Bar Bar Bar Bar: Wills and Succession

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
Civil Law LEDESMA VS MCLACHLIN

66 PHIL 547 Nov. 23, 1938
WILLS AND
Eusebio Quitco
(+12/15/32)
SP Proc. No. 6153
SUCCESSION
Socorro Ledesma Lorenzo Quitco Conchita
(+3/9/30)
PROF. TERESITA L. CRUZ (P1500 P.N.)
Marcela
Sabina
Rafael
r
Ana
Ba
Lorenzo Jr.
1 4
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
ART. 774. SUCCESSION RABADILLA VS CA
an
GR 113725 JUNE 29, 2000

es
Aleja Belleza
h
(511,856 sq. m. lot in Bacolod)

bl
C
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla Rufina

o
(+1983)
r
1. Elements
R
Ba
Decedent/Testator
an
Heir/Legatee/Devisee Johnny Aurora Ofelia Zenaida

es
2. Terms Property
h
Rights Ma. Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza

bl
C
(100 piculs of sugar/crop year)

Obligations 2 5
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
ART. 776 INHERITANCE ART. 777.

bl
C
LITONJUA VS. MONTILLA

TRANSMISSION OF
o
90 PHIL 757 Jan. 31, 1952

R
SUCCESSIONAL
an
Agustin Montilla
(+)
SP Proc. No. 532 RIGHTS
h
C
Pedro Litonjua
(judgment creditor
P4,000.00)
Claudio
Montilla 3 6
1
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
CORONEL VS CA 263 SCRA 15

Constancio Coronel Waiver of Hereditary Rights and
(+) Interests Over a Real Property
H&L TCT No. 119627
(Still Undivided)
Romulo Coronel I, Reina D. Comandante, x x x for
TCT No. 327043 valuable consideration of P600K, my
(2/6/85) legal obligation/loan to Pedro M. Ferrer
Concepcion & Ramona Catalina Mabanag x x x WAIVE and/or REPUDIATE all my
Alcaraz (2nd sale – 2/18/1985)
(1st sale – 1/19/1985) DP – P 300,000.00
hereditary rights and interests as a
Receipt of Downpayment CP – P1,580,000.00 legitimate heir/daughter of Sps. Alfredo
DP – P 50,000.00 Deed of Absolute Sale – & Imelda G. Diaz in favor of said Pedro
r
CP – P1,240,000.00 4/25/85 M. Ferrer, his heirs and assigns over a
Ba
TCT # 351582 issued in parcel of land with improvements
the name of Catalina on
6/5/85 7
covered by TCT No. RT-6604 x x x. 10
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
Opulencia vs CA GR 125835 July 30, 1998
an
Issue: Is a contract to sell a real property involved in testate

proceedings valid and binding without the approval of the
Art. 783. WILLS
es
probate court?
h
Demetrio Carpena
bl
(+)
SUSACPERVID
C
Natalia Carpena Opulencia
r
R
Ba
Administratrix
an
es
Contract To Sell Aladin Simundac and Miguel Olivan executed on
Feb. 3, 1989
h
Lot 2125 of Sta. Rosa Estate

bl
C
23,766 sq. m. at P150/sq. m.

P300K downpayment 8 11
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
FERRER vs SPS. DIAZ, G.R. 165300, S Statutory

bl
April 23, 2010

C
U Unilateral
Alfredo Imelda S Solemn/formal
o
Diaz
(TCT No. RT-6604) A Animus testandi
R
C Capacitated
an
Reina P Personal
sale to Sps.
(debtor)
Bienvenido & Elizabe
h
Pangan E Effective mortis causa

Atty. Ferrer
(TCT N-209049)
(creditor)
C
R Revocable
Q: Is a waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another
person executed by a future heir while the parents V Vitiated consent is absent
are still alive valid? Is an adverse claim annotated
on the title of a lot based on such waiver likewise I Individual
valid and effective as to bind the subsequent
owners and hold them liable to the claimant? 9 D Disposes of T’s estate to a certain extent
12
2
REYES ET AL VS CA
GR 124099 October 30, 1997 2. Q: “I hereby give to X all
my cars and all other
LWT
cars I may acquire
“II.1. I give and bequeath
to my wife Asuncion before my death.” How
“Oning” R. Reyes, the
ff. many cars will X get?
a) all my shares of our
personal properties x
xx
b) all my shares of all
real properties x x x
I own in common with
r
my brother”
Ba 13 16
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
NEPOMUCENO VS CA 139 SCRA 206
October 9, 1985
an
Sofia Martin Jugo Rufina Gomez

ART. 795.
es
Nepomuceno (+ 7/16/74)
h
(sole executrix)
EXTRINSIC
bl
C
Oscar Carmelita
VALIDITY OF
o
r
R
Ba
“Art. IV. That since 1952, I have been living as man
and wife with one Sofia J. Nepomuceno, whom I WILLS
an
declare and avow to be entitled to my love and

es
affection for all the things which she has done for
me, now and in the past, x x x, in truth and in fact, I (As To Time)
h
could not bind her to me in the holy bonds of

bl
C
matrimony because of the aforementioned previous

marriage.” 14 17
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
Art. 793. AFTER-ACQUIRED T executed will in 1908; new

C
law passed in 1916; T died in

PROPERTY
o
1917.
R
1. Q: In 2000, T made a will

stating, “I give all my cars to
an
X.” In 2000, T had 5 cars. In

2003 when T died, T already
h
had 10 cars. How many cars

C
will X get?
(IN RE JOSE RIOSA 39 PHIL 23)

15 18
3
ENRIQUEZ VS ABADIA
95 PHIL 627
LWT
INTRINSIC
VALIDITY: (As To Place)
T
T
T
1 2
FRONT PAGES
3
General Rule:
T
Article 16 (2) Civil Code
AC
1__________ Article 1039 Civil Code
r
2__________
3__________
BACK PAGES Ba 19 22
es
bl
o
r
R
EXTRINSIC Ba ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

an
VALIDITY: (As To Place)

es
1. Bellis vs Bellis 20 SCRA 358
h
2. Aznar vs Garcia 7 SCRA 95

bl
C
3. Miciano vs Brimo 50 SCRA 867

General Rule:
o
r
R
Ba
Article 17 (1) Civil Code
an
Additional Rules:
es
Articles 815 – 819 Civil Code
h
bl
C
20 23
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
PAULA LLORENTE VS CA GR No. 124371

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:
bl
November 23, 2000

C
X, a Japanese citizen, domiciled in China,

o
on her way to Spain, made a 2-day stop-

R
over in Paris, France. What laws my X

follow as to formalities and solemnities so
an
Ceferino Paula Lorenzo Alicia

her will may be probated in the Philippines Llorente Llorente
(+6/11/85)
and her estate in the Philippines 2/22/1937 1/16/1958
h
distributed in accordance with the

provisions of said will?
C
Crisologo Raul Luz Beverly

1. Lorenzo became U.S. citizen on Nov. 30, 1943.
2. Divorce decree granted to Lorenzo by the Superior Court of
California on Dec. 4, 1952.
3. Lorenzo executed a will on March 13, 1981.
4. Will was admitted to probate by the RTC of Iriga, Camarines
21 Sur on Jan. 24, 1984. 24
4
LOURDES L. DOROTHEO vs CA AND

