Wills Cases (Doctrines)

8/12/2019 Wills Cases (Doctrines)

1/48

1) MARIA USON, plaintif and appellee, vs.MARIA DEL ROSARIO, CONCEPCIONNEBREDA, CONRADO NEBREDA,DOMINADOR NEBREDA, and FAUSINONEBREDA, !R., de"endants and appellants.N#. L$%&'. !an(a* +%, 1%'

1. DESCEN AND DISRIBUION-USBAND AND /IFE- RI0S OFLA/FUL /IFE AS AFFECED B ENE/ CI2IL CODE.3The right ofownership of the lawful wife of a decedentwho had died before the new Civil Codetook eect became vested in her upon hisdeath, and this is so because of theimperative provision of the law whichcommands that the rights of successionare transmitted from the moment of death(Art. 65, old Civil Code! "lustre vs.#rondosa, $ %hil., &'$. The new rightrecogni)ed b* the new Civil Code in favorof the illegitimate children of the deceasedcannot be asserted to the impairment ofthe vested right of the lawful wife over thelands in dispute. +hile article ''5& of thenew Civil Code provides that rights whichare declared for the rst time shall haveretroactive eect even though the eventwhich gave rise to them ma* haveoccurred under the former legislation, *etthis is so onl* when the new rights do notpre-udice an* vested or acuired right ofthe same origin.

+. RENUNCIAION OF INERIANCEMADE B LA/FUL /IFE- FUURE

INERIANCE, NO SUB!EC OCONRAC.3Although the lawful wife hase/pressl* renounced her right to inheritan* future propert* that her husband ma*acuire and leave upon his death, suchrenunciation cannot be entertained for thesimple reason that future inheritancecannot be the sub-ect of a contract norcan it be renounced ($ 0anresa, 6th ed.,$'&! 1sorio vs. 1sorio, et al., 2$ %hil.,5&$.

'. DONAIONS B DECEASED- ESSENIAL

FORMALIIES OF DONAION. 3Assignments, if an*, made b* thedeceased of real propert* for which therewas no material consideration, should bemade in a public document and must beaccepted either in the same document orin a separate one (Art. 6&&, old CivilCode. Assignments or donations whichlack this essential formalit* have no valideect.

+) EDILBERO NOEL 4n#5 PINIO /MERCADO) as ADMINISRAOR OF EINESAE ESAE OF 0RE0ORIO NANAMANand ILARIA ABUCLIN, petiti#ne, vsCOUR OF APPEALS and !OSE C. DELESE,esp#ndents.0.R. N#. %6. !an(a* 11, 1%%

PINIO /. MERCADO, as SPECIALADMINISRAOR OF E INESAE ESAEOF 0RE0ORIO NANAMAN and ILARIAABUCLIN, petiti#ne, vs. ONORABLECOUR OF APPEALS and !OSE C. DELESE,esp#ndents.0.R. N#. &6&'&. !an(a* 11, 1%%.

1. S(77essi#n- Ri89ts t# in9eitan7e #" apes#n 59# died, 5it9 # 5it9#(t a5ill, :e"#e t9e efe7tivit* #" t9e CiviC#de 5ee 8#vened pi;ail* :* t9ep#visi#ns #" t9e Spanis9 Civil C#de#" 1


2/48

@urnaman, '2 ;C9A 2&2 $468B. Article448 of the Civil Code of the %hilippines,which gave an illegitimate child certainhereditar* rights, could not benet >irgiliobecause the right of ownership of thecollateral heirs of 3regorio had becomevested upon his death (Civil Code of the%hilippines, Art. ''5&! son v. el 9osario,4' %hil. 5& $45&B. Therefore, >irgiliohad no right at all to transfer ownershipover propert* which he did not own.

') EIRS OF I0NACIO CONI AND ROSARIOCUARIO, petiti#nes, vs. COUR OF APPEALSAND LDIA S. REES as Att#ne*inFa7t #"

!OSEFINA S. REES, BERNARDIA S. PALILIO,ERMINIA S. PALILIO, REMEDIOS A.SAMPAO, ILLUMINADA A. SAMPAO,ENRICO A. SAMPAO, CARLOS A. SAMPAO,0ENEROSO C. SAMPAO, MRNA C.SAMPAO, ROSALINO C. SAMPAO, MANUELC. SAMPAO, DELIA A. SAMPAO, CORA?ONC. SAMPAO, NILO C. SAMPAO, and LOLIAA. SAMPAO in 9e #5n :e9al" and asAtt#ne*inFa7t #" NORMA A. SAMPAO,esp#ndents.

$. A7ti#ns- Patiti#n- S(77essi#n-Settle;ent #" Estates- A pi#settle;ent #" t9e estate is n#tessential :e"#e t9e 9eis 7an7#;;en7e an* a7ti#n #i8inall*petainin8 t# t9e de7eased.3A priorsettlement of the estate is not essentialbefore the heirs can commence an* actionoriginall* pertaining to the deceased as

we e/plained in Duison v. ;aludEClaroDuison died in $4'. "t was proven at thetrial that the present plaintis are ne/t ofkin and heirs, but it is said b* theappellants that the* are not entitled tomaintain this action because there is noevidence that an* proceedings have beentaken in court for the settlement of theestate of Claro Duison, and that withoutsuch settlement, the heirs cannotmaintain this action. There is nothing inthis point. As well b* the Civil Code as b*the Code of Civil %rocedure, the title to the

propert* owned b* a person who diesintestate passes at once to his heirs. ;uchtransmission is, under the present law,sub-ect to the claims of administration andthe propert* ma* be taken from the heirsfor the purpose of pa*ing debts ande/penses, but this does not prevent animmediate passage of the title, upon thedeath of the intestate, from himself to hisheirs. +ithout some showing that a

-udicial administrator had been appointedin proceedings to settle the estate of Claro

Duison, the right of the plaintis tomaintain this action is established.

'. F#; t9e deat9 #" t9e 7##5ne, 9ei89ts as s(79, in7idental t# 59i79 ist9e i89t t# as@ "# patiti#n at an*ti;e # t# te;inate t9e 7##5nes9ipae tans;itted t# 9e i89t"(l 9eis3Conformabl* with the foregoing andtaken in con-unction with Arts. and242 of the Civil Code, from the death ofFourdes ;ampa*o her rights as a coownerincidental to which is the right to ask forpartition at an* time or to terminate thecoownership, were transmitted to herightful heirs. "n so demanding partitionprivate respondents merel* e/ercised theright originall* pertaining to the decedenttheir predecessorininterest.

&. 9ee is n# need "# p(:li7ati#n in asi;ple 7ase #" #dina* patiti#n:et5een 7##5nes.3%etitionersG theor*as to the reuirement of publication wouldhave been correct had the action been fothe partition of the estate of Fourdes;ampa*o, or if we were dealing withe/tra-udicial settlement b* agreemenbetween heirs and the summar*settlement of estates of small value. @utwhat private respondents are pursuing isthe mere segregation of FourdesG onehalfshare which the* inherited from hethrough intestate succession. This is asimple case of ordinar* partition betweencoowners. The applicable law in point is

;ec. $ of 9ule 64 of the 9ules of Court.

2. 9ee ae t5# 4+) si;(ltane#(siss(es in an a7ti#n "# patiti#n3>st,59et9e t9e plaintif is indeed a 7##5ne #" t9e p#pet* s#(89t t# :epatiti#ned, and se7#nd, i" ans5eedin t9e a;ative, t9e ;anne #" t9edivisi#n #" t9e p#pet*.3There are two(' simultaneous issues in an action fopartition. #irst, whether the plainti isindeed a coowner of the propert* soughtto be partitioned, and second, if answered

in the aHrmative, the manner of thedivision of the propert*, i.e., what portionshould go to which coowner. Thus, in thiscase, we must determine whether privaterespondents, b* preponderance oevidence, have been able to establish thatthe* are coowners b* wa* of successionas collateral heirs of the late Fourdes;ampa*o as the* claim to be, either asister, a nephew or a niece. These, privaterespondents were able to prove in the tria


3/48

court as well as before respondent Courtof Appeals.

5. S(77essi#n- /#ds and P9ases-S(77essi#n, Eplained. E;uccessionis a mode of acuisition b* virtue of whichthe propert*, rights and obligations to thee/tent of the value of the inheritance of aperson are transmitted through his deathto another or others either b* his will or b*operation of law. Fegal or intestatesuccession takes place if a person dieswithout a will, or with a void will, or onewhich has subseuentl* lost its validit*. "fthere are no descendants, ascendants,illegitimate children, or a survivingspouse, the collateral relatives shallsucceed to the entire estate of thedecedent. "t was established during thetrial that Fourdes died intestate andwithout issue. %rivate respondents assister, nephews and nieces now claim tobe the collateral relatives of Fourdes.

'&) In e 5ill #" !#se"a ?ala;ea * A:ella,de7eased. PEDRO UNSON, petiti#ne andappellee, vs. ANONIO ABELLA E AL.,#pp#nents.N#. 1


4/48

presence and under his e/press direction.There is paucit* of evidence to showcompliance with these reuirements. #orone, the document or papers burned b*AdrianaJs maid, 3uadalupe, was notsatisfactoril* established to be a will at all,much less the will of Adriana 0aloto. #oranother, the burning was not proven tohave been done under the e/pressdirection of Adriana. And then, the burningwas not in her presence. @oth witnesses,3uadalupe and Kladio, were one in statingthat the* were the onl* ones present atthe place where the stove (presumabl* inthe kitchen was located in which thepapers proferred as a will were burned.

