In re: Will and Testament of the deceased REVEREND SANCHO ABADIA.ACTS: On September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia, parish priest of Talisay, Cebu, eecuted a document purportin! to be his "ast #ill andTestament$ The parish priest %as a resident of the City of Cebu, and he died on &anuary 1', 19'3, in the municipality of Alo!uinsan, Cebu, %herehe %as an e(acuee$ )e left properties estimated at *+,,,, in (alue$ On October 2, 19'6, Andres -nri.ue/, one of the le!atees filed a petition forits probate in the Court of First 0nstance of Cebu$ Some cousins and nephe%s %ho %ould inherit the estate of the deceased if he left no %ill, filedopposition$ The learned trial court found and declared the purported "ast #ill and Testament of the parish priest to be a holo!raphic %ill1 that it %as in thehand%ritin! of the testator and that althou!h at the time it %as eecuted and at the time of the testator2s death, holo!raphic %ills %ere notpermitted by la% still, because at the time of the hearin! and %hen the case %as to be decided, the ne% Ci(il Code %as already in force, %hichCode permitted the eecution of holo!raphic %ills, under a liberal (ie%, and to carry out the intention of the testator %hich accordin! to the trialcourt is the controllin! factor and may o(erride any defect in form, said trial court by order dated &anuary 2', 1932, admitted to probate such "ast#ill and Testament of Father Sancho Abadia$ The oppositors are appealin! from that decision$ ISS!E: #hether or not the holo!raphic %ill should be allo%ed despite the fact that %hen it %as eecuted the ci(il code proscribes the eecution of such %ills$R!"IN#: The Supreme Court held that despite the effecti(ity of the ne% Ci(il Code allo%in! the eecution of holo!raphic %ills, the contested holo!raphic %ill still cannot be allo%ed and admitted to probate$ Article 493 of the ne% Ci(il Code epressly pro(ides5 6The (alidity of a %ill as to its form depends upon the obser(ance of the la% in force at the time it is made$6 The abo(e pro(ision is but an epression or statement of the %ei!ht of authority to the affect that the (alidity of a %ill is to be 7ud!ed not by the la% enforce at the time of the testator2s death or at the time thesupposed %ill is presented in court for probate or %hen the petition is decided by the court but at the time the instrument %as eecuted$ 0n the caseat bar, since at the time that the testator eecuted the instrument, holo!raphic %ills %ere not yet permitted, the same %ill is considered as in(alid for failure to obser(e the re.uirements of the la% at the time it %as eecuted$l$emer %s.Hi& acts: The petitioner, Fluemer is a special administrator of the estate of -d%ard )i$ )e alle!ed that the latter8s %ill %as eecuted in -l9ins, #est :ir!inia on ;o(ember 3, 1923 by )i %ho had his residence in that 7urisdiction, and that the la%s of that state !o(ern$ To this end, the petitioner submitted a copy of Section 3+6+ of Acts 1++2, c$+' as found in #est :ir!inia Code, annotated by )o!!, Charles -$, (ol$2 191', p$ 169, and as certified to by the ni(ersity of Sto$ Tomas, Aanila,*hilippines$ Sprin!?iberson, le!itimatesonof #illiam@$ ?iberson, presentedanoppositionalle!in!that the%ill is apocryphaB withquestionable authenticity), it does not represent the true %ill of the late ?iberson, and has not been !ranted accordin! to the la%$ On &uly 1, 19'9,the opponent filed a motion to dismiss the re.uest, claimin! that, before a %ill made in another country be le!ali/ed in the *hilippines, it must besho%n that the %ill had been probated in that country accordin! to Article 1 of @ule 4+$ The re.uest does not alle!e that the %ill had already beenle!ali/ed in California$ On &une 2,, 193, the &ud!e dismissed the re.uest, statin!5 6$$$ under our eistin! rules, only %ills that ha(e pre(iouslybeen *@O:-< and allo%ed in the >nited States, or any state or territory thereof, or any forei!n country, accordin! to the la%s of Such state,territory, or country, may be allo%ed, filed or recorded in the proper