NILDA D. QUINTANA ET AL ART. 796.
GR No. 108581 Dec. 8, 1999 PERSONS WHO CAN
MAKE WILLS
Lourdes
Legaspi
Alejandro Aniceta ¾ Testamentary Power
Dorotheo Reyes
Dorotheo (+ after 1969) (+ 1969)
¾ Testamentary Capacity
Nilda Vicente Jose
r
Issue: May a last will and testament admitted to
Ba
probate but declared intrinsically void in an
Order that has become final and executory still
be given effect? 25 28
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
an
INTRINSIC ART. 799.

es
VALIDITY OF SOUND MIND

h
bl
C
WILLS
o
r
R
(As To Time)
Ba
an
es
Art. 2263 Civil Code
h
bl
C
26 29
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
1. BULOS VS TECSON 6 SCRA 567

bl
C
October 31, 1962

o
Pedro Tecson Tomasa Bulos

(+1940) (2nd wife)
R
an
h
Vicente Tecson
C
Jose Tantoco
(BAGTAS VS PAGUIO 22 PHIL 227)

27 30
5
ART. 800/801. b). Attestation Clause

did not contain the
SANITY/ statement that “the T
SUPERVENING signed the will in the
presence of the 3
INCAPACITY credible witnesses”
(GIL VS MURCIANO 88
r
Ba
PHIL 260)
31 34
es
bl
o
r
c). “In witness whereof, I sign this testament in the
R
Ba
municipality of Iba, Zambales, Philippines, this
an
th day of October, 1945, in the presence of

e three witnesses, namely 1 __ ,
es
_ _2_____, and _____3_____ as instrumental
ARTS. 804/805/806. tnesses to my signing; this instrument is
h
ritten in three (3) sheets marked by letters

bl
”, “B” and “C” consecutively on top of each

C
eet and upon my request and in my presence

FORMALITIES OF and also in the presence of each of the aforesaid
o
r
instrumental witnesses, they also sign this
R
Ba
instrument already referred to.”
A NOTARIAL WILL (Sgd.) T
an
Witnesses:
es
1
(Sgd.)
h
2
(CUEVAS VS ACHACOSO
bl
(Sgd.)
C
3
32 (Sgd.) 88 PHIL 730) 35
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
d). AZUELA VS CA AND CASTILLO

1.Attestation Clause
bl
GR No. 122880 April 12, 2006

C
a). Attestation Clause did LWT

o
not contain the statement

R
I,
3
an
that “the 3 credible 1. to be buried at North Cemetery, La Loma;

witnesses signed the will
h
2. Devising 2 lots to my nephew Felix Azuela

2
in the presence of the T

C
3. Appointing Vart Pague, executor of my will

and of one another” without bond
1
(CANEDA VS CA 222 SCRA Signed June 10, 1981 in Manila
781 MAY 28, 1983) Eugenia E. Igsolo

33 T 36
6
ATTESTATION CLAUSE 8. Decedent’s alleged will was

This document, consisting of ______ pages, written entirely in English but
3
including this last page x x x the T knew no other language

. except the Igorrote dialect
with a smattering of Ilokano.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
2
Signed and notarized by me this 10th day of (ACOP VS PIRASO 52 PHIL 660)
June 1981 in Manila
9. 5-paged will, 1 page of which
Petronio Y. Bautista
was not signed by 1 witness at
1
Notary Public
Until Dec. 31, 1981 L-hand margin
r
PTR
Doc. No. 1232 TAN
Ba
Page No. 86 (ICASIANO VS ICASIANO
Book No. 43
Series of 1981
37
11 SCRA 423) 40
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
10. 6-paged will, the first 5 pages
3. Attestation Clause not
an
were signed at the L-hand

signed by T margin by the T but not by the
es
h
(ABANGAN VS ABANGAN three(3) attesting witnesses

bl
C
40 PHIL 476). (IN RE WILL OF PRIETO 46

PHIL 700)
o
r
R
Ba
4. Attestation Clause not signed 11. 1-paged will not signed by T and
an
by 1 witness 3 attesting witnesses at L-hand

margin.
es
(CAGRO VS CAGRO 92 PHIL
h
1032) (ABANGAN VS ABANGAN 40

bl
C
38
PHIL 476) 41
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
5. Attestation Clause in a 12. 2-paged will, the first page of which

bl
C
was not signed by T at the L-hand

language not known to T margin.
o
6. Attestation Clause in a LWT

R
language not known to AC

an
attesting witnesses 1 .
2 .
3 .
7. Attestation Clause did not
h
ACK
include the number of pages

C
D ___
of a will. Page [1]
P ___
B ___
Page [2]
S ___
(SINGSON VS FLORENTINO 92 PHIL 161) (ESTATE OF TAMPOY VS ALBERASTINE 107

PHIL 100)
(TABOADA VS ROSAL 203 PHIL 572)
39 42
7
13. Marginal signatures of T and 3 16. True test of “signing in the

witnesses were placed on R presence” of T and 3 witnesses.
margin instead of L.
LWT T
AC
1
1 .
2 .
3 .
ACK
2
3
D ___
P ___
r
B ___
Page [1] S ___ Page [2]
(AVERA VS GARCIA 42 PHIL 145)

Ba 43
(JABONETA VS GUSTILO 5 PHIL 541)
46
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
15. T’s signature located below 17. 2 witnesses and T in one room signing
the will; 1 witness was in another area
an
signature of Notary Public in the

of the same room, separated by a
acknowledgment.
es
curtain.
h
LWT AC
bl
C
1 _______
o
2 _______
r
3 _______
R
Ba
ACK
an
es
h
D ___
P ___
T
bl
B ___
C
S ___
[1] [2]
44 47
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
VOID. If the will is not signed at 18.

C
the END but somewhere else, the will LWT
is NOT VALID. End of the will means

o
the LOGICAL, not the physical end of

R
the will (See Stinson’s Estate 228 Pa

an
475)
So important is this requirement

h
that if after the signature, there are Tomasa Yap Caong

additional clauses or provisions, not
C
only should those clauses be

considered VOID, but also the WHOLE
WILL, from beginning to end, and the
YAP TUA VS YAP CA KUAN 27 PHIL 579
will, therefore, should be denied
probate (IN RE ANDREWS, 162 NY 1) 45 48
8
23. Notarial will was executed by T with

19. Testator’s name was written for 3 credible witnesses; opposition to
the testator, in his presence and the allowance of the will on the
at his express direction, by one ground that T and the 3 instrumental
of the credible witnesses. witnesses did not acknowledge and
subscribe the will before the Notary
Public “in the presence” of each
other.
(ESTATE OF LEDESMA 97 PHIL 258)
r
Ba 49 52
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba Art. 807.
20. Will was not read to the
an
witnesses, hence, they do

DEAF/DEAF–MUTE
es
not know the contents of the
h
will.
TESTATOR
bl
C
21. Notarial will executed by
r
testator was not dated,
R
hence, the contention that it