'


5/48

spe7ial p#7eedin8 7#nstit(te a >naldete;inati#n #" t9e i89ts #" t9epaties s# appealin8.3An appeal isallowed in these aforesaid cases as theseorders, decrees or -udgments issued b* acourt in a special proceeding constitute anal determination of the rights of theparties so appealing. "n contrast,interlocutor* orders are not appealable asthese are merel* incidental to -udicialproceedings. "n these cases, the courtissuing such orders retains control overthe same and ma* thus modif*, rescind, orrevoke the same on suHcient grounds atan* time before nal -udgment.

+. The trial court, b* so ruling that certainpersons are entitled to participate in thesettlement proceedings, has eectivel*determined that the said persons are thelawful heirs of the deceased, and saidruling ma* be the proper sub-ect of anappeal.E"n the instant case, the 1rderdated April ', $48$ of the trial courtdecreed, among others, that 0aria 0anuel>da. e @iascan, the lawful wife of thedeceased #lorencio @iascan, privaterespondent 9osalina @iascan and herbrother, 3erman @iascan, are entitled toparticipate in the settlement proceedings.0oreover, the said 1rder likewise denied0ariaGs motion to set aside the orderappointing private respondent as regularadministratri/ of the estate. These rulingsof the trial court were precisel* uestionedb* 0aria in her 0otion for 9econsideration

dated Nune 6, $48$. The ruling of the trialcourt that 0aria, private respondent9osalina @iascan and 3erman @iascanwere entitled to participate in thesettlement proceedings falls suarel*under paragraph (b, ;ection $, 9ule $4of the 9ules of Court as a proper sub-ect ofappeal. @* so ruling, the trial court haseectivel* determined that the threepersons are the lawful heirs of thedeceased. As such, the same ma* be theproper sub-ect of an appeal.

'. Ad;inistat#s- An #de #" t9e tial7#(t app#intin8 a e8(laad;inistat# #" a de7eased pes#nsestate is a >nal dete;inati#n #" t9ei89ts #" t9e paties t9ee(nde, andis t9(s, appeala:le.3The ruling of thetrial court den*ing petitionerGs motion toset aside the order appointing privaterespondent as the regular administratri/of the estate of #lorencio @iascan islikewise a proper sub-ect of an appeal. +ehave previousl* held that an order of the

trial court appointing a regulaadministrator of a deceased personGsestate is a nal determination of the rightsof the parties thereunder, and is thusappealable. This is in contrast with anorder appointing a special administratowho is appointed onl* for a limited timeand for a specic purpose. @ecause of thetemporar* character and special characteof this appointment, the 9ules deem it notadvisable for an* part* to appeal fromsaid temporar* appointment. Consideringhowever that private respondent hasalread* been appointed as regulaadministratri/ of the estate of #lorencio@iascan, her appointment as such ma* beuestioned before the appellate court b*wa* of appeal.

$. Pleadin8s and Pa7ti7e- In spe7iap#7eedin8s, s(79 as a p#7eedin8 "#t9e settle;ent #" estate, t9e pei#d#" appeal "#; an* de7isi#n # >na#de endeed t9eein is t9it* 4'6)da*s, a n#ti7e #" appeal and a e7#d#n appeal :ein8 e=(ied.3"t is thusclear that the 1rder dated April ', $48$ma* be the proper sub-ect of an appeal ina special proceeding. "n speciaproceedings, such as the instantproceeding for settlement of estate, theperiod of appeal from an* decision or naorder rendered therein is thirt* (& da*sa notice of appeal and a record on appeabeing reuired. The appeal period ma*onl* be interrupted b* the ling of a

motion for new trial or reconsideration1nce the appeal period e/pires without anappeal or a motion for reconsideration ornew trial being perfected, the decision ororder becomes nal.

$+) REMEDIOS NU0UID, petiti#ne andappellant, vs. FELI N(0UID and PA?SALON0A NU0UID, #pp#sit#s andappellees.N#. L+'$$. !(ne +', 1%&&.

1. /ills- S(77essi#n- P#:ate #" 5illC#(ts aea #" in=(i* is li;ited t#etinsi7 validit* #" 5ill- /9en C#(t;a* (le #n intinsi7 validit*.3"n aproceeding for the probate of a will, thecourtGs area of inuir* is limited to ane/amination of, and resolution on, thee/trinsic validit* of the will, the duee/ecution thereof, the testatri/Gstestamentar* capacit* and the compliancewith the reuisites or solemnitiesprescribed b* law. The intrinsic validit* of


6/48

the will normall* comes onl* after thecourt has declared that the will has beendul* authenticated. olumen'.o, p. $$&$.

$. Efe7ts #5in8 "#; peteiti#n anddisin9eitan7e.3The eects Mowing frompreterition are totall* dierent from thoseof disinheritance. %reterition under Article852 of the ?ew Civil Code 7shall annul theinstitution of heir:. This annulment is intoto, unless in the will there are, inaddition, testamentar* dispositions in theform of devises or legacies. "n ineective

disinheritance under Article 4$8 of thesame Code, such disinheritance shall also7annul the institution of heirs:, but onl*7insofar as it ma* pre-udice the persondisinherited:, which last phrase wasomitted in the case of preterition ("""

Tolentino, Civil Code of the %hilippines,$46$ Kdition, p. $'. @etter stated *et, indisinheritance the nullit* is limited to thatportion of the estate of which thedisinherited heirs have been illegall*deprived.

. /9en instit(ti#n #" 9eis is v#id.E+here the one sentence will institutes thepetitioner as the sole, universal heir andpreterits the parents of the testatri/, and itcontains no specic ic legacies obeuests, such universal institution opetitioner, b* itself, is void. And intestatesuccession ensues.

&. /9en le8a7ies and devises ;eit7#nsideati#n.3Fegacies and devisesmerit consideration onl* when the* are soe/pressl* given as such in a will. ?othingin Article 852 of the ?ew Civil Codesuggests that the mere institution of auniversal heir in a willEvoid because opreteritionEwould give the heir soinstituted a share in the inheritance. As tohim, the will is ine/istent. There must be,in addition to such institution, atestamentar* disposition granting himbeuests or legacies apart and separatefrom the nullied institution of heir.

. Instit(ti#n #" 9eis 7ann#t :e7#nsideed a le8a7*.3"f ever* case ofinstitution of heirs ma* be made to falinto the concept of legacies andbetterments reducing the beuestaccordingl*, then the provisions of Articles8$2 and 85$ of the old Civil Coderegarding total or partial nullit* of theinstitution, would be absolutel*meaningless and will never have an*application at all. And the remaining

provisions contained in said articlesconcerning the reduction of inoHciouslegacies or betterments would be asurplusage because the* would beabsorbed b* Article 8$ of the same Code.

$') 9e In7#;petent, CARMEN CAJI?Aepesented :* 9e le8al 8(adian, AMPAROE2AN0ELISA, petiti#ne, vs. COUR OFAPPEALS 4SPECIAL FIRS DI2ISION), PEDROESRADA and 9is 5i"e, LEONORA ESRADA,esp#ndents.

0.R. N#. 116$+. Fe:(a* +$, 1%%.

1. /ills and S(77essi#n- A 5ill isessentiall* a;:(lat#*3at an* ti;epi# t# t9e testat#s deat9, it ;a*:e 79an8ed # ev#@ed, and (ntiad;itted t# p#:ate, it 9as n# efe7t59ateve and n# i89t 7an :e 7lai;edt9ee(nde- An #5nes intenti#n t#7#n"e title in t9e "(t(e t# pes#nsp#ssessin8 p#pet* :* 9is t#lean7eis n#t in7#nsistent 5it9 t9e "#;es


7/48

ta@in8 :a7@ p#ssessi#n in t9e;eanti;e "# an* eas#n dee;eds(7ient.3A will is essentiall*ambulator*! at an* time prior to thetestatorGs death, it ma* be changed orrevoked! and until admitted to probate, ithas no eect whatever and no right canbe claimed thereunder, the law beinguite e/plicitI 7?o will shall pass eitherreal or personal propert* unless it isproved and allowed in accordance with the9ules of Court: (A9T. 8&8, id.. An ownerGsintention to confer title in the future topersons possessing propert* b* histolerance, is not inconsistent with theformerGs taking back possession in themeantime for an* reason deemedsuHcient. And that in this case there wassuHcient cause for the ownerGsresumption of possession is apparentI sheneeded to generate income from thehouse on account of the ph*sicalinrmities aPicting her, arising from here/treme age.

$$) In e 5ill #" D#l#es C##nel, de7eased.LOREN?O PECSON, appli7ant and appellee,vs. A0USIN CORONEL E AL., #pp#nentsand appellants.N#. +6'$. O7t#:e 11, 1%+'

$. /ILLS- FREEDOM O MAE A /ILL.3Although famil* ties in this countr* arever* strongl* knit, the e/clusion ofrelatives, who are not forced heirs, fromthe inheritance is not an e/ceptional case.