Court of First 0nstance in the *hilippines$$$$6 A!ainst this order the applicantappeals$ The opposition, in support of his theory, maintains that Article 633 of the Ci(il *rocedure Code %as repealed by @ule 4+, under Section13, Article :000 of the Constitution$ Iss$e: #hether %ills made out of the *hilippines may be le!ali/ed in the *hilippines despite the fact that there %as no sho%in! that the %ill %asprobated in the place of its eecution$ Held:=-S$ Section 1 of @ule 4+ cannot pre(ent le!ali/ation in the *hilippines of a %ill made in a forei!n country, if it can be certified, inaccordance %ith the la%s of that country$Section 1 of @ule 4+ is not more than a transplantation of Article 634 of the Ci(il *rocedure Code$ Thet%o pro(isions read5 @>"-4+, CS-CT0O;1$WillsprovedoutsidePhilippinesmaybeallowedhere$ C#illspro(edandallo%ed in a forei!n country, accordin! to the la%s of such country, may be allo%ed, filed, and recorded by theproper Court of First 0nstance in the *hilippines$ S-C$634$Willsprovedoutsideislandsmaybeallowedhere$C #illspro(edandallo%edintheUnitedStates, or any State or Territory thereof, or in a forei!n state or country, accordin! to the la%s of such State,Territory, or country, may be allo%ed, filed, and recorded in the Court of First 0nstance of the province inwhich the testator has real or personal estate on which such will may operate$ The Supreme Court held that Section 633 of the Code of Ci(il *rocedure %hich pro(ides that Da %ill made out of the *hilippine 0slands %hichmi!ht be pro(ed and allo%ed by the la%s of the state or country in %hich it %as made, may be pro(ed, allo%ed, and recorded in the *hilippine0slands, and shall ha(e the same effect as if eecuted accordin! to the la%s of these 0slandsE,is still in force and has not been abro!ated by @ule4+ of the @ules of Court$ 0n reasonin! out its decision the Court opined that the pro(ision of Section 633 of the Code of Ci(il *rocedure issubstanti(e in nature for it creates ri!hts for the beneficiaries of the %ill and therefore could not ha(e been repealed by the @ules of Court for said@ules repealed only those pro(isions of the Code of Ci(il *rocedure %hich are procedural in nature$ Dela Cerna %s (ototacts: Spouses Fernabe dela Cerna and ?er(asia @ebaca eecuted a 7oint %ill and testament, declarin! that their t%o parcels of land ac.uireddurin! their marria!e includin! impro(ements %ill be !i(en to Aanuela @ebaca *otot Bbeing married to Nicolas Potot), their niece %hich theynurtured since childhood$ >pon Fernabe8s death, the %ill %as probated and no appeal %as made, hence it attains finality$ >pon ?er(asia8s deathafter, another petition for the probate of the same %ill presented insofar as ?er(asia is concerned$ *etitioner opposes the probate on the !roundthat the %ill %as (oid for bein! a 7oint %ill$ Iss$e:)*+ #hether or not the .uestioned %ill, bein! a 7oint %ill, can be !i(en due course$ ),+ #hether or not the testamentary heirs of ?er(asia ha(e ri!hts o(er the .uestioned %ill e(en if the %ill is 7oint$ Held: )*+ -es. ;ot%ithstandin!, bein! a 7oint %ill, the first probate attained finality already$ The final decree of probate, entered in 1939 by theCF0 of Cebu has conclusi(e effect as to his last %ill and testament despite the fact that e(en then the Ci(il Code decreed the in(alidity of 7oint%ills, %hether in fa(or of the 7oint testators, reciprocally, or in fa(or of a third party$ final !udgment rendered on a petition for the probate of awill is binding upon the whole world" and public policy and sound practice demand that at the ris# of occasional errors !udgment of courtsshould become final at some definite date fi$ed by law% (,+ No.The probate decree in 19+9 could only affect the share of the deceased husband, Fernabe$ 0t could not include the disposition of theshareof the%ife, ?er(asia, %ho%asthenstill ali(e, ando(er %hoseinterest inthecon7u!al propertiestheprobatecourt ac.uired;O7urisdiction, precisely because her estate could not then be in issue$ Fe it remembered that prior