leonardo, still he cannot,
by right of representation, claim a share of the estate left by the deceased
Francisca Reyes considering that, as found again by the Court of Appeals, he
was born outside wedlock as shown by the fact that when he was born, his
alleged putative father and mother were not yet married, and what is more, his
alleged father’s first marriage was still subsisting. At most, petitioner would be
an illegitimate child who has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father, like the deceased Francisca Reyes. The
reason for this rule was explained in the recent case of Diaz v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, thus: Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or
iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the
illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or
mother of said legitimate child. They may have a natural tie of blood, but this is
not recognized by law for the purpose of Article 992. Between the legitimate
family and the illegitimate family there is presumed to be an intervening
antagonism and incompatibility. The illegitimate child is disgracefully looked
down upon by the legitimate family; the family is in turn, hated by the
illegitimate child; the latter considers the privileged condition of the former, and
the resources of which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the
illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish
broken in life; the law does no more than recognize this truth, by avoiding
further ground of resentment.”

33
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Same; Persons and Family Relations; Adopted Children; An adopted child is
barred from inheriting from the relatives of the adopter.—Indeed, even as an
adopted child, Carmelita would still be barred from inheriting from Dominga
Revuelta for there would be no natural kindred ties between them and
consequently, no legal ties to bind them either. As aptly pointed out by Dr.
Arturo M. Tolentino: If the adopting parent should die before the adopted child,
the latter cannot represent the former in the inheritance from the parents or
ascendants of the adopter. The adopted child is not related to the deceased in
that case, because the filiation created by fiction of law is exclusively between
the adopter and the adopted. “By adoption, the adopters can make for
themselves an heir, but they cannot thus make one for their kindred.” The
result is that Carmelita, as the spurious daughter of Vicente de la Puerta, has
successional rights to the intestate estate of her father but not to the estate of
Dominga Revuelta. Her claims for support and inheritance should therefore be
filed in the proceedings for the settlement of her own father’s estate and
cannot be considered in the probate of Dominga Revuelta’s will.

33 Corpuz vs. Civil Law; Wills and Succession; Probative value of wills; Authenticity of a Teodoro R. Yangco died in Manila on WON Tomas Corpus has NO It is disputably presumed that a man and a woman
Corpuz probated will is incontestable.—Appellant Corpus assails the probative value of April 20, 1939. Yangco had no forced a cause of action for deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered
the will of Luis R. Yangco, identified as Exhibit 1 herein, which he says is a heirs. At the time of his death, his recovery of the supposed into a lawful contract of marriage and that a child born in
mere copy of Exhibit 20, as found in the record on appeal in Special nearest relatives were: (1) his half hereditary share of his a lawful wedlock, there being no divorce, absolute or
Proceeding No. 54863. He contends that it should not prevail over the brother, Luis R. Yangco, (2) his half mother, Juanita Corpus, from bed and board, is legitimate. Since Teodoro R.
presumption of legitimacy found in section 69, Rule 123 of the old Rules of sister, Paz Yangco, the wife of Miguel as legal heir in Yangco’s Yangco was an acknowledged natural child or was
Court and over the statement of Samuel W. Stagg in his biography of Teodoro Ossorio, (3) Amelia Corpus, Jose A. V. estate. illegitimate and since Juanita Corpus was the legitimate
R. Yangco, that Luis Rafael Yangco made a second marital venture with Corpus and Ramon L. Corpus, the child of Jose Corpus, himself a legitimate child, the
Victoria Obin, implying that he had a first marital venture with Ramona children of his half brother, Pablo Supreme Court held that appellant Tomas Corpus has no
Arguelles, the mother of Teodoro. These contentions have no merit. The Corpus and (4) Juana (Juanita) cause of action for the recovery of the supposed
authenticity of the will of Luis Rafael Yangco, as reproduced in Exhibit 1 herein Corpus, the daughter of his half hereditary share of his mother, Juanita Corpus, as a legal
and as copied from Exhibit 20 in the proceeding for the probate of Teodoro R. brother Jose Corpus. Juanita died in heir, in Yangco’s estate.
Yangco’s will, is incontestable. The said will is part of a public or official judicial October, 1944. Teodoro R. Yangco
record.
was the son of Luis Rafael Yangco
Same; Same; Same; Marriages; Presumption is that man and woman deporting and Ramona Arguelles, the widow of
themselves as husband and wife lawfully wedded and child born unto them in Tomas Corpus. Before her union with
lawful wedlock is considered legitimate.—On the other hand, the children of Luis Rafael Yangco, Ramona had
Ramona Arguelles and Tomas Corpus are presumed to be legitimate. A begotten five (5) children with Tomas
marriage is presumed to have taken place between Ramona and Tomas. Corpus, two (2) of whom were the
Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. It is disputably presumed “that a man aforementioned Pablo Corpus and
and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a Jose Corpus. On October 5, 1951,
lawful contract of marriage”; “that a child born in lawful wedlock, there being
no divorce, absolute or from bed and board, is legitimate”, and “that things
have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary
habits of life.”

34
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Same; Same; No reciprocal succession between legitimate and illegitimate Tomas Corpus, as the sole heir of
relatives; Reasons for rule.—Since Teodoro R. Yangco was an acknowledged Juanita Corpus, filed an action in the
natural child or was illegitimate and since Juanita Corpus was the legitimate Court of First Instance of Manila to
child of Jose Corpus, himself a legitimate child, we hold that appellant Tomas recover the supposed share in
Corpus has no cause of action for the recovery of the supposed hereditary Yangco’ intestate estate. He alleged in
share of his mother, Juanita Corpus, as a legal heir, in Yangco’s estate. Juanita his complaint that the dispositions in
Corpus was not a legal heir of Yangco because there is no reciprocal Yangco’s will imposing perpetual
succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives. The trial court did not prohibitions upon alienation rendered
err in dismissing the complaint of Tomas Corpus. Article 943 of the old Civil it void and that the 1949 partition is
Code provides that “el hijo natural y el legitimado no tienen derecho a suceder invalid and, therefore, the decedent’s
abmtestato a los hijoa y parientes legitimos del padre o madre que lo haya estate should be distributed
reconocido, ni ellos al hijo natural ni al legitimado”. Article 943 “prohibits all according to the rules on intestacy.
successory reciprocity mortis causa between legitimate and illegitimate
relatives” (6 Sanchez Roman, Civil Code, pp. 996-997 cited in Director of
Lands vs. Aguas, 63 Phil. 279, 287. See 16 Scaevola, Codigo Civil, 4th Ed.,
455-6). x x x The rule in Article 943 is now found in article 992 of the Civil Code
which provides that “an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato
from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother, nor shall such
children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child”. That
rule is based on the theory that the illegitimate child is disgracefully looked
upon by the legitimate family while the legitimate family is, in turn, hated by the
illegitimate child. The law does not recognize the blood tie and seeks to avoid
further grounds of resentment (7 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 7th Ed., pp. 185-6).

Same; Same; Same; Half-brothers who are legitimate had no right to succeed
to the estate of an illegitimate child under the rules of intestacy; Rule that a
legitimate child cannot succeed to the estate of an illegitimate child applicable
in other cases.—Under articles 944 and 945 of the Spanish Civil Code, “if an
acknowledged natural or legitimated child should die without issue, either
legitimate or acknowledged, the father or mother who acknowledged such
child shall succeed to its entire estate; and if both acknowledged it and are
alive, they shall inherit from it share and share alike. In default of natural
ascendants, natural and legitimated children shall be succeeded by their
natural brothers and sisters in accordance with the rules established for
legitimate brothers and sisters”. Hence, Teodoro R. Yangco’s half brothers on
the Corpus side, who were legitimate, had no right to succeed to his estate
under the rules of in-testacy. Following the rule in article 992, formerly article
943, it was held that the legitimate relatives of the mother cannot succeed her
illegitimate child. x x x By reason of that same rule, the natural child cannot
represent his natural father in the succession to the estate of the legitimate
grandparent (Llorente vs. Rodriguez, 10 Phil. 585; Centeno vs. Centeno, 52
Phil. 322; Allarde vs. Abaya, 57 Phil. 909). The natural daughter cannot
succeed to the estate of her deceased uncle, a legitimate brother of her natural
mother (Anuran vs. Aquino and Ortiz, 38 Phil. 29).

35
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
34 Bicomong Succession; Heirs; In the absence of descendants, ascendants, illegitimate Simeon Bagsic was married to WON the nephews and YES Yes. In the absence of defendants, ascendants,
vs. children or a surviving spouse, collateral relations succeed to the entire estate Sisenanda Barcenas and were born nieces are entitled to illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, Article 1003
Almanza of the deceased; Nephews and nieces.—In the absence of descendants, three children namely: Perpetua inherit in their own right. of the New Civil Code provides that collateral
ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, Article 1003 of the New Bagsic, Igmedia Bagsic, and Ignacio relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
Civil Code provides that collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of Bagsic. Sisenanda Barcenas died deceased. It appearing that Maura Bagsic died intestate
the deceased. It appearing that the decedent died intestate without an issue, ahead of her husband Simeon Bagsic. without an issue, and her husband and all her
and her husband and all her ascendants had died ahead of her, she is Simeon Bagsic remarried Silvestra ascendants had died ahead of her, she is succeeded by
succeeded by the surviving collateral relatives, namely the daughter of her Glorioso. Of this second marriage the surviving collateral relatives, namely the daughter of
sister of full blood and the ten (10) children of her brother and two (2) sisters of were born two children, Felipa Bagsic her sister of full blood and the ten (10) children of her
half blood, in accordance with the provision of Art. 975 of the New Civil Code. and Maura Bagsic. Simeon Bagsic brother and two (2) sisters of half blood in accordance
By virtue of said provision, the aforementioned nephews and nieces are and Silvestra Glorioso died. Ignacio with the provision of Art. 975 of the New Civil Code. By
entitled to inherit in their own right. In Abellana-Bacayo vs. Ferraris-Borromeo, Bagsic died leaving the plaintiff virtue of said provision, the aforementioned nephews and
L-19382, August 31, 1965, 14 SCRA 986 this Court held that “nephews and Francisca Bagsic as his only heir. nieces are entitled to inherit in their own right.

nieces alone do not inherit by right of representation (that is per stirpes) unless Igmedia Bagsic also died survived by Under the same provision, Art. 975, which makes no
concurring with brothers or sisters of the deceased.”
the plaintiffs Dionisio Tolentino, Maria qualification as to whether the nephews or nieces are on
Same; Same; Same; Nephews and nieces entitled to inherit in their own right; Tolentino and Petra Tolentino. the maternal or paternal line and without preference as to