The inhabitants of the Archipelago do notappear to be averse to the freedom tomake a will enshrined b* article 8& of theCivil Code, which has been in force in the%hilippines since the *ear $884. @ut evenif the appointment of a beneciar* do notseem to be the most usual and ordinar*because the beneciar* is not a relative ofthe testatri/ who has relatives b* blood,this alone will not render the appointmentvoid per se.

'. CONES OF- BURDEN OF PROOF.3

+here the will is contested on the groundthat the person who read the will to thetestator, following instructions from theheir named therein, read on thing foranother, the part* alleging such a fraud isbound to present said person as witnessfor the purpose of proving the allegedfraud, and the omission not accounted forof said proof gives rise to a presumptionthat, if it were presented, it would havebeen adverse to said part*.

&. NAMIN0 OF EIR- is APPOINMENAS EECUOR- FUNCIONS OFEECUOR.3The fact that the onl* heinamed in the will is appointed e/ecutor isno proof that the testatorJs intention wasthat said e/ecutor should distribute theestate among the relatives of the testatorand not that said e/ecutor, named as soleheir, should get all the estate! for to be anheir is not incompatible with being ane/ecutor, inasmuch as the function of ane/ecutor is not limited merel* todistributing the inheritance, but he hasother duties and powers, such as topreserve, defend, and liuidate theinheritance until it is delivered to theperson entitled to it.

2. AESAION CLAUSE- CLERICAL OR0RAMMAICAL ERRORS- E E2IDENINENION PRE2AILS.3Clerical ogrammatical errors are ordinaril* noconsidered of vital importance where theintention is manifest. Thus the e/pressionLcada uno de nosotros lo rmamos enpresencia de otrosL (each of us signed inthe presence of others, which appears tobe ambiguous on account of the articleLlosL (the being lacking before LotrosL(others, will not vitiate the attestationclause where it is evident that its omissionwas due to carelessness of the clerk or tolack of master* of the language, and thatwhat was meant is that the witnessessigned in the presence of each other.

$) CONSANINO C. ACAIN, petiti#ne, vsON. INERMEDIAE APPELLAE COUR49id Spe7ial Cases Divisi#n), 2IR0INIA A.FERNANDE? and ROSA DION0SON,esp#ndents.N#. L+6&. O7t#:e +,1%


8/48

otherwise, even if the surviving spouse isa compulsor* heir, there is no preteritioneven if she is omitted from theinheritance, for she is not in the directline. (Art. 852, Civil Code irginia A. #ernande), whoselegal adoption b* the testator has notbeen uestioned b* petitioner(0emorandum for the %etitioner, pp. 8=4.nder Article &4 of %.. ?o. 6&, known asthe Child and Qouth +elfare Code,adoption gives to the adopted person thesame rights and duties as if he were alegitimate child of the adopter and makesthe adopted person a legal heir of theadopter. "t cannot be denied that she wastotall* omitted and preterited in the will ofthe testator and that both adopted childand the widow were deprived of at leasttheir legitime. ?either can it be deniedthat the* were not e/pressl* disinherited.


9/48

institution of heirs shall be annulled andintestate succession should be declared.

+. RESPECI2E SCOPE OF ARICLES


10/48

the institution of heirs in a case ofpreterition. "ts other provision regardingthe validit* of legacies and betterments ifnot inoHcious is a mere reiteration of thegeneral rule contained in order provisions(article 8$5 and 8$ and signies merel*that it also applies in case of preterition.

. SAUOR CONSRUCION.3Asregards testamentar* dispositions ingeneral, the general rule is that allLtestamentar* dispositions which diminishthe legitime of the forced heirs shall bereduced on petition of the same in so faras the* are inoHcious or e/cessiveL(article 8$. @ut this general rule doesnot appl* to the specic instance of atestamentar* disposition containing aninstitution of heirs in a case of preterition,which is made the main and specicsub-ect of article 8$2. "n such instance,according to article 8$2, the testamentar*disposition containing the institution ofheirs should be not onl* reduced butannulled in its entirel* and all the forcedheirs, including the omitted ones, areentitled to inherit in accordance with thelaw of intestate succession. "t is thusevident that, if, in construing article 8$2,the institution of heirs therein dealt with isto be treated as legacies or betterments,the special ob-ect of said article would bedestro*ed, its specic purpose completel*defeated, and in that wise the special ruletherein established would be renderednugator*. And this is contrar* to the most

elementar* rule of statutor* construction."n construing several provisions of aparticular statute, such construction shallbe adopted as will give eect to all, andwhen general and particular provisions areconsistent the latter shall over the former.(Act ?o. $4, secs. '8 and '88.

iado diedintestate in $48', her part of the con-ugapropert*, the "sarog propert* in uestionincluded, was transmitted to her heirsEher husband Nulian and their children ?ilo


11/48

>iado, 9ebecca >iado, Feah >iado andelia >iado. The inheritance, which vestedfrom the moment of death of thedecedent, remained under a co=ownershipregime among the heirs until partition.Kver* act intended to put an end toindivision among co=heirs and legatees ordevisees would be a partition although itwould purport to be a sale, an e/change, acompromise, a donation or an e/tra-udicialsettlement.

'. 9e "a7t al#ne t9at t5# deeds 5eee8isteed >ve *eas a"te t9e date #"t9ei ee7(ti#n d#es n#t advesel*afe7t t9ei validit* n# 5#(ld s(797i7(;stan7e al#ne :e indi7ative #""a(d.3The fact alone that the two deedswere registered ve *ears after the date oftheir e/ecution did not adversel* aecttheir validit* nor would such circumstancealone be indicative of fraud. Theregistration of the documents was aministerial act and merel* created aconstructive notice of its contents againstall third persons. Among the parties, theinstruments remained completel* validand binding.

&. Peteiti#n- /9ee t9e peteiti#n isn#t attended :* :ad "ait9 and "a(d,t9e patiti#n s9all n#t :e es7inded:(t t9e peteited 9ei s9all :e paidt9e val(e #" t9e s9ae petainin8 t#9e.EThe e/clusion of petitioner elia>iado, alleged to be a retardate, from the

deed of e/tra-udicial settlement veril* hashad the eect of preterition. This kind ofpreterition, however, in the absence ofproof of fraud and bad faith, does not

-ustif* a collateral attack on TransferCerticate of Title ?o. &&626. The relief,as so correctl* pointed out b* the Court ofAppeals, instead rests on Article $$2 ofthe Civil Code to the eect that where thepreterition is not attended b* bad faithand fraud, the partition shall not berescinded but the preterited heir shall bepaid the value of the share pertaining to

her. Again, the appellate court has thusacted properl* in ordering the remand ofthe case for further proceedings to makethe proper valuation of the "sarog propert*and ascertainment of the amount duepetitioner elia >iado.

$


12/48

'. In9eitan7e in7l(des all t9e p#pet*,i89ts and #:li8ati#ns #" a pes#n,n#t etin8(is9ed :* 9is deat9.3nderArticle 6 of the ?ew Civil Code,

inheritance includes all the propert*,

rights and obligations of a person, not

e/tinguished b* his death. Conformabl*,

whatever rights r. Norge 9abadilla had b*

virtue of sub-ect Codicil were transmittedto his forced heirs, at the time of his

death. And since obligations not

e/tinguished b* death also form part of

the estate of the decedent! corollaril*, the

obligations imposed b* the Codicil on the

deceased r. Norge 9abadilla, were

likewise transmitted to his compulsor*

heirs upon his death.

&. S(:stit(ti#n is t9e desi8nati#n :* t9etestat# #" a pes#n # pes#ns t#

ta@e t9e pla7e #" t9e 9ei # 9eis>st instit(ted. E;ubstitution is thedesignation b* the testator of a person or

persons to take the place of the heir or

heirs rst instituted. nder substitutions in

general, the testator ma* either ($

provide for the designation of another heir

to whom the propert* shall pass in case

the original heir should die before himRher,

renounce the inheritance or be

incapacitated to inherit, as in a simple

substitution, or (' leave hisRher propert*

to one person with the e/press charge

that it be transmitted subseuentl* to

another or others, as in a deicommissar*

substitution.

2. In si;ple s(:stit(ti#ns, t9e se7#nd9ei ta@es t9e in9eitan7e in de"a(lt#" t9e >st 9ei :* eas#n #"in7apa7it*, pede7ease #en(n7iati#n.3"n simple substitutions,the second heir takes the inheritance in

default of the rst heir b* reason ofincapacit*, predecease or renunciation. "n

the case under consideration, the

provisions of sub-ect Codicil do not provide

that should r. Norge 9abadilla default due

to predecease, incapacit* or renunciation,

the testatri/Gs near descendants would

substitute him. +hat the Codicil provides

is that, should r. Norge 9abadilla or his

heirs not full the conditions imposed in

the Codicil, the propert* referred to shall

be sei)ed and turned over to the

testatri/Gs near descendants.