to the ne% Ci(il Code, a %ill could not beprobated durin! the testator8s lifetime or A;T-A AO@T-A$ It follo.s that the $ndi%ided interest of #er%asia is not affected '/ s$ch 0riorfinal 0ro'ate1 hershare shall 0ass $0on her death to her intestate heirs2 and not e&cl$si%el/ to the res0ondent astestamentar/ heir2$nless some other %alid .ill in her fa%or is sho.n to e&ist2 or $nless res0ondent sho$ld 'e the onl/ intestate heir. Hence2 it follo.s thatthe %alidit/ of the 3oint .ill of Berna'e4#er%asia2 in so far as the estate of #er%asia2 is not %alid2 as 3oint .ill is one 0rohi'ited '/ the la..Estate of Rodri5$e6 acts5 Se(eral relati(es of the deceased Fernabe @odri!ue/ opposed the filin! of petition for the probate of Fernabe8s %ill, by his spouse Aartina$ Amon! the !rounds of opposition are5 B1G that the %ill eecuted %as creatin! a reciprocal benefit as that of the %ill of Aartina, such %illbein! prohibited by the Ci(il Code1 and B2G that the testator %as under pressure and influence eerted by Aartina$ Iss$e: #hether or not the %ill of Fernabe be (oid under Article +1+ for the reason that in his %ill, the %ife %as instituted as his uni(ersal heir, %hile in the %ife8s %ill, her husband %as also declared as her uni(ersal heir, !i(in! them some reciprocal benefits in the said t%o %ills$ Held: NO. The %ill may be probated$ Althou!h the t%o testators, %ho %ere husband and %ife, instructed the other as uni(ersal heir in their respecti(e %ills, said %ills are not con7oint because they are made in different instruments$ )ence, they are (alid$ Estate of Christensenacts5 -d%ard Christensen, thou!h born in ;e% =or9, mi!rated to California %here he resided$ 0n 1913, he came to the *hilippines %here hebecame a domiciliary until the time of his death$ 0n his %ill, he ac9no%led!ed Aaria "ucy Christensen as his only heir but left a le!acy of sum ofmoney to Aaria )elen Christensen$ )elen is .uestionin! the %ill because she should be recei(in! more from the estate of -d%ard because theCalifornia la% is clear that the matter is referred bac9 to the la% of the domicile and therefore *hilippine "a% is ultimately applicable and thatfinally, the share of )elen must be increased in (ie% of the successional ri!hts of ille!itimate children under the *hilippine la%$ )o%e(er, "ucycontends that the national la% of the deceased must apply hence )elen is not compulsory heir and so -d%ard could dispose off any property$ Iss$e: #hether or not )elen is entitled to le!itime and not merely to the le!acy of a sum of money applyin! the *hilippine la% as the domiciliaryof the deceased at the time of his death$

Held: -es2 )elen is entitled to the le!itime$ The California la% has t%o rules on the matter$ The internal la% %hich should apply to Californiansdomiciled in Californiaandthe conflicts rule %hich should apply to Californians domiciledoutside ofCalifornia$-d%ardbein! domiciledoutside California Bin the Philippines) follo%s that the la% of his domicile, %hich is the *hilippines$ )ence, the *hilippine la% must be applied$The (alidity of the pro(isions of his %ill depri(in! his ac9no%led!e natural child, )elen, should be !o(erned by the *hilippine la%, the domicile,pursuant to Article 9'6 of the Ci(il Code of California Bif there is no law to the contrary, in the place where personal property is situated, it isdeemed to follow the person of its owner, and is governed by the law of his domicile), not by the internal la% of California$ )ence, the case %astherefore remanded to the lo%er court for further proceedin!s in order to determine the successional ri!hts of )elen under the clear pro(isions of*hilippine la% accordin!ly$ Estate of Amos Bellisacts5 Amos ?$ Fellis, %as a citi/en of the State of Teas and of the >nited States$ Fy his first %ife, %hom he di(orced, he had fi(e le!itimatechildren$ Fy his second %ife, %ho sur(i(ed him, he had three le!itimate children$ Then, finally, he had three ille!itimate children$ On Au!ust 3,1932, Amos ?