Nephew or niece of full blood entitled to inherit share double that of the Perpetua Bagsic died and was whether their relationship to the deceased is by whole or
nephew or niece of half blood.—Under Art. 975, which makes no qualification survived by her heirs, the plaintiffs half blood, the sole niece of

as to whether the nephews or nieces are on the maternal or paternal line and Gaudencio Bicomong, Felicidad whole blood of the deceased does not exclude the ten
without preference as to whether their relationship to the deceased is by whole Bicomong, Salome Bicomong, and nephews and n of half blood. The only difference in their
or half blood, the sole niece of whole blood of the deceased does not exclude Gervacio Bicomong.
right of succession is provided in Art. 1008, NCC in
the ten nephews and nieces of half blood. The only difference in their right of Of the children of the second relation to Article 1006 of the New Civil Code (supra),
succession is provided in Art. 1008, N. C. C, in relation to Article 1006 of the marriage, Maura Bagsic died also which provisions, in effect, entitle the sole niece of full
New Civil Code which provisions, in effect, entitle the sole niece of full blood to leaving no heir as her husband died blood to a share double that of the nephews and nieces
a share double that of the nephews and nieces of half blood. Such distinction ahead of her. Felipa Bagsic, the other of half blood.
between whole and half blood relationships with the deceased has been daughter of the second Geronimo
recognized in Dionisia Padura, et al. vs. Melania Baldovino, et al., No. L-11960,
December 27, 1958, 104 Phil. 1065 (unreported) and in Alviar vs. Alviar, No.
L-22402, June 30, 1969, 28 SCRA 610.

36
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Almanza and her daughter Cristeta
Almanza. But five (5) months before
the present suit was filed or on July
23, 1959, Cristeta Almanza died
leaving behind her husband, the
defendant herein Engracio Manese
and her father Geronimo
Almanza. The subject matter
concerns the one-half undivided share
of Maura Bagsic in the following
described five (5) parcels of land
which she inherited from her
deceased mother, Silvestra Glorioso.
Three sets of plaintiffs filed the
complaint on December 1, 1959,
namely: (a) the Bicomongs, children of
Perpetua Bagsic; (b) the
Tolentinos, children of Igmedia
Bagsic; and (c) Francisco Bagsic,
daughter of Ignacio Bagsic, in
the Court of First Instance of Laguna
and San Pablo City against the
defendants Geronimo Almanza and
Engracio Menese for the recovery of
their lawful shares in the
properties left by Maura Bagsic.

37
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
35 Santillon Appeals in special proceedings; Order of court determining distributive share of • November 21, 1953, Pedro WON the word “children” YES • Yes, it is a maxim of statutory construction
v. Miranda heirs appealable.—An order of the Court of First Instance which determines the Santillon died without testament in Art. 996 can also be that words in plural include the singular. So Art.
in Tayug, Pangasinan, his
distributive shares of the heirs of a deceased person is appealable.
interpreted as “child” in 996 could or should be read (and so applied) : "If
residence, leaving one son, Claro
Succession; Surviving spouse concurring with a legitimate child entitled to one- Santillon, and his wife, Perfecta accordance with Art. the widow or widower and a legitimate child are
half of the intestate estate.—When intestacy occurs, a surviving spouse Miranda. During his marriage, 892? left, the surviving spouse has the same share as
concurring with only one legitimate child of the deceased is entitled to one-half Pedro acquired several parcels of that of the child." Indeed, if we refuse to apply
of the estate of the deceased spouse under Article 996 of the Civil Code. land located in that province.
the article to this case on the ground that "child"
• Four years after his death, is not included in "children," the consequences
Claro Santillon filed a petition for
would be tremendous, because "children" will not
letters of administration.
include "child".

Opposition to said petition was

entered by the widow Perfecta • Our conclusion (equal shares) seems a
Miranda and the spouses Benito logical inference from the circumstance that
U. Miranda and Rosario Corrales whereas Article 834 of the Spanish Civil Code,
on the following grounds: (a) that from which Art. 996 was taken, contained two
the properties enumerated in the
paragraphs governing two contingencies, the
petition were all conjugal, except
three parcels which Perfecta first, where the widow or widower survives with
Miranda claimed to be her legitimate children (general rule), and the second,
exclusive properties; (b) that where the widow or widower survives with only
Perfecta Miranda by virtue of two one child (exception), Art. 996 omitted to provide
documents had conveyed 3/4 of for the second situation, thereby indicating the
her undivided share in most of the
legislator's desire to promulgate just one general
properties enumerated in the
petition to said spouses Benito rule applicable to both situations.
and Rosario;

• (c) that administration of the

estate was not necessary, there
being a case for partition
pending; and (d) that if
administration was necessary at
all, the oppositor Perfecta
Miranda and not the petitioner
was better qualified for the post.
It appears that subsequently,
oppositor Perfecta Miranda was
appointed administrator of the
estate.

• March 22, 1961, the court

appointed commissioners to draft
within sixty days, a project of
partition and distribution of all the
properties of the deceased Pedro
Santillon.

• April 25, 1961, Claro filed a

"Motion to Declare Share of
Heirs" and to resolve the
conflicting claims of the parties
with respect to their respective
rights in the estate. Invoking Art.
892 of the New Civil Code,

38
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
• he insisted that after deducting
1/2 from the conjugal properties
is the conjugal share of Perfecta,
the remaining 1/2 must be divided
as follows: 1/4 for her and 3/4 for
him. Oppositor Perfecta, on the
other hand, claimed that besides
her conjugal half, she was entitled
under Art. 996 of the New Civil
Code to another 1/2 of the
remaining half. In other words,
Claro claimed 3/4 of Pedro's
inheritance, while Perfecta
claimed 1/2.

• June 28, 1961, the court

issued an order, the dispositive
portion of which is hereby ruled
and ordered that in the intestate
succession of the deceased
Pedro Santillon, the surviving
spouse Perfecta Miranda shall
inherit ONE-HALF (1/2) share and
the remaining ONE-HALF (1/2)
share for the only son, Atty. Claro
Santillon. This is after deducting
the share of the widow as co-
owner of the conjugal properties.

36 Solano vs. Evidence; Succession; Parent & Child; Supreme Court bound by the factual Bienvenido and Emeteria filed an WON total intestacy NO That being compulsory heirs, the Garcias were preterited
Court of findings of the trial court that parties at bar are all illegitimate children of the action for recognition against Melita resulted from the from Meliton’s will, and as a result, Sonia’s institution as
Appeals deceased.—At the outset, we and the same branch of the trial court could be Solano Meliton died during the declaration that the sole heir is null and void pursuant to Art. 854

correctly said to have been consolidated. Finally, petitioner is now estopped, pendency of the petition and his institution of sole heir “The preterition or omission of one, some or all of the
after getting an adverse verdict, from repudiating belatedly the jurisdiction of daughter substituted him while asking from decedent’s will. compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the
the trial and appellate courts to which she had submitted without question her for the probate of the will of the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of
cause.should state that we are bound by the findings of fact of both the Trial decedent. RTC specified the legal the testator, shall annul the institution of heir, but the
Court. and the Appellate Court, particularly, the finding that the GARCIAS and issues as 1) the recognition of devises and legacies shall be valid…

ZONIA are, in fact, illegitimate children of the DECEDENT. The oral testimony Garcias, 2) correct status of Zonia, 3) The intention of the decedent is to favor Sonia
and the documentary evidence of record inevitably point to that conclusion, as the hereditary share of each of them with certain portions of his property which the testator
may be gleaned from the following background facts: SOLANO, a resident of in view of the probated will. In had the right to such so that it should be upheld as to the
Tabaco, Albay, married Pilar Riosa. The latter died. On a world tour he met a deciding, RTC declared Garcias as one-half portion of the property that the testator could
French woman, Lilly Gorand, who became his second wife in 1928. The union illegitimate children of late Meliton.; freely dispose of Sonia’s share is hereby declared to be
was short-lived as she left him in 1929. In the early part of 1930, SOLANO the institution of Sonia as sole heir 4/6 of the estate and Garcias 1/6 each. The usufruct in
started having amorous relations with Juana Garcia, out of which affair was declared null and void, the 3 children favor of will should not be invalidated all together.

born Bienvenido Garcia on March 24, 1931 (Exhibits "A" & "3"); and on shall share equally the estate CA preterition of illegitimate children should annul the
November 3, 1935, Emeteria Garcia was born (Exhibits "B" & "2"). Their birth affirmed.
institution of the heir “only insofar as the legitime of the
certificates and baptismal certificates mention only the mother's name without omitted heirs is impaired”.
the father's name. The facts establish, however, that SOLANO during his
lifetime recognized the GARCIAS as his children by acts of support and
provisions for their education.

39
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Pleading & Practice; Succession; Action; Jurisdiction; Waiver; The trial court
did not err in rendering judgment, in an action for recognition, declaring the
substitute defendant as an illegitimate child of the deceased original
defendant, ordering the division of the decedent's estate and declaring the
latter's institution of heirship in his probated will null and void where
substituted defendant did not merely act as representative of the deceased,
but asserted rights and defenses in her own capacity.—lt is true that the action
below was basically one for recognition. However, upon notice of SOLANO's
death, the Trial Court ordered his substitution by ZONIA, "the only surviving
heir x x x as of now" In her "Appearance of Substitute Defendant Zonia Ana T.
Solano x x x Sole and Universal Heir", ZONIA specifically prayed that she be
"allowed to assume her duties as executrix and administratrix of the probated
will and testament of the late Dr. Meliton Solano, under Special Proceedings
No. 842, which is already final and executory, with least interference from the
plaintiffs (GARCIAS) who may be classified for the moment as only pretenders
to be illegitimate children". In other words, ZONIA did not only rely upon
SOLANO's Answer already of record but asserted new rights in her capacity as
sole and universal heir, "executrix and administratrix," and challenged the right
of the GARCIAS to recognition. Thus, she was not defending. the case as a
mere representative of the deceased but asserted rights and defenses in her
own personal capacity. So it was that the GARCIAS filed a "Reply to
Appearance of ZONIA x x x and Supplemental Cause of Action x x x"
vigorously denying that ZONIA was SOLANO's sole and universal heir; that
ZONIA could not legally be considered as SOLANO's acknowledged natural
child because of a legal impediment; that the admission to probate of
SOLANO's Will was merely conclusive as to its due execution; that the
supposed recognition under a notarial instrument of ZONIA as an
acknowledged natural child was fraudulent and a product of misrepresentation;
that ZONIA's recognition in the Will as an acknowledged natural child is
subject to nullification and that at most ZONIA is, like them, an adulterous child
of SOLANO with Trinidad Tuagnon.