5. In a >dei7#;;issa* s(:stit(ti#n, t9e>st 9ei is sti7tl* ;andated t#peseve t9e p#pet* and t# tans;itt9e sa;e late t# t9e se7#nd 9ei-/it9#(t t9e #:li8ati#n t# peseve7leal* i;p#sed :* t9e testat# in 9is5ill, t9ee is n# >dei7#;;issa*s(:stit(ti#n.3"n a deicommissar*substitution, the rst heir is strictl*

mandated to preserve the propert* and to

transmit the same later to the second heir

"n the case under consideration, the

instituted heir is in fact allowed under the

Codicil to alienate the propert* provided

the negotiation is with the near

descendants or the sister of the testatri/

Thus, a ver* important element of a

deicommissar* substitution is lackingthe obligation clearl* imposing upon the

rst heir the preservation of the propert*

and its transmission to the second heir

7+ithout this obligation to preserve clearl*

imposed b* the testator in his will, there is

no deicommissar* substitution.: Also, the

near descendantsG right to inherit from the

testatri/ is not denite. The propert* wil

onl* pass to them should r. Norge

9abadilla or his heirs not fulll the

obligation to deliver part of the usufruct to

private respondent.

6. A >dei7#;;issa* s(:stit(ti#n ist9ee"#e, v#id i" t9e >st 9ei is n#telated :* >st de8ee t# t9e se7#nd9ei.3Another important element of adeicommissar* substitution is also

missing here. nder Article 86&, the

second heir or the deicommissar* to

whom the propert* is transmitted must

not be be*ond one degree from the rst

heir or the duciar*. A deicommissar*substitution is therefore, void if the rst

heir is not related b* rst degree to the

second heir. "n the case under scrutin*

the near descendants are not at all related

to the instituted heir, r. Norge 9abadilla.

. Distin7ti#n :et5een ;#dal instit(ti#nand 7#nditi#nal testa;enta*disp#siti#n.3The institution of an heir inthe manner prescribed in Article 88' is


13/48

what is known in the law of succession as

an institucion sub modo or a modal

institution. "n a modal institution, the

testator states ($ the, ob-ect of the

institution, the purpose or application of

the propert* left b* the testator, or the

charge imposed b* the testator upon the

heir. A 7mode: imposes an obligation upon

the heir or legatee but it does not aectthe eHcac* of his rights to the succession.

1n the other hand, in a conditional

testamentar* disposition, the condition

must happen or be fullled in order for the

heir to be entitled to succeed the testator.

The condition suspends but does not

obligate! and the mode obligates but does

not suspend. To some e/tent, it is similar

to a resolutor* condition.

8. In 7ase #" d#(:t, t9e instit(ti#n

s9#(ld :e 7#nsideed as ;#dal andn#t 7#nditi#nal.EThen too, sincetestamentar* dispositions are generall*

acts of liberalit*, an obligation imposed

upon the heir should not be considered a

condition unless it clearl* appears from

the +ill itself that such was the intention

of the testator. "n case of doubt, the

institution should be considered as modal

and not conditional.4. In t9e intepetati#n #" /ills, 59en

an (n7etaint* aises #n t9e "a7e #"t9e /ill, t9e testat#s intenti#n is t#:e as7etained "#; t9e 5#ds #" t9e/ill, ta@in8 int# 7#nsideati#n t9e7i7(;stan7es (nde 59i79 it 5as;ade.3"n the interpretation of +ills,when an uncertaint* arises on the face of

the +ill, as to the application of an* of its

provisions, the testatorGs intention is to be

ascertained from the words of the +ill,

taking into consideration the

circumstances under which it was made.

;uch construction as will sustain anduphold the +ill in all its parts must be

adopted.

$. A /ill is a pes#nal, s#le;n,ev#7a:le and "ee a7t :* 59i79 apes#n disp#ses #" 9is p#pet*, t#ta@e efe7t a"te 9is deat9.E;uHce itto state that a +ill is a personal, solemn,

revocable and free act b* which a person

disposes of his propert*, to take eect

after his death. ;ince the +ill e/presses

the manner in which a person intends how

his properties be disposed, the wishes and

desires of the testator must be strictl*

followed. Thus, a +ill cannot be the

sub-ect of a compromise agreement which

would thereb* defeat the ver* purpose of

making a +ill.

6) ELENA MORENE, petiti#ne andappellant, vs. 0UMERSINDO DE LA SANA,esp#ndent and appellee.N#. '


14/48

law, it would have so provided in the

Code.

'. Neit9e is a 5id#5 4s(vivin8 sp#(se)a 7#;p(ls#* 9ei #" 9e paentinla5 in a77#dan7e 5it9 t9e p#visi#ns#" Ati7le


15/48

&. RI0S OF SUCCESSION.3According tothe order of succession prescribed b* law

for legitimes, when there are relatives

within the third degree of the deceased

descendant, the right of the relativeJs

nearest reservative (reservatario to the

propert* e/cludes that of the one more

remote. +herefore the propert* ought to

be handed over to said relative b* thereservist (reservista, without it being

possible to allege a right of representation

when he who attempts the same is not

comprehended within the third degree,

among the predecessor=in=interestJs

relatives. "nasmuch as the right conceded

b* the aforementioned article 8$$ of the

Civil Code is, in the highest degree, for the

personal and e/clusive benet of the

persons pointed out b* law, in no manner

can there be included relatives of the

fourth and succeeding degrees, notrecogni)ed b* law.

) CELEDONIA SOLI2IO, petiti#ne, vs. EONORABLE COUR OF APPEALS andCONCORDIA !A2ELLANA 2ILLANUE2A,esp#ndents.0.R. N#. illanuevaGs action

for partition and recover* of her share ofthe estate of Ksteban Navellana, Nr. while

the probate proceedings (;pl. %roc. ?o.

'52 for the settlement of said estate are

still pending in @ranch '& of the same

court, there being as *et no orders for the

submission and approval of the

administratri/Gs inventor* and accounting,

distributing the residue of the estate to

the heir, and terminating the proceedings

(p. &$, 9ecord / / / "n the interest of

orderl* procedure and to avoid confusing

and conMicting dispositions of a

decedentGs estate, a court should not

interfere with probate proceedings

pending in a co=eual court. Thus, did we

rule in 3uilas v. Nudge of the Court of #irst

"nstance of %ampanga, F='6645, Nanuar*

&$, $4', 2& ;C9A $$$, $$, where a

daughter led a separate action to annul apro-ect of partition e/ecuted between her

and her father in the proceedings for the

settlement of the estate of her mother

7The probate court loses -urisdiction of an

estate under administration onl* after the

pa*ment of all the debts and the

remaining estate delivered to the heirs

entitled to receive the same. The nalit*

of the approval of the pro-ect of partition

b* itself alone does not terminate the

probate proceeding (Timbol v. Cano, $

;C9A $'$, $'6, F=$5225, April '4, $46$!;iguiong v. Tecson, 84 %hil. pp. '8, &. As

long as the order of the distribution of the

estate has not been complied with, the

probate proceedings cannot be deemed

closed and terminated (;iguiong v. Tecson

supra! because a -udicial partition is not

nal and conclusive and does not prevent

the heirs from bringing an action to obtain

his share, provided the prescriptive period

therefore has not elapsed (0ari v. @onilla

8& %hil. $&. The better practicehowever, for the heir who has not received

his share, is to demand his share through

a proper motion in the same probate or

administration proceedings, or fo

reopening of the probate or administrative

proceedings if it had alread* been closed

and not through an independent action

which would be tried b* another court or

Nudge which ma* thus reverse a decision

or order of the probate or intestate court

alread* nal and e/ecuted and re=shuPe

properties long ago distributed and

disposed of.: (9amos v. 1rtu)ar, 84 %hil

&, 2$=2'! Timbol v. Cano, supra

Ningco v. alu), F=5$, April '2, $45&, 4'

%hil. $8'! 9oman Catholic v. Agustines, F

$2$, 0arch '4, $46, $ %hil. 255

26=26$! "talics supplied

'. P#:ate p#7eedin8s ae p#7eedin8sin e;, p(:li7ati#n #" t9e n#ti7e #"t9e p#7eedin8s is 7#nst(7tive


16/48

n#ti7e t# t9e 59#le 5#ld. 3 Theprobate proceedings are proceedings in

rem. ?otice of the time and place of

hearing of the petition is reuired to be

published (;ec. &, 9ule 6 in relation to

;ec. &, 9ule 4, 9ules of Court. ?otice of

the hearing of CeledoniaGs original petition

was published in the 7>isa*an Tribune: on

April '5, 0a* ' and 4, $4 (K/h. 2, p.$4, 9ecord. ;imilarl*, notice of the

hearing of her amended petition of 0a*

'6, $4 for the settlement of the estate

was, b* order of the court, published in

7@agong asanag: (?ew Fight issues of

0a* ', Nune & and $, $4 (pp. $8'=&5,

9ecord. 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.

&. Ann(l;ent #" K(d8;ent- Etinsi7"a(d- Fail(e t# dis7l#se t# t9eadvese pat*, # t# t9e 7#(t,;attes 59i79 5ill de"eat #nes #5n7lai; # de"ense d#es n#t 7#nstit(teetinsi7 "a(d t9at 5ill K(sti"*va7ati#n #" K(d8;ent.3CeledoniaGsallegation in her petition that she was the

sole heir of Ksteban within the third

degree on his motherGs side was not false.

0oreover, it was made in good faith and in

the honest belief that because the

properties of Ksteban had come from his

mother, not his father, she, as KstebanGs

nearest surviving relative on his motherGs

side, is the rightful heir to them. "t 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.