$ Fellis eecuted a %ill in the *hilippines, in %hich he directed that after all taes, obli!ations, and epenses of administration arepaid for, his distributable estate should be di(ided, in trust, in the follo%in! order and manner5 BaG H2',,,,,$,, to his first %ife, Aary -$ Aallen1BbG *12,,,,,$,, to his three ille!itimate children or *',,,,,$,, each and BcG after the fore!oin! t%o items ha(e been satisfied, the remaindershall !o to his se(en sur(i(in! children by his first and second %i(es in e.ual shares$ Subse.uently, or on &uly +, 193+, Amos ?$ Fellis died aresident of San Antonio, Teas, >$S$A$ )is %ill %as admitted to probate in the Court of First 0nstance of Aanila on September 13, 193+$ The*eople2s Fan9 and Trust Company, as eecutor of the %ill, paid all the be.uests therein$ On &anuary +, 196', the eecutor submitted and filed its6-ecutor2s Final Account,@eportof Administration and *ro7ectof*artition6%hereinitreportedthe satisfaction of thele!acyof Aary-$Aallen, the le!acies of the three B3G ille!itimate children, and finally, pursuant to the 6T%elfth6 clause of the testator2s "ast #ill and Testament,di(ided the residuary estate into se(en e.ual portions for the benefit of the testator2s se(en le!itimate children by his first and second marria!es$On &anuary 14, 196', t%o of the three ille!itimate children, Aaria Cristina Fellis and Airiam *alma Fellis, filed their respecti(e oppositions tothe pro7ect of partition on the !round that they %ere depri(ed of their le!itimes as ille!itimate children and, therefore, compulsory heirs of thedeceased$ After the parties filed their respecti(e memoranda and other pertinent pleadin!s, the lo%er court, on April 3,, 196', issued an ordero(errulin! the oppositions and appro(in! the eecutor2s final account, report and administration and pro7ect of partition$ @elyin! upon Art$ 16 ofthe Ci(il Code, it applied the national la% of the decedent, %hich in this case is Teas la%, %hich did not pro(ide for le!itimes$ Their respecti(emotions for reconsideration ha(in! been denied by the lo%er court on &une 11, 196', oppositorsIappellants appealed to this Court to raise theissue of %hich la% must apply C Teas la% or *hilippine la%$ Iss$e: #hether the Teas "a% should !o(ern the successional ri!hts of the ille!itimate children and eecution of the %ill of the testatorJ Held: =es, the Teas "a% should !o(ern the eecution of the %ill and the successional ri!hts of the ille!itimate children$ As stated in Article 16,par$ 2, and Art$ 1,39 of the Ci(il Code, it renders applicable the national la% of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, %ith re!ardto four items5 BaG the order of succession1 BbG the amount of successional ri!hts1 BeG the intrinsic (alidity of the pro(isions of the %ill1 and BdG thecapacity to succeed$ 0n addition to this, Appellants %ould also point out that the decedent eecuted t%o %ills C one to !o(ern his Teas estate and the other his*hilippine estate C ar!uin! from this that he intended *hilippine la% to !o(ern his *hilippine estate and assumin! that such %as the decedent2sintention in eecutin! a separate *hilippine %ill, it %ould not alter the la%, for as this Court ruled in Aiciano ($ Frimo, 3, *hil$ +64, +4,, apro(ision in a forei!ner2s %ill to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance %ith *hilippine la% and not %ith his national la%,is ille!al and (oid, for his national la% cannot be i!nored in re!ard to those matters that Article 1, C no% Article 16 C of the Ci(il Code statessaid national la% should !o(ern$ "astly, the parties admit that the decedent, Amos ?$ Fellis, %as a citi/en of the State of Teas, >$S$A$, and that under the la%s of Teas,there areno forced heirs or le!itimes$ Accordin!ly, since the intrinsic (alidity of the pro(ision of the %ill and the amount of successional ri!hts are to bedetermined under Teas la%, the *hilippine la% on le!itimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos ?$ Fellis$ Ca/etano %s "eonidesacts: On &anuary 31, 1944, Adoracion C$ Campos died, lea(in! her father )ermo!enes Campos and her sisters, ;enita C$ *a!uia, @emedios C$ "ope/ and Aarieta C$ Aedina as the sur(i(in! heirs$ As )ermo!enes Campos %as the only compulsory heir, he eecuted an Affida(it of Ad7udication under @ule 4', Section 0 of the @ules of Court %hereby he ad7udicated unto himself the o%nership of the entire estate of the deceased Adoracion Campos$ )o%e(er, on ;o(ember 23, 1944, ;enita C$ *a!uia filed a petition for the reprobate of a %ill of the deceased, Adoracion Campos, %hich %as alle!edly eecuted in the >nited States and for her appointment as administratri of the estate of the deceased testatri$ The last %ill and testament of the late Adoracion C$ Campos is hereby admitted and allo%ed probate in the *hilippines, and ;enita Campos *a!uia appointed Administratri$ #hen )ermo!enes Campos died, he left a %ill %hich %as incidentally .uestioned by the respondent, his children and forced heirs, on its face, patently null and (oid,appointin! (oll/ Ca/etano2 as the eecutri of his last %ill and testament$ Cayetano persisted %ith the alle!ations that the respondent 7ud!e acted %ithout or in ecess of 7urisdiction statin! that, the ri!ht of a forced heir to his le!itime can be di(ested by a decree admittin! a %ill to probate in %hich no pro(ision is made for the forced heir in complete disre!ard of the "a% of Succession$ Iss$e: #hether or not the *hilippine la% %ill apply to determine the intrinsic (alidity of a %ill eecuted by an undisputed forei!ner$ R$lin5:NO. Althou!h on its face, the %ill appeared to ha(e preterited the petitioner and thus, the respondent 7ud!e should ha(e denied its reprobate outri!ht, the pri(ate respondents ha(e sufficiently established that Adoracion %as, at the time of her death, an American citi/en and a permanent resident of *hiladelphia, *ennsyl(ania, >$S$A$ Therefore, under Article 16 par$ B2G and 1,39 of the Ci(il Code %hich respecti(ely pro(ide that D)o%e(er, intestate and testamentary successions, both %ith respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional ri!hts and to the intrinsic (alidity of testamentary pro(isions, shall be re!ulated by the national la% of the person %hose succession is under consideration, %hate(er may be the nature of the property and re!ardless of the country %herein said property may be found$EArt$ 1,39$ Of the present Ci(il Code pro(ides that DCapacity to succeed is !o(erned by the la% of the nation of the decedent$DTherefore the la% %hich !o(erns Adoracion Campo2s %ill is the la% of *ennsyl(ania, >$S$A$, %hich is the national la% of the decedent$ Althou!h the parties admit that the *ennsyl(ania la% does not pro(ide for le!itimes and that all the estate may be !i(en a%ay by the testatri to a complete stran!er, the petitioner ar!ues that such la% should not apply because it %ould be contrary to the sound and established public policy and %ould run counter to the specific pro(isions of *hilippine "a%$ 0t is a settled rule that as re!ards the intrinsic (alidity of the pro(isions of the %ill, as pro(ided for by Article 16B2G and 1,39 of the Ci(il Code, the national la% of the decedent must apply$ This %as s.uarely applied in the case of &ellis v% &ellis B2, SC@A 33+G %herein %e ruled5 D0t is therefore e(ident that %hate(er public policy or !ood customs may be in(ol(ed in our system of le!itimes, Con!ress has not intended to etend the same to the succession of forei!n nationals$ For it has specifically chosen to lea(e, inter alia, the amount of successional ri!hts, to the decedent2s national la%$ Specific pro(isions must pre(ail o(er !eneral ones$E (ARISH (RIEST O VICTORIA VS RI#ORacts:Father @i!or,the parish priest of*ulilan,Fulacan, diedon Au!ust9,1933, lea(in! a %illnamin!as de(iseesthetestator8s nearestrelati(es, %ho are his three sisters$ The %ill also contained a contro(ersial be.uest to be !i(en tothe nearest male relati%e %ho shall pursue anecclesiastical career until his ordination as priest, should not cease his studies for the priesthood, should be obli!ated to celebrate e(ery year 2,masses %ith prayers for the repose