Ba
an
was void.
es
h
(ESTATE OF LABITORIA 54 PHIL 378)

bl
C
50 53
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
Art. 808. BLIND TESTATOR

bl
22. Notarial will was executed by

C
T. One of the attesting

o
witnesses was the Notary 79 year-old T, sick of glaucoma,

Public before whom the will was executed an 8-page notarial will and 5 page
R
codicil
acknowledged and subscribed.
an
(CRUZ VS VILLASOR 54 SCRA 31

NOVEMBER 26, 1973)
h
C
(ALVARADO VS GAVIOLA 226 SCRA

51
347, SEPTEMBER 14, 1993) 54
9
CODOY vs CALUGAY
Art. 810 - 814. GR No. 123486 Aug. 12, 1999
Holographic will, written in Visayan dialect and
translated in English, reads:
HOLOGRAPHIC “1. My share at Cogon, Raminal Street, for Evangeline Calugay.
Matilde Vda de Ramonal
WILLS August 30, 1978

2. Josefina Salcedo must be given 1,500 sq.m. at Pinikitan Street.
August 30, 1978
3. My jewelries shall be divided among:
r
1. Eufemia Patigas 3. Evangeline Calugay
Ba
2. Josefina Salcedo
55 August 30, 1978 58
es
bl
o
r
4. I bequeath my one (1) hectare land at Mandumol, Indahog to
R
Ba
Evangeline Calugay.
an
LWT Matilde Vda de Ramonal

August 30, 1978
es
h
5. Give the 2,500 sq.m. at Sta. Cruz Ramonal Village in favor of

bl
tlc Evangeline R. Calugay, Helen must continue with the Sta. Cruz,
C
1/1/2009 tlc once I am no longer around.

o
r
August 30, 1978
R
Ba
tlc 6. Bury me where my husband Justo is ever buried.
an
tlc Matilde Vda de Ramonal

August 30, 1978
es
Gene and Manuel:
h
5/9/2009 tlc Follow my instruction in order that I will rest peacefully.

bl
12/25/2009
C
Mama - Matilde Vda de Ramonal

56 August 30, 1978” 59
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
This holographic will, written in Ilocano

bl
Probate of the HW was opposed on and translated in English reads: “This

C
the grounds: is the day which we agreed that we are

o
making the partition and assigning the

(1) the will and the signature were respective assignment of the said
R
not in decedent’s handwriting. fishpond and this being in the month of

an
March 17 day in the year 1968 and this

(2) some dispositions were signed decision and/or instruction of mine is
but not dated by T the matter to be followed and the one
h
who made this writing is no other than

C
(3) there were alterations and MELECIO LABRADOR, their father”.

corrections not signed by T (LABRADOR VS CA 184 S 170)
(AJERO VS CA 236 SCRA 488

SEPTEMBER 15, 1994) Q: Was the holographic will dated?
57 60
10
The holographic will of testatrix 3. A & B are husband and wife. A

contained only one provision which executed a will which reads: “On my
reads: death, I give all my properties to B.”
Gregorio
B, likewise, executed a will which
“I bequeath to my sole heir, Rosa Kalaw all my
reads: “On my death, I give all my
properties.” properties to A.” B’s father contends
these are joint wills, hence, VOID.
Signed: Natividad Kalaw
Date : December 24, 1968
r
(KALAW VS RELOVA 132 SCRA 237
SEPTEMBER 28, 1984) 61 Ba 64
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
BILBAO vs BILBAO 87 PHIL 144
ART. 818. JOINT WILLS
an
Victor Bilbao Ramona Navarro Bilbao

1. (widow)
es
h
LWT LWT
10/6/31
bl
LWT
C
“All of our respective

o
private property, real or
r
personal and all of our
R
Ba
conjugal property be given
and transmitted to anyone
an
or either of us, who may

H W survive the other or who
es
may remain the surviving
h
spouse of the other.”

FRONT BACK
bl
C
Sgd: Victor AND Ramona

62 65
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
ART. 818. JOINT WILLS

ART. 820/821.
C
2.
o
LWT WITNESSES TO WILL

R
an
h
H
LWT
C
63 66
11
ART. 823. 2. X is the debtor of T in the

DEVISE/LEGACY GIVEN TO amount of P1M. T gave X a
WITNESS legacy of this credit of P1M
in a will he executed in 1999.
T
In 2001, T demanded this
Witnesses
credit in a suit he filed in
BUT W/ court. On T’s death in 2002,
A A is the legacy still effective?
D B C D
A
r
Witnesses
E E
Devise/legacy
F
Ba 67 70
es
bl
o
r
3. T executed a will in 1998
R
ART. 825.
Ba instituting his wife as sole
an
heir, there being no other

CODICIL
es
compulsory heir. On January
h
2, 2001, T filed a case

bl
C
against his wife for legal

separation on the ground of
o
r
adultery. The decree of legal
R
Ba
separation was granted by
an
the court on February 14,

2002. On November 1, 2002,
es
h
T died without making a new

2002 2003
bl
will. Will his wife inherit from

C
68 the T? 71
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
ART. 830. REVOCATION B. REVOCATION BY OVERT ACT

bl
C
OF WILLS 1. Will was thrown into a fire and

o
A. BY IMPLICATION OF LAW was burned despite the efforts of

R
T to retrieve and save it.

1. T gave a legacy of his Honda
an
2. Will was thrown into a fire in T’s

Civic 1998 car to X in a will garden by T with intention to
he executed in 1999. In revoke but will was not burned
h
2000, T sold the car to Y for because T’s grandson retrieved it

C
P1M. On T’s death in 2001, from the fire.

will X get the car, the P1M or
nothing?
69 72
12
3. T, with intention to revoke, threw C. REVOCATION BY ANOTHER WILL

his will upon the fire. Only the 1. T made a will in 1987. After one
upper portion of the will was year, he wanted to revoke will #1
burned and the entire writing on so he made will #2 in 1988. In
the will remained intact. the belief that he had already
executed a valid will, he tore will
#1. On his death, it was
discovered that will #2 was
attested by only 2 credible
witnesses, hence was NOT
r
validly made. Can we consider
will #1 validly revoked or could it
Ba 73
still be given effect?
76
es
bl
o
r
R
4. Crumpling of the will with

Ba DOCTRINE OF
an
the intention to revoke.

DEPENDENT RELATIVE
es
h
REVOCATION
bl
C
If T revokes his will with the

o
r
present intention of making a new
R
Ba
5. With intention to revoke, T one and as a substitute, if the new
an
tore his signature from his will is NOT MADE or even if made,
will leaving all the other FAILS to take effect for any reason
es
portions of the will intact whatsoever, it will be presumed that
h
the T prefers the old will rather than

bl
and readable.
C
74
intestacy. 77
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
Where the act of destruction is

bl
6. In a fit of anger and with

C
connected with the making of

intention to revoke, T
o
another will so as fairly to raise the

obliterated the signatures of
inference that the T meant the
R
the 3 witnesses in a
revocation of the 1st will to depend
an
holographic will.
upon the efficacy and validity of the
2nd will, the revocation shall be
h
CONDITIONED and DEPENDENT upon

the validity of the 2nd will and if, for
C
any reason, the 2nd will intended to

be a substitute is INOPERATIVE, the
revocation of the 1st will fails and it
75
remains in full force and effect. 78
13
ART. 831. IMPLIED REVOCATION ART. 837. EXPRESS REVOCATION