17/48


18/48

the propert* of the deceased, withoutgoing into an* court of -ustice, makese/press reference to intestate succession,and therefore e/cludes testate succession.

'. EFFECS OF- ESAE SUCCESSION.3"n the instant case, which is a testatesuccession, the heirs made ane/tra-udicial partition of the estate and atthe same time instituted proceeding forthe probate of the will and theadministration of the estate. +hen thetime came for making the partition, the*submitted to the court the e/tra-udicialpartition previousl* made b* them, whichthe court approved.


19/48

&. 9eversion of the reservable propert*beinggoverned b* the rules on intestatesuccession, the plaintis=appellees mustbe held without an* right thereto because,as aunt and uncles, respectivel*, of#austino i)on (the praepositus, the* aree/cluded from the succession b* his niece,the defendant=appellant, although the*are related to him within the same degreeas the latter. To this eect is Abellana vs.#erraris where Arts. $$, $2, $5 and$4 of the Civil Code were cited andapplied.

2. nder the last article ($4, the absenceof brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces ofthe decedent is a precondition to the othercollaterals (uncles, cousins, etc. beingcalled to the succession. This was also andmore clearl* the case under the ;panishCivil Code of $884, that immediatel*preceded the Civil Code now in force (9.A.&86.

5. +e, therefore, hold, and so rule, thatunder our laws of succession, a decedentGsuncles and aunts ma* not succeed abintestate so long as nephews and niecesof the decedent survive and are willingand ualied to succeed.

6.


20/48

reservor. "t should be pointed out that theownership of the properties should bereckoned onl* from K/euielGs as he is theascendant from where the rsttransmission occurred, or from whom3regoria inherited the properties indispute. The law does not go farther thansuch ascendantRbrotherRsister indetermining the lineal character of thepropert*. "t was also immaterial for the CAto determine whether K/euielpredeceased %lacido and ominga orwhether 3regoria predeceased K/euiel.+hat is pertinent is that K/euiel ownedthe properties and he is the ascendantfrom whom the properties in disputeoriginall* came. 3regoria, on the otherhand, is the descendant who received theproperties from K/euiel b* gratuitoustitle.

&. Ati7le alentinas Article 84$ grants a personal right ofreservation onl* to the relatives up to thethird degree from whom the reservableproperties came. The onl* recogni)ede/emption is in the case of nephews andnieces of the prepositus, who have theright to represent their ascendants(fathers and mothers who are thebrothersRsisters of the prepositus andrelatives within the third degree. "n#lorentino v. #lorentino, the Court stated

#ollowing the order prescribed b* law inlegitimate succession, when there arerelatives of the descendant within thethird degree, the right of the nearestrelative, called reservatario, over thepropert* which the reservista (personholding it sub-ect to reservation shouldreturn to him, e/cludes that of the onemore remote. The right of representationcannot be alleged when the one claimingsame as a reservatario of the reservablepropert* is not among the relatives within


21/48

the third degree belong to the line fromwhich such propert* came, inasmuch asthe right granted b* the Civil Code inABrticle 8$$ now Article 84$B is in thehighest degree personal and for thee/clusive benet of the designatedpersons who are the relatives, within thethird degree, of the person from whom thereservable propert* came. Therefore,relatives of the fourth and the succeedingdegrees can never be considered asreservatarios, since the law does notrecogni)e them as such. / / /?Bevertheless there is right ofrepresentation on the part of reservatarioswho are within the third degree mentionedb* law, as in the case of nephews of thedeceased person from whom thereservable propert* came. / / /.

. In eseva t#n7al, t9e esevista 59#in9eits "#; a pep#sit(s, 59et9e:* t9e lattes 5is9 # :* #peati#n #"la5, a7=(ies t9e in9eitan7e :*vit(e #" a title pe"e7tl* tans"ein8a:s#l(te #5nes9ip- It is 59en t9eesevati#n ta@es pla7e # isetin8(is9ed, t9at a esevatai#:e7#;es, :* #peati#n t9e #5ne #"t9e eseva:le p#pet*.3The Courttakes note of a palpable error in the 9TCGsdisposition of the case. "n upholding theright of petitioners over the properties, the9TC ordered the reconve*ance of theproperties to petitioners and the transferof the titles in their names. +hat the 9TC

should have done, assuming forargumentGs sake that reserva troncal isapplicable, is have the reservable natureof the propert* registered on respondentGstitles. "n fact, respondent, as reservista,has the dut* to reserve and to annotatethe reservable character of the propert*on the title. "n reserve troncal, thereservista who inherits from a prepositus,whether b* the latterGs wish or b*operation of law, acuires the inheritanceb* virtue of a title perfectl* transferringabsolute ownership. All the attributes of

ownership belong to him e/clusivel*. Thereservor has the legal title and dominionto the reservable propert* but sub-ect tothe resolutor* condition that such title ise/tinguished if the reservor predeceasedthe reservee. The reservor is ausufructuar* of the reservable propert*.


22/48

that, if it were presented, it would havebeen adverse to said part*.

'. NAMIN0 OF EIR- is APPOINMENAS EECUOR- FUNCIONS OFEECUOR.3The fact that the onl* heirnamed in the will is appointed e/ecutor isno proof that the testatorJs intention wasthat said e/ecutor should distribute theestate among the relatives of the testator,and not that said e/ecutor, named as soleheir, should get all the estate! for to be anheir is not incompatible with being ane/ecutor, inasmuch as the function of ane/ecutor is not limited merel* todistributing the inheritance, but he hasother duties and powers, such as topreserve, defend, and liuidate theinheritance until it is delivered to theperson entitled to it. grammatical errorsare ordinaril* not considered of vitalimportance where the intention ismanifest. Thus the e/pression Lcada unode nosotros lo rmamos en presencia deotrosL (each of us signed in the presenceof others, which appears to be ambiguouson account of the article LlosL (the beinglacking before LotrosL (others, will notvitiate the attestation clause where it isevident that its omission was due tocarelessness of the clerk or to lack ofmaster* of the language, and that whatwas meant is that the witnesses signed inthe presence of each other.

&') ESAE ESAE OF 2ICENE SIN0SON

PABLO, de7eased. ROSALIA ROSARIO 2DA.DE SIN0SON, petiti#neappellee, vs.

!OSEFINA F. 2DA. DE LIM, #pp#sit#appellee, EMILIA FLORENINA E. AL.,#pp#sit#sappellees, E2ARISO SIN0SONE AL., #pp#sit#s appellants.N#. $


23/48

matters of due e/ecution of the will andthe capacit* of the testator acuired thecharacter of res -udicata and cannot againbe brought into uestion, all -uridicaluestions in connection therewith beingfor once and forever closed. ;uch nalorder makes the will conclusive againstthe whole world as to its e/trinsic validit*and due e/ecution.

&. P(:li7 p#li7* and s#(nd pa7ti7ede;and t9at, at t9e is@ #" #77asi#nale#s, K(d8;ents #" 7#(ts ;(st ats#;e p#int #" ti;e >ed :* la5:e7#;e >nal #t9e5ise t9ee 5ill :en# end t# liti8ati#n. 3As earl* as $4$8,it has been declared that public polic* andsound practice demand that, at the risk ofoccasional errors, -udgments of courtsmust at some point of time /ed b* lawbecome nal otherwise there will be noend to litigation. "nteres rei publicae utnis sitlitiumEthe ver* ob-ect of which thecourts were constituted was to put an endto controversies. To fulll this purpose andto do so speedil*, certain time limits, moreor less arbitrar*, have to be set up to spuron the slothful. The onl* instance where apart* interested in a probate proceedingma* have a nal liuidation set aside iswhen he is left out b* reason ofcircumstances be*ond his control orthrough mistake or inadvertence notimputable to negligence, whichcircumstances do not concur herein.

2. P#:ate p#7eedin8s deals 8eneall*5it9 t9e etinsi7 validit* #" t9e 5ills#(89t t# :e p#:ated.3"t should benoted that probate proceedings dealsgenerall* with the e/trinsic validit* of thewill sought to be probated, particularl* onthree aspectsI whether the will submittedis indeed, the decedentGs last will andtestament! compliance with the prescribedformalities for the e/ecution of wills! thetestamentar* capacit* of the testator! andthe due e/ecution of the last will andtestament.

5. /9at in7l(des d(e ee7(ti#n #" a 5ill.3nder the Civil Code, due e/ecutionincludes a determination of whether thetestator was of sound and disposing mindat the time of its e/ecution, that he hadfreel* e/ecuted the will and was not actingunder duress, fraud, menace or undueinMuence and that the will is genuine andnot a forger*, that he was of the propertestamentar* age and that he is a person

not e/pressl* prohibited b* law frommaking a will.

