There is nothing in the new law from which we may infer that in order that an illegitimate

child may enjoy his successional right he must first bring an action for recognition during the
lifetime of the putative father as required by article 285 with regard to natural children.
Neither is there any provision which requires that he be recognized as such before he can be
accorded such successional right. All what the law provides concerning recognition refers to
natural children (Chapter 4 Title VIII, new Civil Code.) On the other hand, article 887, when
speaking of illegitimate children as compulsory heirs, contains only the following condition:
"their filiation must be duly proved." It does not say that they must first be recognized by their
putative parents. The reason perhaps behind this liberal treatment is that, because they are
spurious or offsprings of illicit relations, it would be obnoxious to oblige them to bring an
action for recognition during the lifetime of their putative parents, let alone the
embarrassment and scandal that such action would bring to all parties concerned.

How do you distinguish preterition from disinheritance?

Preterition may be intentional but is presumed to be involuntary, while
disinheritance is always voluntary.
In preterition, the law presumes that there has been merely some
mistakes or oversight, while in disinheritance, there is some legal
cause or reason.
In preterition, the nullity of the institution is total resulting in intestacy,
saving devises and legacies, while in disinheritance, the nullity is
partial, i.e. not only insofar as it may prejudice the heir disinherited.
In preterition, the omitted compulsory heir gets his share from the
entire estate, i.e. not only his share of the legitime but also of the free
portion not disposed of by way of devises and legacies, while in
disinheritance, if valid, the compulsory heir is excluded from the
inheritance and if defective, the compulsory heir is merely restored to
his legitime, and testamentary dispositions which are inofficious
reduced.

What is the difference between imperfect disinheritance and

preterition?
In preterition, the institution of heirs is completely annulled,
while in imperfect disinheritance, the institution remains
valid, but must be reduced insofar as the legitime has been
impaired.

In pretertion, a compulsory heir in the direct line is omitted while in

disinheritance, any compulsory heir may be disinherited though not in
the direct line.

What are the sufficient causes for the disinheritance of

parents or ascendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate?