ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

DE MANILA

SUCCESSION1 ATTY. TERESA VILLANUEVA-TIANSAY

1ST SEMESTER, SY 2019-2020

I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Definition of the “Succession” (ARTS. 774-776)
“Succession” is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations
to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to
another or others either by his will or by operation of law. (n) (Art. 774)
“Inheritance” includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not
extinguished by his death. (Art. 776)
1. Special Rules Regarding Pecuniary Obligation or Money Debts by virtue of the
Revised Rules of Court (Rule 90, Sec. 1, Revised Rules of Court)
 Pecuniary obligations are paid for first (hence, technically not transmitted through
inheritance) before heirs receive (what remains of) their inheritance. Union Bank v.
Santibañez, 452 SCRA 228 (2005).2
 Other types of obligation (not purely personal) follow the rule laid down in Art. 144.
Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety, 100 Phil. 389 (1956); DKC Holdings
Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 329 SCRA 666 (2000)
B. Who is a “Decedent”? (Art. 775)
A “decedent” is the general term applied to the person whose property is transmitted through
succession, whether or not he left a will. If he left a will, he is called the “testator”.
C. Coverage of Inheritance (Arts. 776 & Art. 781) Balus v. Balus, G.R. No. 168970,15
January 2010
D. Vesting of Inheritance (Art. 777, read in relation to Art. 5333)
The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.
HENCE:
1. The law in force at the time of the decedent’s death will determine who the heirs should
beUson v. Del Rosario, 92 Phil. 530 (1953)
2. The capacity of the heir is determined at the time of the decedent’s death (Art.1034); the
legitime is to be computed as of the same moment (Art. 908), and so is the in
officiousness of the donation inter vivos (Art. 771). Similarly, the legacies of credit and
remission are valid only in the amount due and outstanding at the death of the testator

1
Unless indicated otherwise, all references to sections pertain to the Civil Code of the Philippines. In addition, the Outline is based largely on the book of
THE esteemed professor and THE expert on Succession, Professor Ruben F. Balane (2016 ed.).
2 Sheker v. Sheker, G.R. No. 157912, 13 December 2007.
3
“Art. 533. The possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption and from the moment of the
death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted. One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have
possessed the same.”

1
 (Art. 935), and the fruits accruing after that instant are deemed to pertain to the legatee
(Art. 948) Calalang-Parulan v. Calalang-Garcia, 725 SCRA 407 (2014)
3. Ownership passes to the heir at the very moment of death, therefore, from that moment:
(a) the heir acquires the right to dispose of his share. De Borja v. Vda. De Borja, 46
SCRA 577 (1972); Alfonso v. Andres, G.R. No. 166236, 29 July 2010; and
(b) the heir’s interest in the estate may be attached for purposes of execution of his
creditor Reganon v. Imperial, 22 SCRA 80 (1968)
4. The heirs have the right to be substituted for the deceased as party in an action that
survives. Bonilla v. Barcena, 71 SCRA 491 (1976)
E. Kinds of Succession (Art. 778-780)
1. Testamentary- it that which results from the designation of an heir, made in a will executed
in the form prescribed by law. (Art. 779)
2. Legal or Intestate – takes place by operation of law in the absence of a valid will (Prof.
Balane, p. 28, 2017)
3. Mixed- is that effected partly by will and partly by operation of law (Art. 780); combination
of any of the type of succession (Prof. Balane, p. 29, 2017 ed.)
4. Compulsary- succession to the legitime (as it may take place whether a will is present and
may exclude intestate succession) [from Prof. Balane, p. 28, 2017 ed.]
F. “Parties” to Succession (Art. 775 & 782)
1. Decedent (Art. 775)
2. Testator (Art. 775)
3. Heir (Art. 782)
4. Devisee (Art. 782)
5. Legatee (Art. 782)

II. TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION

A. Wills
1. Wills in General (Art. 783)
A “will is a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which a capacitated person
disposes of his property and rights and declares and complies with duties to take effect
after his death.” Vitug v. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 755 (1990) as affirmed in In re
Estate of Rodriquez, G.R. No. 230404, 31 January 2018
2. Rules of Construction and Interpretation (Arts. 788-794)
a. Article 788
b. Article 789 Parish Priest of the Roman Catholic Church of Victoria v. Rigor, 89
SCRA 493 (1979)
 Ambiguity as to what?
 Two Types of Ambiguity:
c. Article 790 (Rule 130, Secs. 10 and 14, Rules of Court; and Art. 1370)
d. Article 791 (Rule 130, Sec. 11, Rules of Court; and Arts. 1373 and 1374)
e. Article 792