6. Intinsi7 validit* is an#t9e ;atteand =(esti#ns e8adin8 t9e sa;e;a* still :e aised even a"te t9e 5il9as :een a(t9enti7ated- Even i" t9e5ill 5as validl* ee7(ted, i" t9etestat# p#vides "# disp#siti#nst9at depives # i;pais t9e la5"(9eis #" t9ei le8iti;e # i89t"(in9eitan7e a77#din8 t# t9e la5s #ns(77essi#n, t9e (nla5"(p#visi#nsQdisp#siti#ns t9ee#"7ann#t :e 8iven efe7t.3he intrinsicvalidit* is another matter and uestionsregarding the same ma* still be raisedeven after the will has been authenticated

Thus, it does not necessaril* follow that ane/trinsicall* valid last will and testament isalwa*s intrinsicall* valid. Kven if the wilwas validl* e/ecuted, if the testatoprovides for dispositions that deprives orimpairs the lawful heirs of their legitime orrightful inheritance according to the lawson succession, the unlawfuprovisionsRdispositions thereof cannot begiven eect. This is speciall* so when thecourts had alread* determined in a naand e/ecutor* decision that the will isintrinsicall* void. ;uch determinationhaving attained that character of nalit* isbinding on this Court which will no longerbe disturbed. ?ot that this Court nds thewill to be intrinsicall* valid, but that a naand e/ecutor decision of which the part*

had the opportunit* to challenge beforethe higher tribunals must stand andshould no longer be re=evaluated. #ailureto avail of the remedies provided b* lawconstitutes waiver. And if the part* doesnot avail of other remedies despite itsbelief that it was aggrieved b* a decisionor court action, then it is deemed to havefull* agreed and is satised with thedecision or order.

&) EIRS OF PASCASIO URIARE, na;el*,ROSELN URIARE, MADRILN and LOURDES

URIARE, and FELOMINA BUNIEL URIARE,and EIRS OF PRIMII2A ARNALDO andEIRS OF 0RE0ORIO ARNALDO, epesented9eein :* FELISA ARNALDO SULLANO andLUPECINO ARNALDO, petiti#nes, vs. COUROF APPEALS and BENEDICO ESRADAesp#ndents.0.R. N#. 11&. !an(a* ++, 1%%da. de ClemeWa v. ClemeWa, '2;C9A ' $468B ! ?oble v. ?oble, $8;C9A $$2 $466B ! 9epublic v.+orkmenGs Compensation Commission, $&;C9A '' $465B ! %aulino v. %aulino, &;C9A & $46$B ! @arles, et al. v. %onceKnrile, $4 %hil. 5'' $46B ! and 9e*es v.Court of Appeals, $&5 ;C9A 2&4 $485B .

This arises from the legal principle that anunrecogni)ed spurious child like a naturalchild has no liation or blood relationship

but from the childGs acknowledgment b*her parent. (Alabat v. >da. de Alabat, '$;C9A $24 $46B ! 0ise v. 9odrigue), 45%hil. &46 $452B ! 0agallanes, et al. vCourt of Appeals, et al., 45 %hil. 45 $452B ! Canales v. Arrogante, et al., 4$%hil. 6 $45'B ! 0alonda v. 0alonda, 8$%hil. $24 $428B ! @uenaventura vrbano, et al., 5 %hil. $ $45B ! and 9e*esv. Court of Appeals, supra . "n othewords, the rights of an illegitimate childarose not because she was the true or reachild of her parents but because under thelaw, she had been recogni)ed oacknowledged as such a child.

&%) CAROLINA ABAD 0ON?ALES, petiti#ne,vs. COUR OF APPEALS, ONORIAEMPANADO, CECILIA . ABAD, MARIAN .ABAD and ROSEMARIE S. ABAD,esp#ndents.0.R. N#. 11$6. O7t#:e '6, 1%%7ates- Fail(e t# indi7ate #n anen#l;ent "#; t9at #nes paent isde7eased is n#t ne7essail* p##"t9at said paent 5as still livin8d(in8 t9e ti;e said "#; 5as :ein8a77#;plis9ed- A deat9 7eti>7ate5#(ld :e t9e :est eviden7e as t#59en a pes#n died.3The evidencepresented b* petitioners to prove that NoseFibunao died in $4$ are, to sa* the leastfar from conclusive. #ailure to indicate onan enrolment form that oneGs parent is

7deceased: is not necessaril* proof thasaid parent was still living during the timesaid form was being accomplished#urthermore, the -oint aHdavit of NuanDuiambao and Ale-andro 9amos as to thesupposed death of Nose Fibunao in $4$ isnot competent evidence to prove thelatterGs death at that time, being merel*secondar* evidence thereof. NoseFibunaoGs death certicate would havebeen the best evidence as to when thelatter died. %etitioners have, howeverine/plicabl* failed to present the same

although there is no showing that saiddeath certicate has been lost odestro*ed as to be unavailable as proof of

Nose FibunaoGs death.

'. Eviden7e- P9*si7ianPatientPivile8ed C#;;(ni7ati#n R(le-Re=(isites.3As to r. ArenasG aHdavitthe same was ob-ected to b* privaterespondents as being privilegedcommunication under ;ection '2 (c, 9ule$& of the 9ules of Court. The rule on


27/48


28/48

between the illegitimate child and thelegitimate children and relatives of thefather or mother. "t ma* not be amiss tostate that Article 48' is the general ruleand Article 44' the e/ception.

+. 9e te; elatives as (sed in At.%%+ e;:a7es n#t #nl* 7#llatealelatives :(t all t9e @inded #" t9epes#n sp#@en #".3 According to %rof.@alane, to interpret the term relatives inArticle 44' in a more restrictive sensethan it is used and intended is notwarranted b* an* rule of interpretation.@esides, he further states that when thelaw intends to use the term in a morerestrictive sense, it ualies the term withthe word collateral, as in Articles $& and$4 of the ?ew Civil Code. Thus, theword 7relatives: is a general term andwhen used in a statute it embraces notonl* collateral relatives but also all thekindred of the person spoken of, unlessthe conte/t indicates that it was used in amore restrictive or limited senseE which,as alread* discussed earlier, is not so inthe case at bar.

1) OMAS CORPUS, plaintifappellant, vs.ADMINISRAOR andQ# EECUOR #" t9eEstate #" e#d## R. an87#, RAFAELCORPUS, AMALIA CORPUS, !OSE A. 2.CORPUS, RAMON L. CORPUS, ENRIHUE !.CORPUS, S. /. SA00, SOLEDAD ASPRERand CIPRIANO NA2ARRO, de"endantsappellees.

N#. L++$&%. O7t#:e +', 1%led :* t9ep#pe pat*, t9is d#7tine 9as n#appli7ati#n in a 7ase 59ee t9ealle8ati#n :* #ne pat* is t9at apes#n 7lai;in8 t# :e a 79ild #" t9ede7eased sp#(ses 5as n#t :#n t#said de7eased pes#ns.3"t must benoted that the respondentsG principalaction was for the declaration of absolutenullit* of two documents, namel*I deed ofe/tra= -udicial partition and deed ofabsolute sale, and not an action to impugnoneGs legitimac*. The respondent courtruled on the liation of petitioner 9odolfo#ernande) in order to determine 9odolfoGsright to the deed of e/tra=-udicial partitionas the alleged legitimate heir of thespouses #ernande). +hile we are awarethat oneGs legitimac* can be uestionedonl* in a direct action seasonabl* led b*the proper part*, this doctrine has noapplication in the instant case consideringthat respondentsG claim was thatpetitioner 9odolfo was not born to thedeceased spouses Nose and 3enerosa#ernande)! we do not have a situationwherein the* (respondents den* that9odolfo was a child of their uncleGs wife.


38/48

9esultI waste of time, eort, e/pense, plusadded an/iet*. These are the practicalconsiderations that induce us to a beliefthat we might as well meet head=on theissue of the validit* $ the provisions ofthe will in uestion. (;ection ', 9ule $,9ules of Court. Case, et al. v. Nugo, et al., %hil. 5$, 5''. After all, there e/ists a

-usticiable controvers* cr*ing for solution.

&. A devise 8iven :* a ;aied ;anestan8ed "#; 9is 5i"e "# ++ *easpi# t# 9is deat9, t# a 5#;an 5it959#; 9e 9as :een livin8 "# saidpei#d #" ti;e is v#id.30oreover, theprohibition in Article &4 of the Civil Codeis against the making of a donationbetween persons who are living inadulter* or concubinage. "t is the donationwhich becomes void. The giver cannotgive even assuming that the recipient ma*receive. The ver* wordings of the +illinvalidate the legac* because the testatoradmitted he was disposing the propertiesto a person with whom he had been livingin concubinage.


39/48

#5nes9ip.3"t was, therefore, error forthe assailed implementing 1rders toconclude that the %robate 1rder ad-udgedwith nalit* the uestion of ownership ofthe mining properties and ro*alties, andthat, premised on this conclusion, thedispositive portion of the said %robateCourt directed the special administrator topa* the legac* in ;uccession! "n case ofdeath of one of the spouses theirrespective proprietar* rights must beliuidated and the debts paid in thesuccession proceedings for the deceasedspouse.E+hen %A;T19, ;9. died in $466,he was survived b* his wife, aside from histwo legitimate children and oneillegitimate son. There is therefore a needto liuidate the con-ugal partnership andset apart the share of %A;T19, ;9.Gs wifein the con-ugal partnership preparator* tothe administration and liuidation of theestate of %A;T19, ;9. which will include,among others, the determination of thee/tent of the statutor* usufructuar* rightof his wife until her death. +hen thedisputed %robate 1rder was issued onecember 5, $4', there had been noliuidation of the communit* properties of%A;T19, ;9. and his wife.

. ;o also, as of the same date, there hadbeen no prior denitive determination ofthe assets of the estate of %A;T19, ;9.

