Page 1 of 72

Contents
16 June 2010.....................................................................1
I. CONCEPT OF SUCCESSION...........................................................1
21 June 2010.....................................................................1
23 June 2010.....................................................................2
28 June 2010.....................................................................3
II. WILLS........................................................................................3
5 July 2010.........................................................................6
III. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY.......................................................7
IV. SOLEMNITIES OF WILL..............................................................9
28 June 2010.....................................................................9
12 July 2010.....................................................................12
19 July 2010.....................................................................14
21 July 2010.....................................................................18
26 July 2010.....................................................................21
28 July 2010.....................................................................22
V. INCORPORATION OF DOCUMENT BY REFERENCE.....................22
VI. CODICILS................................................................................22
VII. REVOCATION.........................................................................23
2 August 2010 .................................................................26
VIII. REPUBLICATION AND REVIVAL.............................................26
4 August 2010..................................................................28
IX. ALLOWANCE OF WILLS............................................................28
X. DISALLOWANCE OF WILLS.......................................................30
9 August 2010..................................................................31
XI. INSTITUTION OF HEIRS...........................................................31
11 August 2010................................................................34
XII. SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS........................................................34
16 August 2010................................................................36
XIII. KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS.......................................................37
23 August 2010................................................................38
XIV. LEGITIME..............................................................................41
1 September 2010...........................................................42
6 September 2010...........................................................45
8 September 2010...........................................................48
XV. PRETERITION.........................................................................49
13 September 2010.........................................................50
XIV. RESERVA TRONCAL...............................................................50
15 September 2010.........................................................53
20 September 2010.........................................................53
XVIII. DISINHERITANCE................................................................54
22 September 2010.........................................................56
INTESTATE SUCCESSION...............................................................56
23 September 2010.........................................................60
RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION........................................................60
27 September 2010.........................................................62
RIGHT OF ACCRETION..................................................................62
29 September 2010.........................................................64
ACCEPTANCE AND REPUDIATION OF THE INHERITANCE..............66
COLLATION..................................................................................67
4 October 2010................................................................68
CAPACITY....................................................................................71
 Page 2 of 72

MONETARY/PECUNIARY? Not established. Delivery of things with

16 June 2010 pecuniary value.

I. CONCEPT OF SUCCESSION Anabelle Rama pangbato lang ang diamonds. Claimant after interment,
20M and 10M. Should Ruffa pay other 10M? No. While obligations
RECONSTRUCTED FROM WRITTEN NOTES form part of the estate, it should not go beyond the values of property
Own the cabinet, carpenter. in estate UNLESS conjugal in which case the CPG is chargeable.
Tradition: actual and constructive Ruffa pays everything. It remains valid obligation under A1429, not
SUCCESSION: mode of acquisition, extinguished, but only becomes as a natural obligation.
Decedent and heirs  two parties, a legal relation
Subjects of succession: mode of acquiring BEFORE estate is distribution, obligation must first be paid.  Manner
Absence of prenuptial agreement or marriage settlement, default is of payment
CPG under the NCC. Ergo, marriage is now a mode of acquiring
property under ACP. It’s not only by law, because everything is by law. How about corpse and cadaver? Who will inherit. No one. Corpse is not
property, for it is beyond commerce of man.
SUCCESSION Is it not a right of the nearest of the kin? Right to enforce provision
A. Subjects for…
a. Decedent (A775) Why not include in the inheritance? Ms. Santos. Tawag.
b. Heir A777 – death.
B. Objects Inchoate only before that.
C. Mode Abu Sayyaf example. Actual and presumptive death.

Underline the word PERSON. What is a natural and juridical person. Art 43. E.g. of insurance policies and beneficiary.
There are only 3: corporation, partnerships and trusts. Applicability of Rule 132, issue is insurance benefits. WON one is
Natural person lang yang nasa 775. entitled.