2
 f. Article 793
g. Article 794 (read with Art. 929)
h. Validity of Wills In Re Will of Riosa, 39 Phil. 23 (1918) (extrinsic validity of will is
determined by the law in force when the will was executed); Bellis v. Bellis, 20 SCRA
358 (1967)
3. Characteristic of a Will
a. Purely Personal (Art. 784-787)
b. Free and intelligent (Art. 839)
c. Solemn and formal (Arts. 804-814; 820-821)
d. Revocable and ambulatory (Art. 828)
e. Mortis Causa (Art. 783)
f. Individual (Art. 818)
g. Executed with animus testandi (Art. 783)
h. Executed with testamentary capacity (Art. 796-803)
i. Unilateral (Art. 783)
j. Dispositive of property (Art. 783) Seangio v. Reyes, 508 SCRA 177 (2006)
Enriquez v. Abadia, 95 Phil. 627 (1954)
k. Statutory (783)

4. Testamentary Capacity and Intent (Arts. 796-803, Memorize Art. 799)

a. What is Testamentary Capacity?
b. Who has testamentary capacity?
c. Who is disqualified by law
i. Those under 18 (Art. 797)
ii. Those of unsound mind
 "Between the highest degree of soundness of mind and memory which
unquestionably carries with it full testamentary capacity, and that degrees of
mental aberration generally known as insanity or idiocy, there are numberless
degrees of mental capacity or incapacity and while on one hand it has been held
that mere weakness of mind, or partial imbecility from disease of body, or from
age, will not render a person incapable of making a will; a weak or feebleminded
person may make a valid will, provided he has understanding and memory
sufficient to enable him to know what he is about to do and how or to whom he is
disposing of his property. To constitute a sound and disposing mind, it is not
necessary that the mind be unbroken or unimpaired or unshattered by disease or
otherwise. It has been held that testamentary incapacity does not necessarily
require that a person shall actually be insane or of unsound mind."Ortega v.
Valmonte, 478 SCRA 247 (2005); Bugnao v. Ubag, 14 Phil. 163 (1909)

Who has a sound mind?

 He just needs to know that the document he is executing is one that disposes of
his property upon death.
 Mentally aberrant medically does not equate to testamentary incapacity. Galvez
v. Galvez, 26 Phil 243 (1913)

3
  Presumption of sanity (Art. 800, Rules 93 & 102, Rules of Court) Bagtas v.
Paguio, 22 Phil. 227 (1912); Baltazar v. Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, 11 April 2012
 When do you determine testamentary capacity? (Art. 801)
d. The sexist provisions. (Arts. 802 & 803)

5. Forms of Wills (Arts. 804-819)

a. Two Types of Wills
i. Holographic Will
ii. Attested Will
b. Common Requirement for all wills. (Art. 804)
i. In writing
ii. Language or dialect known to the testator. Suroza v. Honrado, 110 SCRA 388
(1981)
 Neither the will nor the attestation clause need to state compliance with the
requirement as (a) this can be proved by extrinsic evidence Lopez v. Libroro,
81 Phil. 429 (1948); Caponing-Noble v. Abaja, 450 SCRA 265 (2005); and (b) in
certain instances it is presumed that the testator knew the language in which the
will was written Abangan v. Abangan, 40 Phil. 476 (1919)
c. ATTESTED WILLS (MEMORIZE Art. 805)
i. Subscribed by the testator.
 Thumbprint as signature. Payad v. Tolentino, 62 Phil.1936;De Gala v.
Gonzales, 53 Phil 104 (1992); Dolar v. Diancin, 55 Phil. 479 (1930); Lopez v.
Liboro, 81 Phil. 429 (1948); Matias v. Salud, L-10751, 23 June 1958
 Cross as signature. Garcia v. Lacuesta, 90 Phil. 489 (1951)
ii. Signing through an agent of the testator
 Requisites Barut v. Cabacungan, 21 Phil. 461 (1912)
o Must sign in the testator’s presence; and
o By his express direction
o Notes on Barut: essential thing for validity is that the agent writes the testator’s
name.
 Agent as one of the witnesses