There was an inventor* of his propertiespresumabl* prepared b* the specialadministrator, but it does not appear that

it was ever the sub-ect of a hearing or thatit was -udiciall* approved. Thereconve*ance or recover* of propertiesallegedl* owned but not in the name of%A;T19, ;9. was still being litigated inanother court. There was no appropriatedetermination, much less pa*ment, of thedebts of the decedent and his estate. / / /

&. S(77essi#n- aati#n- Le8a7* ;ade ina 5ill 7ann#t :e disti:(ted 5it9#(t api# li=(idati#n #" t9e de7edentsestate and pa*;ent #" de:ts and

taes.3The ordered pa*ment of legac*would be violative of the rule reuiringprior liuidation of the estate of thedeceased, i.e., the determination of theassets of the estate and pa*ment of alldebts and e/penses, beforeapportionment and distribution of theresidue among the heirs and legatees.(@ernardo vs. Court of Appeals, ;C9A&6. ?either has the estate ta/ been paidon the estate of %A;T19, ;9. %a*menttherefore of the legac* to DK0AA would

collide with the provision of the ?ationa"nternal 9evenue Code reuiring pa*mentof estate ta/ before deliver* to an*beneciar* of his distributive share of theestate (;ection $ cB.

. !(d8;ent- A le8a7* is n#t a de:t #"t9e estate "# 59i79 a 5it #"ee7(ti#n ;a* iss(e.3The aboveprovision clearl* authori)es e/ecution toenforce pa*ment of debts of estate. Alegac* is not a debt of the estate! indeedlegatees are among those against whome/ecution is authori)ed to be issued.


40/48

Nune '6, $46, Nuan C. ;anche) and 0aria>illafranca e/ecuted in favor of theirdaughter, 9osalia ;anche) Fugod! andgrandchildren, namel*, Arturo ;. Fugod,Kvel*n ;. Fugod and 9oberto ;. Fugod. Thetrial court ruled further that the propertiescovered b* the said sales must be sub-ectto collation. Citing Article $24 (' of theCivil Code, the lower court nullied saiddeeds of sale and determined with nalit*the ownership of the properties sub-ectthereof. "n doing so, it clearl* oversteppedits -urisdiction as a probate court.

Nurisprudence teachesI 7AB probate courtor one in charge of proceedings whethertestate or intestate cannot ad-udicate ordetermine title to properties claimed to bea part of the estate and which are claimedto belong to outside parties. All that thesaid court could do as regards saidproperties is to determine whether the*should or should not be included in theinventor* or list of properties to beadministered b* the administrator. "f thereis no dispute, well and good, but if thereis, then the parties, the administrator, andthe opposing parties have to resort to anordinar* action for a nal determination ofthe conMicting claims of title because theprobate court cannot do so.:

'. C#llati#n- C#llati#n ;andated (ndeAti7le 16&1 #" t9e Civil C#de7#nte;plates p#peties 7#nve*edinte viv#s :* t9e de7edent t# an 9ei:* 5a* #" d#nati#n # #t9e

8at(it#(s title.3;imilarl*, petitionersGallegations of fraud in the e/ecution of theuestioned deeds of sale are bereft ofsubstance, in view of the palpableabsence of evidence to support them. Thelegal presumption of validit* of theuestioned deeds of absolute sale, beingdul* notari)ed public documents, has notbeen overcome. 1n the other hand, fraudis not presumed. "t must be proved b*clear and convincing evidence, and not b*mere con-ectures or speculations. +estress that these deeds of sale did not

involve gratuitous transfers of futureinheritance! these were contracts of saleperfected b* the decedents during theirlifetime. 7ial inteest # #nl* a pat

t9ee#". P#pet* e7eived :*7#;p(ls#* 9eis "#; t9e de7edent(nde an i;plied t(st is s(:Ke7t t#7#llati#n.3"t cannot be denied that0a/imino, ;r. intended to give the si/Due)on Cit* lots to ?atividad. As 9omeotestied, their parents e/ecuted the eedof ;ale in favor of ?atividad because thelatter was the onl* 7female and the onl*unmarried member of the famil*.: ;he wasthus entrusted with the real properties inbehalf of her siblings. As she herselfadmitted, she intended to conve* Fots $

and $$ to Nose in the event the lattereturned from abroad. There was thus animplied trust constituted in her favor. Art$224 of the Civil Code statesI There, isalso an implied trust when a donation ismade to a person but it appears thaalthough the legal estate is transmitted tothe donee, he nevertheless is either tohave no benecial interest or onl* a partthereof. There being an implied trust, thelots in uestion are therefore sub-ect tocollation in accordance with Art. $6$


41/48

which statesI Kver* compulsor* heir, whosucceeds with other compulsor* heirs,must bring into the mass of the estate an*propert* or right which he ma* havereceived from the decedent, during thelifetime of the latter, b* wa* of donation,or an* other gratuitous title, in order thatit ma* be computed in the determinationof the legitime of each heir, and in theaccount of the partition.

%6) SPOUSES FLORENINO ?ARA0O?A andERLINDA ENRIHUE??ARA0O?A, petiti#nes,vs. E ONORABLE COUR OF APPEALS,ALBERA ?ARA0O?A MOR0AN, esp#ndents.0.R. N#. 16&$61. Septe;:e +%, +666

$. S(77essi#n- Patiti#n- It is :asi7 int9e la5 #" s(77essi#n t9at a patiti#ninte viv#s ;a* :e d#ne "# as l#n8 asle8iti;es ae n#t peK(di7ed.3 +asthe partition done during the lifetime of#lavio Zarago)a Cano validS +e think so. "tis basic in the law of succession that apartition inter vivos ma* be done for aslong as legitimes are not pre-udiced. Art.$8 of the Civil Code is clear on this. Thelegitime of compulsor* heirs is determinedafter collation, as provided for in Article$6$I Kver* compulsor* heir, whosucceeds with other compulsor* heirs,must bring into the mass of the estate an*propert* or right which he ma* havereceived from the dece=gratuitous title inorder that it ma* be computed in thedetermination of the legitime of each heir,

and in the account of the partition.

'. C#llati#n- Paties- Indispensa:lePaties- C#llati#n 7ann#t :e d#ne59ee t9e #i8inal petiti#n "#delive* #" in9eitan7e s9ae #nl*i;pleaded #ne #" t9e 7#;p(ls#*9eis3the petition must therefore bedismissed without pre-udice to theinstitution of a new proceeding where allthe indispensable parties are present.Enfortunatel*, collation cannot be done inthis case where the original petition for

deliver* of inheritance share onl*impleaded one of the other compulsor*heirs. The petition must therefore bedismissed without pre-udice to theinstitution of a new proceeding where allthe indispensable parties are present forthe rightful determination of theirrespective legitime and if the legitimeswere pre-udiced b* the partitioning intervivos.

%1) BERNARDO MENDO?A I, BERNARDOMENDO?A II, 0UADALUPE M. MAN0ALE

!ULIANA M. SAMONE, PACIA M. SAMONE, RICARDO MENDO?A,FRANCISCO MENDO?A, PARICIA MENDO?A,OLMPIA M. DI?ON, ROMEO MENDO?ARENALDO MENDO?A, REMEDIOS MBERNABE and RINIDAD MANUEL MENDO?Apetiti#nes, vs. ON.COUR OF APPEALS, RENAO SAMONE andLUCIA DELA CRU? SAMONE, esp#ndents.0.R. N#. $$&&$. !(l* '1, 1%%1

$. Civil La5- P#pet*- C#O5nes9ip-/9ee t9ee ae t5# # ;#e 9eis,t9e 59#le estate #" t9e de7edent is,:e"#e its patiti#n, #5ned in7#;;#n :* s(79 9eis.3"n this casethe source of co=ownership among theheirs was intestate succession. +herethere are two or more heirs, the wholeestate of the decedent is, before itspartition, owned in common b* such heirs(Article $8 of the Civil Code%etitionersG co=ownership over Fot & wase/tinguished when it was subdivided intoFot &=A and Fot &=@, which portions wereconcretel* determined and technicall*described (see de la Cru) v. Cru), 3.9. ?oF='54, April $, $4, &' ;C9A &Against the impetuous denial opetitioners that Fot & has been partitioned(pp. $4, 46, $'$, 9ollo is K/hibit A whichis the ;ubdivision %lan of Fot &, (F9C %;$&, dated ;eptember , $46$, dul*approved b* the Commissioner of Fand

9egistration.

'. Rede;pti#n- I" t9e p#pet* 9as :eenpatiti#ned # an identi>ed s9ae 9as:een s#ld, t9en t9ee is n# l#n8e an*i89t #" le8al ede;pti#n.E+e resolvethe second issue based on the previousdiscussion that the co=ownership has beene/tinguished. Article $6' of the CiviCode applies onl* if the co=ownership stile/ists. "f the propert* has been partitionedor an identied share has been sold, thereis no longer an* right of legal redemption.

%+) A?NAR BROERS REAL COMPAN,petiti#ne, vs. COUR OF APPEALS, LUISAIN0, DEMERIO SIDA, FELOMINOAU0USO, FEDERICO ABIN0, and ROMEOAU0USO, esp#ndents.0.R. N#. 1+


42/48

3t9e pati7ipati#n #" n#n9eis d#esn#t ende t9e patiti#n v#id in itsentiet* :(t #nl* t# t9e etent7#esp#ndin8 t# t9e;.3#irst, privaterespondents claim that not all the knownheirs of Crisanta 0alolo*=on participated inthe e/tra-udicial partition, and that twopersons who participated and were madeparties thereto were not heirs of Crisanta.