WILL #1 WILL #2 WILL #3 WILL #1 WILL #2 WILL #3
LWT LWT LWT LWT LWT LWT
T T
T
T T “EXPRESSLY
REVOKING
WILL #2” A B C X Y Z
Q R S
A B C X Y Z “I am expressly “I am expressly
revoking will #1” revoking will #2”
r
Ba
2000 2002 2004 2000 2002 2004
79 82
es
bl
o
r
R
ART. 832. EXPRESS

Ba
ART. 837. EXPRESS REVOCATION
an
REVOCATION BUT NEW WILL

INOPERATIVE
es
WILL #1 WILL #2
h
WILL #1 WILL #2 LWT LWT

bl
C
LWT LWT 2 credible

T T witnesses
o
r
T
R
Ba
T (+ 1/1/05) A B C X Y Z
an
“expressly disallowed by
revoking will #1” Probate court
A
es
B repudiated
inheritance
h
“expressly
bl
revoking Will # 1” 2002 2005

C
80 83
2002 2004
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
ART. 834. RECOGNITION OF

bl
ART. 837. EXPRESS REVOCATION

C
ILLEGITIMATE CHILD
o
WILL #1 WILL #2
LWT LWT
R
Notarial will Holographic Will

only copy
an
burned by T
T T inadvertently
“I recognize X as “I am expressly
h
my illegitimate revoking my will

son.” executed in A B C X Y Z
2002.”
C
“I am expressly testimonies of
revoking will #1” 10 witnesses
T T
2004 2005
2002 2003
81 84
14
ORTEGA vs VALMONTE GR 157451 11/16/05

ART. 838. PROBATE OF WILLS (+ 10/8/84) Placido Josefina
(2/5/82)
LWT
80 yrs. old 28 yrs. old
LWT
I, xxx 83 yrs. old
“xxx this will shall
xxx give to my wife
(3)
(3)
not be presented
before the courts.” Josefina C. Valmonte 1 2 3
all real and personal
properties w/c belong ACKNOWLEDGMENT
to me xxx. Before me, a Notary
(2)
Public, personally
(2)
Signed June 15, appeared xxx this
T 1983 in Quezon City. Aug. 9, 1983.
r
Placido Floro Sarmiento
(1)
Notary Public
(TESTATE ESTATE OF PILAPIL 72 ATTESTATION CLAUSE
(1)
Ba
D
We, xxx P
PHIL 546) B
S
(1) (2)
85 88
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
Revilla vs CA GR 95329 Jan. 27, 1993
Will of wife admitted to probate
an
Don Cayetano Revilla

(+ 11/11/86 at the age of 91)
upon petition of her husband
es
without any opposition; 3 years
h
1/10 9 nephews & nieces

later, decedent’s sister filed 1/10 for masses after
bl
2 lots in CM Recto, Mla

his death & care
C
6 lots in San Miguel, Bulacan

opposition alleging forgery and of religious images
Don Cayetano executed a will
falsification of the will; Criminal 1. Jan. 28, 1978
o
r
2. Mar. 21, 1980 “on his own petition”, will was admitted by CFI of
cases were filed 4 times against Manila
R
Ba
3. Sept. 19, 1981 City Hall of Manila was burned
the husband. 4. Nov. 27, 1982 Reconstitution proceedings for the destroyed/burned
an
will
5. Nov. 19, 1986 Heracio Revilla filed petition for probate of 2nd will
executed by Don Cayetano on Sept. 13, 1982 wherein
(MERCADO VS SANTOS 66 PHIL 215)
es
he (Heracio) was instituted as sole heir
h
Issue: Whether the probate court and CA

bl
erred in disallowing the 2nd will of Don

C
Cayetano
86 89
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
SEANGIO vs REYES GR 140371-72 11/27/06

bl
Segundo Dy Yieng
C
(+)
o
1. Alfredo 4. Alberto 6.Victor 9. Betty

R
2. Virginia 5. Elisa 7. Alfonso 10. James

3. Barbara 8. Shirley ART. 840.
an
DOCUMENT OF DISINHERITANCE
I, xxx disinheriting ALFREDO xxx grossly
INSTITUTION
h
disrespectful to me xxx in my presence and in the

presence of his sister VIRGINIA. Xxx borrowed OF HEIRS
C
millions using my name but did not pay China Banking

Corp; xxx pirated clients of Travel Center of the Phil.
which I and my daughter VIRGINIA manage/administer
xxx.
(Signed) Segundo
Sept. 20, 1995
Witness #1 Witness #1 Witness #2 87 90
15
ART. 846. 2. T’s will reads: “I institute my 3

HEIRS INSTITUTED W/O sons and my friends X and Y as
DESIGNATION OF SHARES heirs to my estate of P300T. How
much will each receive?
INHERIT IN EQUAL PARTS
1. T instituted his 3 brothers as heirs; estate
T
is P300T
X P100T
r
T Y P100T
A B C X Y
Ba
Z P100T 91 94
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
2. T instituted his son A and his bros. X and
Y as heirs; estate is 600T 3. T’s will reads: “I designate as my
an
heirs my son A, daughter B, the

es
Y T X
children of my deceased son C
h
and my friend F; estate is P180T

bl
C
A
o
r
3. T instituted his wife S, legitimate son A
R
Ba
and F, his friend, as heirs, estate is
an
P1.2M. Distribute the estate to T’s heirs. A B children of C F

es
T S
h
X Y Z
bl
C
F A
92 95
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
ART. 847. COLLECTIVELY ART. 848. BROTHERS/

bl
C
INSTITUTED DEEMED SISTERS OF FULL AND

o
INDIVIDUALLY INSTITUTED HALF-BLOOD

R
1. In his will T said: “I institute as heirs to T instituted as heirs his full-blood

an
my estate of P600T my friends X and Y brothers A and B and half-blood brothers C, D

and the 2 sons of Z.” How much will and E; estate is P1M; how much will each get?
each get?
h
T T
C
X Y 2 sons of Z A B C D E
TS = Art. 848 (equal sharing)
IS = Art. 962 (half blood bros/sis ½ share of full
A B 93 blood bros/sis) 96
16
ART. 854. PRETERITION 6. T instituted his children of the 2nd

marriage as heirs without giving
1. Husband omitted in the will of testatrix anything to his children of the 1st
(IN RE WILL OF LEODEGARIA JULIAN marriage, although they were
64 SCRA 452). mentioned in his will. (NERI VS
AKUTIN 72 Phil 322).
2. Father of T omitted in a will and
r
legitimate children of T instituted as
heirs.
3.
Ba
Illegitimate daughter was given a
legacy but was not instituted as heir. 97 100
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
7. T has legitimate sons, A and B. A was
4. Legitimate parents were completely instituted as sole and universal heir to
an
omitted in the will of testatrix who an estate of P100T and a legacy of P10T
instituted as sole heir her sister (one of
es
was given to friend F.
six brothers/sisters). (NUGUID VS
h
NUGUID 17 SCRA 449). T

bl
C
A B F (P10T)
o
r
R
Ba
8. Suppose the legacy given to F was P70T
instead of P10T, what is the effect?
an
T
es
h
bl
A B F (P70T)
C
98 101
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
5. T instituted his brother as universal VIADO NON VS CA

bl
C
heir to all his properties. He stated in GR 137287 FEB. 15, 2000

his will that in case his brother
o
Julian Virginia
predeceased him, his brothers’ (+ 1985) (+ 1982)
R
children shall inherit from him all his

an
properties. T’s wife and legally

adopted daughter were omitted in his Alicia Nilo Leah Rebecca Delia
will. (ACAIN VS IAC 155 SCRA 101). + 4/22/87 (+ 4/22/87) (Retardate)
h
C
2 leg. children
1. Deed of Donation covering his ½ share of the
conjugal property executed by Julian in favor of
Nilo.
2. Extra-Judicial Settlement executed by Julian,
99 Leah and Rebecca in favor of Nilo. 102
17
ART. 856. VOLUNTARY/ ART. 891. RESERVA TRONCAL