40
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Same; Same; Same; Same; Evidence; An action for recognition may ipso jure
be converted into a contest as to the status of the alleged daughter of the
deceased defendant who asked to be substituted on the latter's demise where
the parties submitted pleadings and evidence bearing also on the substituted
defendant's status as heir.—During the trial, the GARCIAS presented evidence
to prove their allegations not only in their main complaint but also in their
"Reply to Appearance and Supplemental Cause of Action". ZONIA presented
no objection to the presentation by the GARCIAS of their oral and
documentary evidence and even cross-examined their witnesses. ZONIA, for
her part, presented her own testimonial and documentary evidence, denied the
relationship of the GARCIAS' to SOLANO and presented the notarial
recognition in her favor as an acknowledged natural child by SOLANO and
Trinidad Tuagnon (Exhibit "Q"). Thus, as raised by the parties in their own
pleadings and pursuant to their respective evidence during the trial, the
litigation was converted into a contest between the GARCIAS and ZONIA
precisely as to their correct status as heirs and their respective rights as such.
No error was committed by either the Trial Court or the Appellate Court,
therefore, in resolving the issue of ZONIA's status.

Same; Same; Same; Same; A trial court may, under the special circumstances
of a case, declare the institution of heir void and distribute the decedent's
estate, in an action for recognition.—Normally, this would be the general rule.
However, a peculiar situation is thrust upon us here. It should be recalled that
SOLANO himself instituted the petition for probate of the Will during his
lifetime. That proceeding was not one to settle the estate of a deceased person
that would be deemed terminated only upon the final distribution of the residue
of the hereditary estate. With the Will allowed to probate, the case would have
terminated except that it appears that the parties, after SOLANO's death,
continued to file pleadings therein. Secondly, upon motion of the GARCIAS,
and over the objection of ZONIA, the Trial Court ordered the impleading of the
estate of SOLANO and proceeded on that basis. In effect, therefore, the two
cases were consolidated. The records further disclose that the action for
recognition (Civil Case No, 3956) and Spec. Procs. No. 842 were pending
before the same Branch of the Court and before the same Presiding Judge.
Thirdly, it is settled that the allowance of a Will is conclusive only as to its due
execution. A probate decree is not concerned with the intrinsic validity or
legality of the provisions of the Will.

41
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Succession; Preterition of compulsory heir makes institution of heirship void,
but not the legacies made in the Will—As provided in the foregoing provision,
the disposition in the Will giving the usufruct in favor of Trinidad Tuagnon over
the five parcels of land in Bantayan, Tabaco, Albay, is a legacy, recognized in
Article 563 of the Civil Code, and should be respected in so far as it is not
inofficious.

Same; Same; The omission of a compulsory heir in the Will and resulting
invalidity of the institution of an heir therein would not necessarily result in an
intestacy, but only to the extent that the legitime of omitted compulsory heirs is
impaired.—So also did the Trial Court have jurisdiction in resolving the issue of
the hereditary shares of the GARCIAS and ZONIA. However, contrary to the
conclusions of the Courts below, holding that the entire Will is void and
intestacy ensues, the preterition of the GARCIAS should annul the institution of
ZONIA as heir only insofar as the legitime of the omitted heirs is impaired. The
Will, therefore, is valid subject to that limitation. It is plain that the intention of
the testator was to favor ZONIA with certain portions of his property, which,
under the law, he had a right to dispose of by Will, so that the disposition in her
favor should be upheld as to the one-half (½) portion of the property that the
testator could freely dispose of. Since the legitime of illegitimate children
consists of one-half (1/2) of the hereditary estate, the GARCIAS and ZONIA
each have a right to participation therein in the proportion of one-third (1/3)
each. ZONIA's hereditary share will, therefore, be 1/2 + (1/3 of 1/2) or 4/6 of the
estate, while the GARCIAS will respectively be entitled to 1/3 of 1/2 or 1/6 of
the value of the estate.

Jurisdiction; Succession; Voluntary submission to jurisdiction of court bars right

to contest same after receiving an adverse decision.—Lastly, it should be
pointed out that the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court was
never questioned before either Court. ZONIA herself had gone, without
objection, to trial on the issues raised and as defined by the Trial Court. Neither
had ZONIA assigned lack of jurisdiction of the Trial Court as an error before the
Appellate Court. She should now be held estopped to repudiate that
jurisdiction to which she had voluntarily submitted, after she had received an
unfavorable judgment.

42
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Teehankee, J., concurring:

Pleadings and Practice; The two cases, the action for recognition and the
testate proceedings, can be deemed to have been tried jointly as they were
pending before the same judge.—The record shows that the probate
proceeding (Sp. Proc. No. 842) was not one for settlement of estate of
deceased but one instituted by the testator himself, Dr. Meliton Solano, for the
allowance of the will during his lifetime under Article 838 of the Civil Code.
Such allowance was granted and this terminated the proceeding, although as
noted in the Court's opinion, the parties continued to file some pleadings
therein after Dr. Solano's death. But the issues between the parties as to their
status and hereditary shares in view of the probated will naming petitioner as
sole heir were expressly delineated, tried and determined in the action for
recognition (Civil Case No. 3956) filed by respondents Garcias against their
father Dr. Solano who was substituted by petitioner as defendant (and sole heir
of the estate under the probated will) after his death. In effect, therefore, the
two cases (assuming that the probate proceeding could be deemed as having
continued notwithstanding its termination with the allowance in vitam of Dr.
Solano's will) which were pending before the same judge and the same branch
of the trial court could be correctly said to have been consolidated. Finally,
petitioner is now estopped, after getting an adverse verdict, from repudiating
belatedly the jurisdiction of the trial and appellate courts to which she had
submitted without question her cause.