This claim, even if true, would not warrantrescission of the deed. nder Article $$2of the Civil Code, 7aB partition made withpreterition of an* of the compulsor* heirsshall not be rescinded, unless it be provedthat there was bad faith or fraud on thepart of the persons interested! but thelatter shall be proportionatel* obliged topa* to the person omitted the share whichbelongs to him.: "n the present case, noevidence of bad faith or fraud is e/tantfrom the records. As to the two parties tothe deed who were allegedl* not heirs,Article $$5 is in point! it providesI 7Apartition which includes a person believedto be an heir, but who is not, shall be voidonl* with respect to such person.: "n otherwords, the participation of non=heirs doesnot render the partition void in its entiret*but onl* to the e/tent corresponding tothem.

%') PABLO RALLA, petiti#ne, vs. ON.ROMULO P. UNALAN, ON. DOMIN0OCORONEL REES, AND LEONIE RALLA, PEERRALLA AND MARINELLA RALLA,esp#ndents.

0.R. N#s. &'+'$. Apil +, 1%eril*, the rule is that there can be novalid partition among the heirs till aftethe will has been probated. This, ocourse, presupposes that the properties to

be partitioned are the same propertiesembraced in the will. Thus, the ruleinvoked is inapplicable in this instancewhere there are two separate cases (CiviCase ?o. ''& for partition, and ;pecia%roceedings ?o. 562 originall* for theprobate of a will, each involving theestate of a dierent person (%a) Kscarellaand 9osendo 9alla, respectivel*comprising dissimilar properties.


43/48

'. Patiti#n- !(d8;ents- A"te a patiti#n9as :e7#;e a K(d8;ent #" t9e 7#(t,and disti:(ti#n t9ee#" "(ll* 7aied#(t, 5it9 t9e 9eis e7eivin8 t9ep#peties assi8ned t# t9e;, t9elatte ae pe7l(ded "#; atta7@in8t9e validit* #" said patiti#n # an*pat t9ee#".3#urthermore, the Courthad occasion to rule thatI +here apartition had not onl* been approved andthus become a -udgment of the court, butdistribution of the estate in pursuance ofsuch partition had full* been carried out,and the heirs had received the propert*assigned to them, the* are precluded fromsubseuentl* attacking its validit* or an*part of it. FikewiseI +here a piece of landhas been included in a partition, and thereis no allegation that the inclusion waseected through improper means orwithout the petitionersG knowledge, thepartition barred an* further litigation onsaid title and operated to bring thepropert* under the control and -urisdictionof the court for proper dispositionaccording to the tenor of the partition . . .

The* can not attack the partitioncollaterall*, as the* are tr*ing to do in thiscase. ("talics supplied.

%$) In t9e Matte #" t9e Petiti#n t# App#vet9e /ill #" Le#de8aia !(lian. FELIBALANA, !R., petiti#ne, vs.ON. ANONIOM. MARINE?, !(d8e #" t9e C#(t #" FistInstan7e #" Dava#, Ban79 2I- A2ELINA B.ANONIO and DELIA B. LANABAN,

esp#ndents.N#.L'%+$. !(ne +, 1%

1. Spe7ial p#7eedin8s- estates(77essi#n- P#:ate 7#(t ;a* pass(p#n intinsi7 validit* #" a 5ill :e"#epassin8 (p#n its "#;al validit*.3Thetrial court acted correctl* in passing uponthe willGs intrinsic validit* even before itsformal validit* had been established. Theprobate of a will might become an idleceremon* if on its face it appears to beintrinsicall* void. +here practical

considerations demand that the intrinsicvalidit* of the will be passed upon, evenbefore it is probated, the court shouldmeet the issue.

+. Invalidit* #" #ne testa;enta*disp#siti#n d#es n#t ne7essail*invalidate all #t9e disp#siti#ns ;adet9eein.3The rule is that 7the invalidit*of one of several dispositions contained ina will does not result in the invalidit* ofthe other dispositions, unless it is to be

presumed that the testator would nothave made such other dispositions if therst invalid disposition had not beenmade: (Art 4', Civil Code.

'. State;ent t9at testat# #5nss#(t9en 9al" #" 7#nK(8al state is7#nta* t# la5 :e7a(se sp#(ses aep#indivis# #5nes t9ee#".3Thestatement of the testatri/ that she ownedthe 7southern half: of the con-ugal lands iscontrar* to law because, although she wasa coowner thereof, her share was inchoateand proindiviso (Art. $2&, Civil Code. @utthat illegal declaration does not nullif* theentire will. "t ma* be disregarded.

$. P#visi#n in a 5ill t9at testat#sestate :e @ept inta7t and le8iti;es #"9eis :e paid in 7as9 is 7#nta* t#At. 16


44/48

his renunciation of his hereditar* rights,his one=half con-ugal share became a partof his deceased wifeGs estate. of the willwithout pre-udice, of course, to the rightsof the creditors and the legitimes of thecompulsor* heirs.

. Peteiti#n #" s(vivin8 sp#(se 59#7#n"#;ed t9eet# d#es n#t p#d(7eintesta7*.3"n the instant case, thepreterited heir was the surviving spouse.


45/48

the pa*ment of the debts of thedecedentGs estate as to which there is nolegal redemption. 7"n the administrationand $$uidation of the estate of adeceased person, sales ordered b* theprobate court for pa*ment of debts arenal and not sub-ect to legal redemption.nlike in ordinar* e/ecution sales, there isno legal provision allowing redemption inthe

sale of propert* for pa*ment of debts of adeceased person: (Abarro vs. e 3uia, ' %hil.'25. ;uch sale is not the one contemplated inarticle $6, now article $88 of the Civil Code(>da. de 0endo)a vs. 0endo)a, 64 %hil. $55.

+. Sales- Inteventi#n- Re;ed* #" 7##5ne #" p#pet* t# n(lli"* a sale #"l#ts ;ade :* 9is ;#t9e asad;inistati 5it9 t9e app#val #"t9e p#:ate 7#(t alle8edl* 5it9#(t9is 7#nsent is in t9e intestatep#7eedin8- P(79ase #" disp(tedp#pet* :e7#;es a "#7edinteven#.3ln the instant case, weagree with Nudges #ule, Catolico and>alle-os that #edericoGs remed* is in theintestate proceeding where his petition forrelief has been pending for nearl* twent**ears.


46/48

%


47/48

&. Ee7(t#s and Ad;inistat#s- 9ei89t #" an ee7(t# # ad;inistat#t# t9e p#ssessi#n and ;ana8e;ent#" t9e eal and pes#nal p#peties #"t9e de7eased is n#t a:s#l(te and 7an#nl* :e ee7ised s# l#n8 as it isne7essa* "# t9e pa*;ent #" t9ede:ts and epenses #" ad;inistati#n.3;till and all, petitionercannot correctl* claim that the assailedorder deprived him of his right to takepossession of all the real and personalproperties of the estate. The right of ane/ecutor or administrator to thepossession and management of the realand personal properties of the deceased isnot absolute and can onl* be e/ercised7so long as it is necessar* for the pa*mentof the debts and e/penses of administration.:

. (sts- An 9eis i89t #" #5nes9ip#ve t9e p#peties #" t9e de7edent is;eel* in79#ate as l#n8 as t9e estate9as n#t :een "(ll* settled andpatiti#ned- An ee7(t# is a ;eet(stee #" t9e estate3the funds of theestate in his hands are trust funds and heis held to the duties and responsibilities ofa trustee of the highest order.E%etitionermust be reminded that his right ofownership over the properties of his fatheris merel* inchoate as long as the estatehas not been full* settled and partitioned.As e/ecutor, he is a mere trustee of his

fatherGs estate. The funds of the estate inhis hands are trust funds and he is held tothe duties and responsibilities of a trusteeof the highest order.


48/48

outcome of the testate proceedings.Therefore, there is no basis for petitionerGsapprehension that the Contract to ;ellma* result in a premature partition anddistribution of the properties of the estate."ndeed, it is settled that 7the sale made b*an heir of his share in an inheritance,sub-ect to the pending administration, inno wise stands in the wa* of suchadministration.:

2. Est#ppel- !(isp(den7e tea79es (st9at neit9e t9e la5 n# t9e 7#(ts5ill eti7ate a pat* "#; an (n5ise# (ndesia:le 7#nta7t 9e # s9eenteed int# 5it9 all t9e e=(ied"#;alities and 5it9 "(ll a5aeness #"its 7#nse=(en7es.E%etitioner isestopped from backing out of herrepresentations in her valid Contract to;ell with private respondents, from whomshe had alread* received %&, asinitial pa*ment of the purchase price.%etitioner ma* not renege on her own actsand representations, to the pre-udice ofthe private respondents who have reliedon them. Nurisprudence teaches us thatneither the law nor the courts wille/tricate a part* from an unwise orundesirable contract he or she enteredinto with all the reuired formalities andwith full awareness of its conseuences.

Documents

Wills Cases (Doctrines)