of the souls of Father @i!or and his parents, that if should not be ecommunicated$ That the administration ofthe @iceland %ould pass to the incumbent *arish priest of :ictoria and his successors in the e(ent that5 B1G the de(isee is ecommunicated frompriesthood1 and B2G durin! the inter(al of time that there is no .ualified de(isee as contemplated abo(e$ 0nasmuch as no nephe% of the testatorclaimed the de(ise and as the administratri and the le!al heirs belie(ed that the parish priest of :ictoria had no ri!ht to administer the ricelands,the same %ere not deli(ered to that ecclesiastic$ The testate proceedin! remained pendin!$ About thirteen years after the appro(al of the pro7ect of partition, or on February 19, 193', the parish priest of :ictoria filed in the pendin! testateproceedin! a petition prayin! for the appointment of a ne% administrator, %ho should deli(er to the church the said ricelands on the !round thatthe testator had a !randnephe% named -d!ardo ?$ Cunanan Bthe !randson of his first cousinG %ho %as a seminarian in the San &ose Seminary ofthe &esuit Fathers in Kue/on City$ The administrator %as directed to deli(er the ricelands to the parish priest of :ictoria as trustee$ )o%e(er, theCourt of Appeals re(ersed that order$ 0t held that Father @i!or had created a testamentary trust for his nearest male relati(e %ho %ould ta9e theholyordersbut that suchtrust couldeist onlyfort%entyyearsbecausetoenforceit beyondthat period%ould(iolate6therulea!ainstperpetuities$ 0t ruled that since no le!atee claimed the ricelands %ithin t%enty years after the testator2s death, the same should pass to his le!alheirs, citin! articles +++ and 912B2G of the old Ci(il Code and article +4, of the ne% Ci(il Code$ The *arish priest appealed$ Iss$es: 1$ #hether or not the testator8s nearest male relati(e %ho too9 the priesthood after the testator8s death falls %ithin the intention of the testator inpro(idin! to %hom the be.uest is to be !i(en, to be administered by the *arish *riest in the interim$ 2$ To %hom shall the ricelands be distributedJ Held: 1$ ;O$ The Court held that the said be.uest refers to the testator2s nearest male relati(eliving at the time of his death and not to any indefinitetime thereafter$ 60n order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, de(isee or le!atee must be li(in! at the moment the succession opens, ecept incase of representation, %hen it is proper6 BArt$ 1,23, Ci(il CodeG$ 0nasmuch as the testator %as not sur(i(ed by any nephe% %ho became a priest, the una(oidable conclusion is that the be.uest in .uestion %as ineffectual or inoperati(e$ Therefore, the administration of the ricelands by the parish priest of :ictoria, as en(isa!ed in the %ill %as li9e%ise inoperati(e$ 2$ There bein! no substitution nor accretion as to the said ricelands, the same should be distributed amon! the testator2s le!al heirs$ The effect isas if the testator had made no disposition as to the said ricelands$The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that this case is co(ered by article +++ of the old Ci(il Code, no% article 936, %hich pro(ides that if 6thebe.uest for any reason should be inoperati(e, it shall be mer!ed into the estate, ecept in cases of substitution and those in %hich the ri!ht ofaccretion eistsThis case is also co(ered by article 912B2G of the old Ci(il Code, no% article 96, B2G, %hich pro(ides that le!al succession ta9es place %hen the%ill 6does not dispose of all that belon!s to the testator$6Re/es %s. Co$rt of A00eals acts: *rior to his death, Fenedicto delos @eyes, he alienated some of his properties to the heirs of his eecutor by %ay of sale$ The said sale %ascontested by the heirs of the decedent, contendin! therein that said properties cannot 'e le5all/ dis0osed '/ the decedent 'eca$se it forms0art of his estate to 'e inherited '/ 0etitioners, the decedent heirs$ Foth the trial court upheld the (alidity of the sale bet%een decedent and theheirs of the eecutor ha(in! said that the sold properties %ere sold before the death