ORIGIN
COMPULSORY HEIRS WHO (ascendant, bro/sis.
where property
DIE/ARE INCAPACITATED/ came from)
RENOUNCE INHERITANCE RESERVOR
(ascendant who
VOLUNTARY COMPULSORY acquired property
HEIR HEIR by operation of
T (+) 2002 T (+) 2002 law)
PROPOSITUS
(descendant who acquired
F (+) 2001 (+) 2000 A B C property gratuitously)
r
RESERVATARIOS
Ba
A X Y (relatives within the 3rd degree
belonging to the line where
Estate is P1M Estate is P900T 103 the 106
es
t f )
bl
o
r
R
Ba
ART. 863. FIDEICOMMISSARY G
an
SUBSTITUTION
es
T - fideicomitente
h
F M N
bl
+ (1993)
C
+ (2000)
o
A - 1st heir (fiduciary heir)
r
Only 1 degree preserve & transmit
R
Ba
apart in the property
X
an
relationship
B - 2nd heir
+ (1995)
es
(fideicommissary heir)
h
bl
C
C 104 R 107
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
ART. 863. FIDEICOMMISSARY GF

bl
C
SUBSTITUTION
o
T instituted X as heir and stated in her will: A B 1st WIFE F M J(bro.)

R
“1. Should X die, the whole estate should pass +1/1/80 (+2/1/99) (+1/1/2002)
an
unimpaired to X’s children;

2. The estate should never pass out of the hands
of X and her children as long as legally C D E X G
h
possible; (+3/1/2000)
C
3. Should X die after me while her children are

still minors, the estate would be H I
administered by the executrix.”
(PEREZ VS GARCHITORENA 54 PHIL 431) K
105 108
18
1. LWT 2. LWT 3. LWT

Juliana Francisco Manuela
“I institute my “I institute my “I leave to my
(+1889) (1914) friend X as sole husband X as beloved wife all
heir to my estate sole heir to my my properties
of P10M on the estate of P10M worth P10M and
condition she on the condition she shall not
shall not marry he shall not remarry.”
Y.” remarry.”
Segunda Alfeo Jose T T T

(+1890)
2 parcels of land
r
Ba
(NIEVA VS ALCALA 41 PHIL 915)
109 112
es
bl
o
r
Luisa Bautista
R
Ba
(+ 11/3/50) 4. In her will, the wife stated:
an
Consuelo Joaquin Jose Sr. “1. I hereby order that all

es
(+ 6/3/68) (+ 1/28/45) real estate which may belong to
h
me shall pass to my husband;

bl
C
sale to: 2. That my said husband

Raul Balantakbo brothers
Sumaya (12/21/59)
o
nieces/ shall not leave my sisters after
r
nephews
my death, and that he shall not
R
Ba
Villa Honorio Dev. Corp. marry anymore; xxx ;
an
es
Agro Ind. Coconut Coop. Inc.
(MORENTE VS DELA SANTA 9
h
SUMAYA vs IAC 201 SCRA 178 PHIL 387)

bl
C
September 21, 1991 110 113

o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
ART. 875. DISPOSITION

bl
ART. 874.
C
CAPTATORIA
o
CONDITION NOT TO
R
LWT
MARRY
an
“I institute my
friend F as sole heir to
h
my estate of P 10M on
the condition that he
will also institute me
C
as sole heir to all his

properties in his own
will.”
T
111 114
19
ART. 887/888. COMPULSORY

ART. 887/888. HEIRS/CHILDREN/DECENDANTS
1. F M
COMPULSORY
HEIRS/CHILDREN/
T S
DESCENDANTS
r
W L I
Ba 115
NHE is P1M 118
es
bl
o
r
SURVIVING RELATIVE TABLE OF LEGITIMES TABLE OF INTESTATE SHARES
R
Ba
TESTATE SUCCESSION (INTESTATE SUCCESSION) 2. F M
1. legitimate children ½ NHE ÷ number of
an
legitimate children
2. legitimate parents ENTIRE
ALONE
es
3. illegitimate children ½ NHE ESTATE
h
4. illegitimate parents
5. surviving spouse 1/2; 1/3; 1/2; 0 P T S
bl
C
6. 1 legitimate child; surviving spouse 1/2; 1/4 1/2, 1/2

7. a. 2 or more legitimate children; 1/2 NHE ÷ no. of legitimate consider spouse as 1 child and ÷
surviving spouse children; same share as 1 estate by
o
legitimate child;
r
total number
b. 2 or more legitimate children; ½ NHE no. of legitimate *satisfy legitimes first; then, distribute
R
Ba
surviving spouse; illegitimate children; same share as 1 FP
children legitimate child; 1/2 share of pro-rata (concurrence theory)
1 legitimate child X Y A B C (adopted
an
8. legitimate parents; surviving spouse 1/2; 1/4

child)
9. illegitimate parents; surviving spouse 1/4; 1/4 1/2; 1/2
(Illegitimate) (legitimate)
es
10. illegitimate children; surviving 1/3; 1/3
spouse
h
11. legitimate parents; illegitimate 1/2; 1/4; 1/8 1/2; 1/4; 1/4
NHE is P900T
bl
children; surviving spouse

C
12. surviving spouse; 1/2; 1/2

bros/sis/nephews/nieces 116 119
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
SURVIVING RELATIVE TABLE OF LEGITIMES ART. 890 LEGITIMATE

bl
C
TESTATE SUCCESSION
1. legitimate children ½ NHE ÷ number of legitimate children PARENTS/ASCENDANTS
o
2. legitimate parents
3. illegitimate children ALONE ½ NHE 1. GF 2. GGF
R
4. illegitimate parents
5. surviving spouse 1/2; 1/3; 1/2; 0
an
6. 1 legitimate child; surviving spouse 1/2; 1/4

7. a. 2 or more legitimate children; 1/2 NHE ÷ no. of legitimate children; same F M GF GM GF GM
surviving spouse share as 1 legitimate child;
h
b. 2 or more legitimate children; ½ NHE no. of legitimate children; same

surviving spouse; illegitimate share as 1 legitimate child; 1/2 share of 1
legitimate child
children
T F M
C
8. legitimate parents; surviving spouse 1/2; 1/4
9. illegitimate parents; surviving spouse 1/4; 1/4
10. illegitimate children; surviving 1/3; 1/3

spouse
11. legitimate parents; illegitimate 1/2; 1/4; 1/8 T
children; surviving spouse Estate is 100T
117 120
20
ART. 908. FORMULA