43
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
37 Republic Remedial Law; Evidence; Best Evidence Rule; The photocopied documents are After the EDSA People Power WON the petitioners are Since the pending case before the Sandiganbayan
vs. in violation Rule 130, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court, otherwise known as the best Revolution in 1986, President Corazon parties in interest.
survives the death of Ferdinand E. Marcos, it is
Manotoc evidence rule, which mandates that the evidence must be the original C. Aquino created the Presidential imperative therefore that the estate be duly represented.
document itself.—The photocopied documents are in violation Rule 130, Sec. Commission of Good Government The purpose behind this rule is the protection of the right
3 of the Rules of Court, otherwise known as the best evidence rule, which (PCGG). The PCGG filed a Complaint to due process of every party to a litigation who may be
mandates that the evidence must be the original document itself. The origin of against Ferdinand Marcos, who has affected by the intervening death. The deceased litigant
the best evidence rule can be found and traced to as early as the 18th century later substituted by his estate upon is himself protected, as he continues to be properly
in Omychund v. Barker, wherein the Court of Chancery said: The judges and his death; Imelda R. Marcos; and represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal
sages of the law have laid it down that there is but one general rule of herein respondents Imee Marcos – representatives of his estate. On that note, we take
evidence, the best that the nature of the case will admit. The rule is, that if the Manotoc, Irene Marcos – Araneta, judicial notice of the probate proceedings regarding the
writings have subscribing witnesses to them, they must be proved by those Bongbong Marcos, Tomas Marcos, will of Ferdinand E. Marcos. In Republic of the
witnesses.  The first ground judges have gone upon in departing from strict and Gregorio Araneta III.
Philippines v. Marcos II, we upheld the grant by the
rules, is an absolute strict necessity. Secondly, a presumed necessity. In the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of letters testamentary in
case of writings, subscribed by witnesses, if all are dead, the proof of one of sodium to Ferdinand R. Marcos , Jr. and Imelda
their hands is sufficient to establish the deed: where an original is lost, a copy Romualdez – Marcos as executors of the last will and
may be admitted; if no copy, then a proof by witnesses who have heard the testament of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos.

deed, and yet it is a thing the law abhors to admit the memory of man for
evidence. Petitioner did not even attempt to provide a plausible reason why the
originals were not presented, or any compelling ground why the court should
admit these documents as secondary evidence absent the testimony of the
witnesses who had executed them. In particular, it may not insist that the
photocopies of the documents fall under Sec. 7 of Rule 130, which states:
Evidence admissible when original document is a public record.—When the
original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office, its contents may be proved be a certified copy issued by the
public officer in custody thereof.

44
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Same; Same; Same; Hearsay Evidence Rule; While affidavits may be
considered as public documents if they are acknowledged before a notary
public, these Affidavits are still classified as hearsay evidence.—Basic is the
rule that, while affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are
acknowledged before a notary public, these Affidavits are still classified as
hearsay evidence. The reason for this rule is that they are not generally
prepared by the affiant, but by another one who uses his or her own language
in writing the affiant’s statements, parts of which may thus be either omitted or
misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is
deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants. For this reason,
affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants
themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.

Same; Civil Procedure; Parties; Indispensable Parties; Words and Phrases;

Rule 3, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as those
parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an
action.—Rule 3, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as
those parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of
an action. They are those parties who possess such an interest in the
controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights, so that the
courts cannot proceed without their presence. Parties are indispensable if their
interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought is inextricably
intertwined with that of the other parties. In order to reach a final determination
of the matters concerning the estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos—that is, the
accounting and the recovery of ill-gotten wealth—the present case must be
maintained against Imelda Marcos and herein respondent Ferdinand
“Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr., as executors of the Marcos estate pursuant to
Sec. 1 of Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. According to this provision, actions
may be commenced to recover from the estate, real or personal property, or an
interest therein, or to enforce a lien thereon; and actions to recover damages
for an injury to person or property, real or personal, may be commenced
against the executors.

45
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Civil Law; Succession; Inheritance; The property rights and obligations to the
extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted to another
through the decedent’s death.—Under the rules of succession, the heirs
instantaneously became co-owners of the Marcos properties upon the death of
the President. The property rights and obligations to the extent of the value of
the inheritance of a person are transmitted to another through the decedent’s
death. In this concept, nothing prevents the heirs from exercising their right to
transfer or dispose of the properties that constitute their legitimes, even absent
their declaration or absent the partition or the distribution of the estate.

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Lawyers are required to observe and adhere to the
highest ethical and professional standards. The legal profession is so imbued
with public interest that its practitioners are accountable not only to their
clients, but to the public as well.—The basic ideal of the legal profession is to
render service and secure justice for those seeking its aid. In order to do this,
lawyers are required to observe and adhere to the highest ethical and
professional standards. The legal profession is so imbued with public interest
that its practitioners are accountable not only to their clients, but to the public
as well. The public prosecutors, aside from being representatives of the
government and the state, are, first and foremost, officers of the court. They
took the oath to exert every effort and to consider it their duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice. Lawyers owe fidelity to the cause
of the client and should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
them. Hence, should serve with competence and diligence.