of the decedent and can no lon!er be part of the inheritance,hence, this case$ Iss$e: #hether or not the petitioners as heirs of the decedent may (alidly claim the o%nership of the properties in .uestion, not%ithstandin! thefact that those properties %ere bein! alienated prior to the decedent8s death$ Held: ?enerally, the heirs cannot (alidly claim o%nership o(er the properties in .uestion if alienated prior to the decedent8s death$ )o%e(er ifpro(en that said alienation %as done fraudulently, they can be alienated$The Court held that as a rule under the la% on succession, heirs can onlyclaim o%nership of the properties of their deceased father from the moment of his death$ As heirs, they only ha(e their ri!hts from the moment ofdeath of their father$ )ence, the alienation %as done before the decedent8s death, as a !eneral rule they ha(e no interest o(er those alienatedproperties$ Ho.e%er2 the r$le .as not a'sol$te1 e&ce0tion to this r$le is .hen s$chalienation .as done fra$d$lentl/ for the 0$r0ose ofde0ri%in5 the heirs of their res0ecti%e le5itimes. )ence, in this case, if the alienation is pro(ed to be fraudulent, to depri(e petitioners of theirle!itimes, then they can reco(er and claim o%nership o(er such properties, alienation is (oid$"eon #$into %s. Santia5o 7edina acts5 "eon ?uinto filed an action for forcible entry a!ainst Santia!o Aedina alle!in! that he has been in possession of the said parcel of land since 193' and that Aedina by means of force and intimidation depri(ed him of his possession thereof$ The trial court ruled in fa(or of ?uinto$ )o%e(er, ?uinto still appealed because the trial court dismissed his claim for dama!es$ #hile the case %as on appeal, Aedina died$ Aedina %as substituted by his heirs$ Iss$e5 #hether or not the heirs of Aedina are liable for dama!es to ?uinto in ecess of the inheritance they recei(ed Held5 ;o$ The heirs of Aedina, ha(in! been merely substituted in his place at the time of his death, their liability for dama!es is only to the etent of the (alue of the property they mi!ht ha(e recei(ed, if any, from him$ !SON %s DE" ROSARIOacts5 Aaria >son %as the la%ful %ife of Faustino ;ebreda %ho has common la% %ife, Aaria del @osario %here he has four ille!itimate children$ 0t is the claim of >son that she %as depri(ed of the possession and o%nership of the fi(e parcels of land because Aaria del @osario ille!ally too9 possession thereof$ The lo%er court rendered a decision orderin! del @osario to restore >son the o%nership and possession of the lands in dispute$ The defendants appealed the said decision on the !round that >son had already relin.uished her ri!ht o(er the land in .uestion because she had epressly renounced to inherit any future property from her husband %hen both Aaria >son and her husband eecuted a public document %hereby they a!reed to separate as husband and %ife and in consideration of their separation, Aaria >son %as !i(en a parcel of land by %ay of alimony and in return she reno$nced her ri5ht to inherit an/ other 0ro0ert/ that her h$s'and ma/ left $0on his death$ 0t %as alle!ed that Faustino ;ebreda died in 19'3 %hich %as prior to the effecti(ity of the ;e% Ci(il Code$ )o%e(er, Aaria del @osario claimed that under the ;e% Ci(il Code, the ille!itimate children are entitled to le!itime$

Iss$e5 #hether or not the ille!itimate children of the decedent are !i(en successional ri!hts ar!uin! that since these successional ri!hts %ere declared for the first time in the ;e% Code, they shall be !i(en retroacti(e effect e(en thou!h the e(ent %hich !a(e rise to them may ha(e occurred under the prior le!islation$