FOR NET HEREDITARY ARTICLE 915.
ESTATE DISINHERITANCE
Property left at the time of
death
- debts/charges
+ collationable donations
r
Ba
NHE
121 124
es
bl
o
r
SEANGIO vs REYES GR 140371-72 11/27/06
R
Ba
1. T’s estate at the time of death = P1M
Segundo Dy Yieng
an
(+)
A ID = P200T
es
1. Alfredo 4. Alberto 6.Victor 9. Betty
h
legitimate children 2. Virginia 5. Elisa 7. Alfonso 10. James

bl
C
3. Barbara 8. Shirley
B ID = P100T DOCUMENT OF DISINHERITANCE
o
r
I, xxx disinheriting ALFREDO xxx grossly
F (friend) ID = P100T disrespectful to me xxx in my presence and in the
R
Ba
presence of his sister VIRGINIA. Xxx borrowed
an
millions using my name but did not pay China Banking

Debt of T = P200T Corp; xxx pirated clients of Travel Center of the Phil.
es
which I and my daughter VIRGINIA manage/administer
T xxx.
h
(Signed) Segundo
bl
Sept. 20, 1995

C
A B F 122 Witness #1 Witness #1 Witness #2125

o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
2. D
bl
C
A B C
ART. 918.
R
property left at the time of death = P30T

an
Intervivos donation to A = P60T INEFFECTIVE

DISINHERITANCE
h
a. If all the children (A, B and C)

accepted the inheritance, should the
C
donation to A be reduced?
b. If only B&C accepted the inheritance

and A repudiated, do we have to
reduce the donation to A?
123 126
21
COMBINATION PRETERITION ART. 922. RECONCILIATION

T’s will reads: “I disinherit my son X
AND DISINHERITANCE for trying to kill me.” X was convicted and
1. A, B and C are T’s legitimate children. T served his prison term. When he was
instituted A as sole heir, completely released from Muntinlupa, X stayed with his
omitted B from inheritance and father in his father’s house until T’s death. T
disinherited C for having been found never changed his will (where the
guilty of an attempt against T’s life. disinheritance was made). T did not also
Distribute T’s estate of P900T. execute any document condoning X’s
offense. Will X inherit from T?
T
r
Ba
A B C
127 130
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
2. Same facts as #1 but the ART. 923.
an
disinheritance of C was because he T’s estate is P1M; A and B are sons

es
immediately married X right after he of T; C is the son of A; B was instituted
h
graduated from FEU with a degree as heir and A was disinherited in the will
bl
of Bachelor of Laws. Distribute T’s for his unjust refusal to support T during
C
estate of P900T. T’s lifetime. Distribute T’s estate.

o
r
T
R
Ba
T
an
A B
es
h
A B C
bl
C
C
128 131
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
3. T’s legitimate children are X, Y and Z.

ART. 930.
C
T disinherited all of them: X, for no

T gave to X in a will he
o
reason whatsoever; Y, for not taking

care of him when T was hospitalized at executed in 2007 a legacy of a
R
St. Luke’s hospital and Z for living the 2005 Mitsubishi Galant car,
an
life of a male prostitute. T’s estate is

green, which he thought
P900T.
belonged to him but in reality
h
T belonged to A. On T’s death in

C
January 2009, will X get the

car?
X Y Z
129 132
22
ART. 931. ART. 935.
T stated in his will: “I X is the debtor of T in the

give to my friend X the amount of P100,000.00. T made
2002 Honda Civic car a will on Jan. 1, 2007 which
owned by A.” On T’s reads: “I give this credit of
P100T to my friend Y.” On Dec.
death, will X get the car? 25, 2007, X paid P25T to T. T
r
died on Feb. 14, 2009. How
Ba
much can Y collect from debtor
133 X as his legacy? 136
es
bl
o
r
ARTS. 932/933.
R
Ba
ART. 937.
an
T executed a will on Dec. 20,

2006 which reads: “I give to my
es
D is the debtor of T in the amount of
h
friend X a Honda Civic car, 2005 P1M; P200T and P300T which he
bl
incurred from T in a span of 10 years.

C
model, red, with plate no. RAC143.”

In 2005 T made a will saying: “I remit
If on Dec. 20, 2006, X was
o
r
all the debts owed to me by D”. In
already the owner of the car, is the
R
Ba
2006, D again borrowed several times
legacy still effective on T’s death on from T in the amounts P300T; P150T
an
Feb. 14, 2009? and P25T. On T’s death in 2008, D

es
claims that all his debts have been
h
remitted.
bl
C
134 137
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
ART. 934. ART. 938. LEGACY TO

bl
C
T’s will reads:

CREDITOR
o
“1. To X, I bequeath my diamond ring worth

P35T which is pledged with Monte de 1. T owes C P1M. In his will
R
Piedad;
executed in 2006, T said: “I give
an
2. To Y, I devise my 250 sq.m. lot located

in San Pedro, Laguna which is mortgaged C a legacy of P1M in cash”. How
with PNB; much will C get on T’s death?
h
3. To W, I devise my 500 sq.m. lot located

C
in Quezon City burdened by an easement 2. Suppose T said: “I give C a

of right of way in favor of A;
legacy of P1M in cash to be
4. To Z, I devise my 180 sq.m. lot located
in Bulacan over which a usufruct for applied to my credit”. On T’s
5 years has been constituted in favor of death, how much will C get?
B.” 135 138
23
WITH REPRESENTATION
INTESTATE D’s estate is P900T; A, B, C are
children of D who died with a revoked
SUCCESSION will;
D
a. predecease
b. incapacity
c. repudiation
A B C
r
Ba 139
X Y 142
es
bl
o
r
TABLE OF INTESTATE
R
Ba
SURVIVING RELATIVE SHARES ART. 969. REPUDIATION OF
(INTESTATE SUCCESSION)
an
1. legitimate children
INHERITANCE
ENTIRE D
es
2. legitimate parents
3. illegitimate children
ALONE Estate = P1.2M
h
4. illegitimate parents ESTATE

bl
5. surviving spouse
C
6. 1 legitimate child; surviving spouse 1/2, 1/2 A B C

o
7. a. 2 or more legitimate children; consider spouse as 1 child
r
surviving spouse and ÷ estate by total number
R
Ba
b. 2 or more legitimate children; *satisfy legitimes first; then,
distribute FP pro-rata
surviving spouse; illegitimate children W X Y Z
an
(concurrence theory)
8. legitimate parents; surviving spouse
1/2; 1/2 1. A, B, C repudiate inheritance
es
9. illegitimate parents; surviving spouse
10. illegitimate children; surviving spouse 2. Only C repudiated inheritance
h
11. legitimate parents; illegitimate 1/2; 1/4; 1/4

bl
children; surviving spouse 3. A, B, C predeceased D

C
12. surviving spouse; 1/2; 1/2

140
4. A predeceased D 143
bros/sis/nephews/nieces
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION
bl
ART. 968. ACCRETION