46
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
38 Sayson Civil Law; Adoption; Petitioners' challenge to the validity of the adoption Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot 5 WON of Delia, Edmundo YES
As to Doribel, YES, for she was a legitimate daughter of
vs. Court cannot be made collaterally but in a direct proceedings frontally addressing the children: Mauricio, Rosario, and Doribel may inherit T and thus granddaughter of E and R. She has right to
of issue.—A no less important argument against the petitioners is that their Basilisa, Remedios and Teodoro. from the estate of Eleno NO
represent her deceased father in the distribution of
Appeals, challenge to the validity of the adoption cannot be made collaterally, as in their Teodoro married Isabel. Upon the and Rafaela by right of intestate estate of her grandparents. She is entitled to
action for partition, but in a direct proceeding frontally addressing the issue. death of Teodoro and Isabela, their representation NO the share her father would have directly inherited had he
The settled rule is that a finding that the requisite jurisdictional facts exists, properties were in the possession of survived, which shall be equal to the shares of
whether erroneous or not, cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding, for Delia, Edmundo and Doribel, her grandparents’ other children.

a presumption arises in such cases where the validity of the judgment is thus their children. The plaintiffs filed for As to of Delia and Edmundo, to whom the grandparents
attacked that the necessary jurisdictional facts were proven [Freeman on partition of the intestate estate of were total strangers, cannot inherit by representation.
Judgments, Vol. I, Sec. 350, pp. 719-720]. (Emphasis supplied.) In the case of Teodoro and Isabela. It was opposed While it is true that the adopted child shall be deemed to
Santos v. Aranzanso, this Court declared: Anent this point, the rulings are by of Delia, Edmundo and Doribel be a legitimate child and have the same right as the
summed up in 2 American Jurisprudence, 2nd Series, Adoption, Sec. 75, p. alleging their successional rights to latter, these rights do not include right of representation.
922, thus: An adoption order implies the finding of the necessary facts and the the estate as the lawful descendants. The relationship created by the adoption is between the
burden of proof is on the party attacking it; it cannot be considered void merely Subsequently, of Delia, Edmundo and adopting parents and the adopted child and does not
because the fact needed to show statutory compliance is obscure. While a Doribel filed for partition of intestate extend to the blood relative of either party.
judicial determination of some particular fact, such as the abandonment of his estate of Eleno and Rafaela as they
next of kin to the adoption, may be essential to the exercise of jurisdiction to are titled to inherit Teodoro’s share in
enter the order of adoption, this does not make it essential to the jurisdictional his parents’ estate by right of
validity of the decree that the fact be determined upon proper evidence, or representation because of Delia and
necessarily in accordance with the truth; a mere error cannot affect the Edmundo are adopted children and of
jurisdiction, and the determination must stand until reversed on appeal, and Doribel was legitimate daughter.

hence cannot be collaterally attacked. If this were not the rule, the status of The RTC found the defendants
adopted children would always be uncertain, since the evidence might not be qualified to inherit from E and R by
the same at all investigations, and might be regarded with different effect by right of representation. The CA found
different tribunals, and the adoption might be held by one court to have been De and E disqualified from inheriting
valid, while another court would hold it to have been of no avail. (Emphasis from E and R.
supplied.)

47
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Same; Family Code; Paternity and filiation; Proof of filiation; Doribel's birth
certificate is a formidable piece of evidence. It is one of the prescribed means
of recognition under Art. 265 of the Civil Code and Art. 172 of the Family Code.
—On the question of Doribel's legitimacy, we hold that the findings of the trial
courts as affirmed by the respondent court must be sustained. Doribel's birth
certificate is a formidable piece of evidence. It is one of the prescribed means
of recognition under Article 265 of the Civil Code and Article 172 of the Family
Code. It is true, as the petitioners stress, that the birth certificate offers only
prima facie evidence of filiation and may be refuted by contrary evidence.
However, such evidence is lacking in the case at bar.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Remedial Law; Evidence; The evidentiary nature of
public documents must be sustained in the absence of strong, complete and
conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity.—Mauricio’s testimony that he was
present when Doribel was born to Edita Abila was understandably suspect,
coming as it did from an interested party. The affidavit of Abila denying her
earlier statement in the petition for the guardianship of Doribel is of course
hearsay, let alone the fact that it was never offered in evidence in the lower
courts. Even without it, however, the birth certificate must be upheld in line
with Legaspi v. Court of Appeals, where we ruled that "the evidentiary nature of
public documents must be sustained in the absence of strong, complete and
conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity."

48
 CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Special Civil Actions; Partition; Doribel's
legitimacy cannot be questioned in a complaint for partition and accounting but
in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party.—Another reason why the
petitioners' challenge must fail is the impropriety of the present proceedings for
that purpose. Doribel's legitimacy cannot be questioned in a complaint for
partition and accounting but in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper
party. The presumption of legitimacy in the Civil Code x x x does not have this
purely evidential character. It serves a more fundamental purpose. It actually
fixes a civil status for the child born in wedlock, and that civil status cannot be
attacked collaterally. The legitimacy of the child can be impugned only in a
direct action brought for that by the proper parties, and within the period
limited by law. The legitimacy of the child cannot be contested by way of
defense or as a collateral issue in another action for a different purpose. x x x.
(Emphasis supplied.)

Same; Adoption; Succession; Representation; While it is true that the adopted

child shall be deemed to be a legitimate child and have the same rights as the
latter, these rights do not include the right of representation.—There is no
question that as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and thus the
granddaughter of Eleno and Rafaela, Doribel has a right to represent her
deceased father in the distribution of the intestate estate of her grandparents.
Under Article 981, quoted above, she is entitled to the share her father would
have directly inherited had he survived, which shall be equal to the shares of
her grandparents' other children. But a different conclusion must be reached in
the case of Delia and Edmundo, to whom the grandparents were total
strangers. While it is true that the adopted child shall be deemed to be a
legitimate child and have the same rights as the latter, these rights do not
include the right of representation. The relationship created by the adoption is
between only the adopting parents and the adopted child and does not extend
to the blood relatives of either party.