Held$ ;o$ The four ille!itimate children of Faustino ;ebreda are not entitled to ha(e a share on the fi(e parcels of land in .uestion because at thetime of Faustino8s death the only heir is his %ido% Aaria >son$ The (ested ri!hts %hich %ere passed to her at the moment of death of Faustino in 19'3 are !o(erned by the pro(ision of the old ci(il code$ The ;e% Ci(il Code %ill only be !i(en effect if no (ested ri!hts %ill be pre7udiced$ )o%e(er, the ri!hts of the ille!itimate children cannot be asserted as it %ould impair the (ested ri!ht of Aaria >son o(er the lands in dispute$ Aoreo(er, future inheritance cannot be renounced$De Bor3a %s De Bor3aacts: Francisco de For7a, upon the death of his %ife &osefa Tan!co on 6 October 19',, filed a petition for the probate of her %ill$ The %ill %asprobated on 2 April 19'1$ 0n 19'6, Francisco de For7a %as appointed eecutor and administrator$ 0n 1932, their son, &ose de For7a, %as appointedcoIadministrator$ #henFranciscodied, &osebecamethesoleadministratorofthetestateestateofhismother$#hilea%ido%er,Franciscoalle!edly too9 unto himself a second %ife, Tasiana On!sin!co$ >pon Francisco2s death, Tasiana instituted testate proceedin!s in the Court of First0nstance of ;ue(a -ci7a, %here, in 1933, she %as appointed special administratri$ In order to 0$t an end to all liti5ations and altercations astotheestate2 acom0romisea5reement .as enteredintoon*,Octo'er*89:2 '/and'et.een;osedeBor3a0ersonall/andasadministrator of the Testate Estate of ;osefa Tan5co2 and Tasiana On5sin5co Vda. de Bor3a as heir and s$r%i%in5s0o$se of rancisco2assisted '/ her la./er2 Att/. "$is (ana5$iton ;r. On 16 Aay 1966, &ose de For7a submitted for Court appro(al the a!reement of 12 October 1963 to the Court of First 0nstance of @i/al, in Special*roceedin! ;o$ @I4+661 and a!ain, on + Au!ust 1966, to the Court of First 0nstance of ;ue(a -ci7a, in Special *roceedin! ;o$ +32$ Tasianaopposed in both instances$ The @i/al court appro(ed the compromise a!reement, but the ;ue(a -ci7a court declared it (oid and unenforceable$Tasiana appealed the @i/al Court2s order of appro(al, %hile administrator &ose de For7a appealed the order of disappro(al by the Court of First0nstanceof ;ue(a-ci7a$ )o%e(er, thecompromisea!reement %ascontestedbyTasianabyreasonthat theheirscannot enter intosucha!reement %ithout first probatin! the %ill of Francisco$ Iss$e: #hether the heirs can enter into a compromise a!reement %ithout first probatin! the %ill of Francisco de For7a$ Held:=es, the parties herein can enter into a compromise a!reement %ithout pronatin! the %ill$ Fased on the said a!reement, there .as noattem0t to settle or distri'$te the estate of rancisco de Bor3a amon5 the heirs thereto 'efore the 0ro'ate of his .ill. The clear o'3ect ofthe contract .as merel/ the con%e/ance '/ Tasiana On5sin5co of an/ and all her indi%id$al share and interest2 act$al or e%ent$al in theestate of rancisco de Bor3a and ;osefa Tan5co. There is no sti0$lation as to an/ other claimant2 creditor or le5atee. And as a hereditaryshare in a decedent2s estate is transmitted or (ested immediately from the moment of the death of such causante or predecessor in interest BCi(ilCode of the *hilippines, Art$ 444G there is no le!al bar to a successor B%ith re.uisite contractin! capacityG disposin! of her or his hereditary shareimmediately after such death, e(en if the actual etent of such share is not determined until the subse.uent li.uidation of the estate$ Of course,the effect of such alienation is to be deemed limited to %hat is ultimately ad7udicated to the (endor heir$ )o%e(er, the aleatory character of thecontract does not affect the (alidity of the transaction1 neither does the coetaneous a!reement that the numerous liti!ations bet%een the partiesare to be considered settled and should be dismissed, althou!h such stipulation, as noted by the @i/al Court, !i(es the contract the character of acompromise that the la% fa(ors, for ob(ious reasons, if only because it ser(es to a(oid a multiplicity of suits$ 0t is li9e%ise %orthy of note in this connection that as the sur(i(in! spouse of Francisco de For7a, Tasiana On!sin!co %as his compulsory heirunder article 993 et se.$ of the present Ci(il Code$ #herefore, barrin! un%orthiness or (alid disinheritance, her successional interest eistedindependent of Francisco de For7a2s last %ill and testament and %ould eist e(en if such %ill %ere not probated at all$Th$s2 the 0rere