C
Art. 972.
o
A, B, C are legitimate brothers 1. Estate is P900T

(+2002) D
R
of D who died without a will; A Who will inherit from D

an
predeceased the decedent; estate is

P900T
h
A P300T A B C
(+1997) (incapacitated
C
in 1998)
D B P300T
C P300T W X Y Z
141 144
24
2. GF D (+2002)
Estate is P1M
(+ 2000) F M Estate of A = P10M

(+2001) A B Estate of D = P20M
D (+ 2003)
3. D X Y (+1999)
(+2000) (+1998) X Y - repudiated his inheritance
from A.
A B (+1997)
r
X and Y are brothers of D C Z
Ba
Estate is P1M
Who will inherit from D?
145 148
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
ART. 976/977. ART. 979/980. CHILDREN INHERIT
an
ONE WHO IN THEIR OWN RIGHT

es
S D T
REPUDIATES CANNOT
h
(1st marriage) (2nd marriage)

bl
BE REPRESENTED
C
BUT HE WHO
r
A B C X Y
R
Ba
REPUDIATES MAY
an
REPRESENT HIM
es
Estate = P1M
WHOSE INHERITANCE
h
bl
HE HAS RENOUNCED
C
146 149
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
ART. 983. LEGITIMATE CHILDREN

bl
(+) 2002 D
C
WITH ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN

OF DECEDENT
o
(+) 1997 A
R
P D S Estate is P72T
an
h
B - repudiated his inheritance from A B C D E A

C
D Estate is P80T
C
X Y A
147 150
25
ART.985/987. 1. LLORENTE VS RODRIGUEZ

PARENTS/ASCENDANTS 10 PHIL 585
GF GM Martina Llorente
(+ 6/6/02) (+)
F M
Jacinta Julio Martin Francisco

Sister D Brother (+ 8/11/01) (+)
r
Ba
D’s estate is P1M. Who will inherit?151
Rosa
Llorente
Several leg.
children
Soledad Adela
154
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
ART. 992. IRON CURTAIN/ 2. DIAZ VS IAC
an
BARRIER 182 SCRA 427

es
Simona Pamuti Vda de Santero sister (+)
h
X
(+ 1976 intestate)
bl
C
r
R
Ba
A B Pablo Santero Felisa Pamuti --- Jardin
(leg.) (ill.) (+)
an
es
If A dies without any
h
descendant and with B as only

bl
C
surviving relative, will B inherit from 6 ill. children

152 155
A?
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
3. CACHO VS UDAN
bl
D (+ 2003)
C
13 SCRA 693
o
Silvina John Rustico

R
(+)
A (legitimate child of D)
an
(+ 1997) Leg. bros. of Silvina

h
by will
C
B (illegitimate child of A)
Francisco Udan
(+ intestate)
Can B inherit from
D? 153 156
26
4. In RE: Intestate Estates of Josefa

RELATE TO ART. 902. RIGHTS
Delgado and Guillermo Rustia
GR No. 155733 January 27, 2006 OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
Ramon Felisa Delgado Lucio D (+2002)
Osorio (+) Campo
(+) (+)
(+2000) A B (+1999)
(leg) (ill)
Luis Guillermo Josefa 1. Nazario
Delgado Rustia Delgado 2. Edilberta
(+) (+2/28/74) (+9/8/72) 3. Jose
r
4. Jacoba
heirs 5. Gorgonio
W X Y Z
Ba
Guillerma Rustia Guillermina Rustia (leg) (ill) (leg) (ill)
Nanie Rustia 157 160
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
5. VOLTAIRE ALBOLARIO ET AL
vs COLINCO
an
GR No. 129163 April 22, 2003

es
h
Anselmo Baloyo Macaria Lirazan

(+) (+)
INTESTATE
bl
Eduardo (+ 1947)
C
Julian (+)
Gaudencia (+)
SUCCESSION
o
r
Francisca Juan Catalina Agueda
Malvas Albolario Baloyo Colinco
R
CASES Ba
(+) (+) (+ 1951) (+ 1940)
an
4 Purificacion Antonio Irene

es
Voltaire other Albolario (+)
h
children (+ 1985)
bl
C
all born before 1951 Ruth Orpha Goldelina

158 161
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
6. DELA MERCED vs DELA MERCED 1. ROSALES VS ROSALES

bl
C
GR No. 126707 Feb. 25, 1999

148 SCRA 69
o
Blanquita Francisco Evarista M. Rosa Eugenia

(+3/19/88) Dela Merced (+ 1943) (+ 1965) Petra Fortunato
R
(+ 3/23/87) (+)
an
Luisito Blanquita Ma. Joselito Teresita 9

Olivia children
h
1. April 20, 1989 – 3 sets of heirs of Evarista executed

C
EJS of the estate of decedent (5 lots in Pasig City),

each set getting 1/3 pro-indiviso. Magna Antonio Carterio Irenea
2. July 16, 1990 – Joselito filed a Petition for Annulment
of the EJS claiming successional rights in the 1/3 pro- (+)
indiviso share in the estate of Evarista corresponding
to the share of the heirs of Francisco.
3. Lower court dismissed the petition. CA reversed. Son
159 162
27
2. VERDAD vs CA 5. BAGUNU VS PIEDAD

GR No. 109972 April 29, 1996
GR 140975 Dec. 8, 2000
Angel Burdeos Macaria Canuto Rosales
(+) (+) GF GM GF GM
Manuela Ramon Felicidad Justo Romulo Aurora Pastora Piedad

(+) (+) Maternal Aunt M F Paternal U
David Socorro
(+)
Felicidad Ramon Estela Lozada
Augusto Piedad First Cousin
sale to Zosima Verdad
14 June 1982
(+) Decedent
r
3/30/1987 – Socorro discovered the sale
Ba
3/31/1987 – sought intervention of Lupong Tagapayapa
10/16/1987 – initiated legal redemption before RTC of Ofelia Bagunu
Butuan City 163 166
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
3. SAYSON VS SAYSON 205 6. RODOLFO FERNANDEZ ET AL VS ROMEO
an
FERNANDEZ ET AL
SCRA 321 GR 143256 AUGUST 28, 2001
es
Eleno Sayson Rafaela Sayson
h
(+ 11/10/52) (+ 5/15/76) Mother Genaro Dr. Jose R. Fernandez Generosa

bl
(Bro. of Jose) (+ 7/20/82)

C
(+)
o
r
other leg. children Teodoro Isabel
R
Ba
(+ 3/23/72) (+ 3/26/81) (Rodolfo Fernandez NOT a leg.,
ill., legitimated or adopted son)
an
Children of Genaro
es
h
Delia Edmundo Doribel

bl
(leg.)
C
Estate = 194 sq. m. lot w/ building

adopted 164 167
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
4. ANTONIA ARMAS VS MARIETA 7. MA. ELENA RODRIGUEZ PEDROSA VS CA

bl
C
CALISTERIO GR 126467 GR 118680 MARCH 5, 2001

APRIL 6, 2000
o
R
1st husband Marietta Teodorico Antonia

(disappeared) married on (+) (sister)
Brothers Miguel Rosalina
an
5/8/58 Sisters (+ 4/29/72)

h
C
Maria Elena
(legally adopted 8/1/46)
Children of Antonia
165 168
28
12. ADLAWAN VS ADLAWAN