39 Tumbokon Succession; Representation; Words and Phrases; Representation is a right The parcel of land subject in this case WON the sale made by NO The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Court of
vs. created by fiction of law, by virtue of which the representative is raised to the was originally owned by the late Victor Miralles was valid. Appeals that Victor’s claim of being the sole heir was
Legaspi place and the degree of the person represented, and acquires the rights which Alejandra Sespeñe, who had had two false and erroneous for Alejandra had more than one
the latter would have if she were living or if she could have inherited.—Only marriages. The first marriage was with intestate heir, and Victor Miralles as a mere son-in-law
two forced heirs survived Alejandra upon her death, namely: respondent Gaudencio Franco, by whom she bore could not be one of them. A decedent’s compulsory heirs
Apolonia, her daughter, and Crisanto Miralles, her grandson. The latter Ciriaca Franco, whose husband was in whose favor the law reserves a part of the decedent’s
succeeded Alejandra by right of representation because his mother, Ciriaca, Victor Miralles. The second marriage estate are exclusively the persons enumerated in Article
had predeceased Alejandra. Representation is a right created by fiction of law, was with Jose Garcia, by whom she 887 of the Civil Code. In the present case, only two
by virtue of which the representative is raised to the place and the degree of bore respondent Apolonia Garcia, forced heirs survived Alejandra upon her death, namely:
the person represented, and acquires the rights which the latter would have if who married Primo Legaspi. Alejandra respondent Apolonia, her daughter, and CrisantoMiralles,
she were living or if she could have inherited. Herein, the representative died without a will in 1935, and was her grandson. The latter succeeded Alejandra by right of
(Crisanto Miralles) was called to the succession by law and not by the person survived by Apolonia and Crisanto representation because his mother, Ciriaca, had
represented (Ciriaca); he thus succeeded Alejandra, not Ciriaca.
Miralles, the son of Ciriaca (who had predeceased Alejandra. The petition was denied.
Judgments; Res Judicata; The doctrine of res judicata is an old axiom of law, predeceased Alejandra in 1924) and
dictated by wisdom and sanctified by age, and founded on the broad principle Victor Miralles.

that it is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to litigation by
the same parties over a subject once fully and fairly adjudicated.—

49
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Res judicata means a matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or A case was filed by the petitioners for
decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. The doctrine of res judicata is the recovery of ownership and
an old axiom of law, dictated by wisdom and sanctified by age, and founded possession of real property with
on the broad principle that it is to the interest of the public that there should be damages against the respondents.
an end to litigation by the same parties over a subject once fully and fairly The former alleged that petitioner
adjudicated. It has been appropriately said that the doctrine is a rule pervading Rosario SespeñeTumbokon
every well-regulated system of jurisprudence, and is put upon two grounds purchased the land in question from
embodied in various maxims of the common law: the one, public policy and Cresenciana Inog. Cresenciana Inog,
necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an in turn, acquired the land by purchase
end to litigation—reipublicae ut sit finis litium; the other, the hardship on the from Victor Miralles, son-in-law of
individual that he should be vexed twice for one and the same cause—nemo decedent Alejandra, who had
debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa. A contrary doctrine will subject the represented that he inherited the land
public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer the from his mother-in-law. The RTC
gratification of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation rendered a decision in favor of the
of the public tranquillity and happiness.
petitioners, holding that the spouses
Same; Same; Requisites; The doctrine of res judicata has two aspects—the were able to establish the purchase of
first, known as bar by prior judgment, or estoppel by verdict, and the second, the land. The Court of Appeals
known as conclusiveness of judgment, also known as the rule of auter action reversed the decision of the RTC and
pendant.—For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the dismissed the complaint.
following requisites must concur: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it
must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be
between the first and second actions (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of the
subject matter, and (c) identity of cause of action. The doctrine of res judicata
has two aspects: the first, known as bar by prior judgment, or estoppel by
verdict, is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second
action upon the same claim, demand, or cause of action; the second, known
as conclusiveness of judgment, also known as the rule of auter action pendant,
ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again
be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different
cause of action and has the effect of preclusion of issues only.

50
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS ISSUE HELD RATIO
Same; Same; Bar by prior judgment is not applicable where the causes of
action in the civil and the criminal actions were different and distinct from each
other—the civil action was for the recovery of ownership of the land filed by the
petitioners, while the criminal action was to determine whether the act of the
respondents of taking the coconut fruits from the trees growing within the
disputed land constituted the crime of qualified theft.—First of all, bar by prior
judgment, the first aspect of the doctrine, is not applicable, because the
causes of action in the civil and the criminal actions were different and distinct
from each other. The civil action is for the recovery of ownership of the land
filed by the petitioners, while the criminal action was to determine whether the
act of the respondents of taking the coconut fruits from the trees growing
within the disputed land constituted the crime of qualified theft. In the former,
the main issue is the legal ownership of the land, but in the latter, the legal
ownership of the land was not the main issue. The issue of guilt or innocence
was not dependent on the ownership of the land, inasmuch as a person could
be guilty of theft of the growing fruits even if he were the owner of the land.

Same; Same; The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment is subject to

exceptions, such as where there is a change in the applicable legal context, or
to avoid inequitable administration of justice.—The doctrine of conclusiveness
of judgment is subject to exceptions, such as where there is a change in the
applicable legal context, or to avoid inequitable administration of justice.
Applying the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgments to this case will surely be
iniquitous to the respondents who have rightly relied on the civil case, not on
the criminal case, to settle the issue of ownership of the land. This action for
recovery of ownership was brought precisely to settle the issue of ownership of
the property. In contrast, the pronouncement on ownership of the land made in
the criminal case was only the response to the respondents having raised the
ownership as a matter of defense.

51