8. SPOUSES ZARAGOZA VS CA GR No. 161916 Jan. 20, 2006
GR 106401 SEPT. 29, 2000 (+)Ramon Oligia(+)
Flavio wife
(+ 12/9/64) (+) 9 children
Graciana Dominador Narcisa Emeterio

(+5/6/97) (+5/28/87)
Alberta Florentino Gloria Zacarias
Arnelito
¾
r
delivery of her share in the inheritance
1. Dispute over house and lot covered by TCT No.
particularly lots 943 and 871 and for
Ba
8842 registered in the name of Dominador Adlawan
payment of damages 2. Ejectment suit filed by Arnelito in his own name
169 and as sole owner of the property 172
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
9. JINKIE CHRISTIE DE JESUS VS 13. ROLANDO SANTOS VS
ESTATE OF JUAN GAMBOA DIZON CONSTANCIA SANTOS – ALANA
an
GR 142877 OCT. 2, 2001 GR No. 154942 Aug. 16, 2005

es
h
Gregorio Santos
bl
Danilo de Jesus Carolina Juan Dizon SS

(+3/10/86)
C
married 8/23/64 (+ 3/12/92)

39 sq. m. lot in Sta.
o
Rolando
r
Cruz, Mla. covered by Constancia
TCT # 14278
R
Ba
1. Gregorio donated lot to Rolando on 1/16/78; accepted by
an
Rolando 6/30/81; Deed of Donation annotated on TCT.

2. Gregorio sold the same lot to Rolando on 4/8/81 per
es
Deed of Absolute Sale.
h
Jacqueline Jinkie Christie leg. children 3. New TCT issued to Rolando by virtue of the annotated
bl
Deed of Donation.
C
4. Constancia filed complaint for partition and

170 reconveyance of lot on 1/11/91. 173
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
11. PILAPIL vs HEIRS OF MAXIMINO R. BRIONES 15. FRANCISCO vs FRANCISCO - ALFONSO

bl
GR No. 150175 3/10/2006; GR No. 150175 2/5/2007 GR No. 138774 March 8, 2001
C
Maximino Donata
(+5/1/52) (+11/1/77) Issue: May a legitimate daughter be deprived of her share
o
in the estate of her deceased father by a simulated

contract transferring the only properties of her
R
Nephews/nieces/ Sister/nephews & father to his illegitimate children?

grandnephews/ 2 lots acquired by Maximino
an
nieces
grandnieces prior to marriage (Erlinda Pilapil) Julia Mendoza Gregorio Cirila dela Cruz
(Silverio Briones) (+) (+)
3 lots acquired by Maximino
h
during the marriage

1. Letters of administration and sole ownership of estate of 5 other
C
Maximino awarded to Donata by CFI on 2 October 1952. illegitimate

2. New TCTs over the property were issued in the name of children
Donata in 1960. Regina Zenaida Aida Francisco - Alfonso
3. Silverio asked for letter of administration of Maximino’s
estate in 1985. 2 residential lots in Bocaue, Bulacan covered by TCTs in
4. Heirs of Maximino filed complaint for partition, annulment the name of Gregorio; 2 Deeds of Absolute Sale dated
and recovery of possession of real property on March 3, Aug. 15, 1983
1987 and an amended complaint on 11 Dec. 1992. 171 174
29
16. MONTERO vs SEPTIMO

GR No. 149751 March 11, 2005
Gertrudes Jose Balilo Juana
Nicdao (+ 8/12/43) Villarama
(+) (+ 8/30/46)
lot covered by TCT # 3014

in Occidental Mindoro
Jovencio
Purificacion (Guardian Niniana Balilo)
r
Balilo – Montero
(filed case for recovery of
Ba
½ share in 1987) Jose Septimo
(sale in 1948 approved by the Court)
175
es
bl
o
r
17. REPUBLIC vs GUZMAN
R
GR No. 132964 Feb. 18, 2000

Ba
an
Simeon Guzman Helen Meyers Guzman

es
(naturalized American) (American citizen)
h
+ 1968
bl
C
David Rey Guzman

o
r
(natural-born American citizen)
R
Ba
1. Dec. 29, 1970 – EJS executed by Helen and David; TCTs
registered in their names in undivided equal shares;
an
2. Dec. 10 1981/Aug. 9, 1989 – Quitclaim Deeds executed by

Helen in favor of David
es
3. Oct. 18, 1989 – David executed SPA acknowledging
ownership of real properties and authorizing the sale of
h
these properties.
bl
4. March 16, 1994 – Republic filed a Petition for Escheat of the

C
½ interest of David over these lots in favor of the

176
government contending Sec. 7 Art. XII of the Constitution.
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
That’s all
bl
C
Folks!!!
R
an
h
C
Thank you for listening…

177
30

Bar Bar Bar Bar: Wills and Succession

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bar Bar Bar Bar: Wills and Succession

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bar Bar Bar Bar: Wills and Succession

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

Civil Law LEDESMA VS MCLACHLIN

GR 113725 JUNE 29, 2000

(511,856 sq. m. lot in Bacolod)

Dr. Jorge Rabadilla Rufina

Heir/Legatee/Devisee Johnny Aurora Ofelia Zenaida

Rights Ma. Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza

(100 piculs of sugar/crop year)

ART. 776 INHERITANCE ART. 777.

LITONJUA VS. MONTILLA

90 PHIL 757 Jan. 31, 1952

CORONEL VS CA 263 SCRA 15

Issue: Is a contract to sell a real property involved in testate

Natalia Carpena Opulencia

Lot 2125 of Sta. Rosa Estate

23,766 sq. m. at P150/sq. m.

FERRER vs SPS. DIAZ, G.R. 165300, S Statutory

April 23, 2010

Pangan E Effective mortis causa

Sofia Martin Jugo Rufina Gomez

declare and avow to be entitled to my love and

could not bind her to me in the holy bonds of

matrimony because of the aforementioned previous

Art. 793. AFTER-ACQUIRED T executed will in 1908; new

law passed in 1916; T died in

1. Q: In 2000, T made a will

X.” In 2000, T had 5 cars. In

had 10 cars. How many cars

(IN RE JOSE RIOSA 39 PHIL 23)

EXTRINSIC Ba ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

VALIDITY: (As To Place)

2. Aznar vs Garcia 7 SCRA 95

3. Miciano vs Brimo 50 SCRA 867

PAULA LLORENTE VS CA GR No. 124371

November 23, 2000

X, a Japanese citizen, domiciled in China,

on her way to Spain, made a 2-day stop-

over in Paris, France. What laws my X

Ceferino Paula Lorenzo Alicia

distributed in accordance with the

Crisologo Raul Luz Beverly

LOURDES L. DOROTHEO vs CA AND

Nilda Vicente Jose

INTRINSIC ART. 799.

VALIDITY OF SOUND MIND

1. BULOS VS TECSON 6 SCRA 567

October 31, 1962

Pedro Tecson Tomasa Bulos

(BAGTAS VS PAGUIO 22 PHIL 227)

ART. 800/801. b). Attestation Clause

th day of October, 1945, in the presence of

ritten in three (3) sheets marked by letters

”, “B” and “C” consecutively on top of each

eet and upon my request and in my presence

d). AZUELA VS CA AND CASTILLO

GR No. 122880 April 12, 2006

a). Attestation Clause did LWT

not contain the statement