May a juridical person be an heir? A1026 allows corporation to be an
heir.
Recipient “Leona Hemsley” left ¼ of estate to dogs. May dogs be heir?
There is an acceptance requirement in CC
1029 dispose property to one’s soul for pious works.
Who is the heir here? The soul of the decedent
Cannot be without heirs: churg only managers property, “heredero”
“herencia”
Kailangang may namamatay sa succession.
Art. 41: baby/unborn child can be an heir.
21 June 2010
RECONSTRUCTED FROM WRITTEN NOTES
OBJECT - Property acquired through succession. AKA inheritance or
estate of deceased (may be used interchangeably
What comprises inheritance? Right and obligations, property which
decedent owned during lifetime.
Are all property part of the estate of the decedent? NO, only those not
extinguished by death.
How do we know if extinguished? Nothing is said if extinguished by
death.
Guidelines (what included in inheritance): Purely personal e.g.
Garcia’s wife marital status
Support
Suffrage
Are obligations included? YES e.g. Sharon’s contract to perform town
fiesta in Cebu cannot be inherited by KC, worth half a million, unjust
enrichment so Sharon should return the amount, contractual
stipulation.
Ms. Santos pa rin.
A390 and 391 v FC
No need for declaration of presumptive death in succession.
Father of Jose in coma for 6 months. Confined at the heart center.
Intubated to machines, respirator and feeding machines. Brain dead,
life support may be unplugged to easen his death, allow him to die
naturally.
Instructions for death: Creamte, baon, donate.  Open drawers at
house and found written document for disposition of property.
- Only daughter – 10M@RCBC
- Only son – 10M@PNB, brand new Mercedes Benz
Jose wants unplugged. Gwapo pa sabi nila Tito at Tita. Outvoted by
needed money, so withdraw at the bank. Ayaw payagan ng bank so
benta na lang yung Benz kay Ron. 6M actual price pero 3M lang ang
benta.
1341? Not transfer to name because sale must be signed by the
registered owner. Forger – crime and accomplice in falsification.
Extrajudicial settlement, executed appointed in will.  Ms. Gutierrez,
gather all assets, kwenta lahat ng utang. Hospital bills not sufficient
property.
May Ms. Gutierrez recover Benz from Ron? Yes, because it was an
invalid sale not yet owner yung nagbenta. He only had mere inchoate
right, so invalid as far as estate is concerned.
Hangga’t di bayad ang utang walang paghahatian ang mga heirs. Kung
may natira, saka lang ang mana ng heirs.
It is the duty and obligation of the executor to recover, Ron’s 3m?
Principle of relativity. Valid as to one party, not valid as to estate.
Valid as to Ron and Jose, but may be rescinded as to in good faith if
both are in bad faith. Otherwise, bad faith.
PROVISION OF CC IN SALES
 Page 3 of 72

1461: emptio spei - sale of vain hope is void even as between Expressly authorized by DPB A130 and !132 but modify in FC. Not
parties ordinary contract. It is again also a will but general rule now applies.
emptio rei speratae – sale of thing with potential existence is
valid (e.g. fruits of flowering tree, may ultimately bear) Revocable again. Not a contract. ERGO not an exception.
Yung will ng tatay, is it not “potential existence”? Assuming it is, then So 1080: isa na lang ang exception: partition inter vivos.
go to 1346 (as to future inheritance)
Expressly authorized by law: what are the two questions? Bar and good 1. SUBJECTS – decedents, heirs
lawyers. 2. OBJECT – inheritance/estate
What is the effect, what is the status, what does it say? Declare nullity 3. MODES
expressly? What if it doesn’t? Go to A5. Acts executed against the a. Testamentary – if valid, law will implement it;
provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be VOID, except decedent must have executed a last will and
when law itself authorizes their validity. testament (hereinafter, LWT)
b. Intestacy – legal succession
Is 1347 what? What are the telltale signs? Look for sanctions. E.g. c. Mixed – failure to dispose everything by will.
criminal violation: fine, forfeiture, imprisonment.
What are those exceptions? Memory of an elephant. 2 lang talaga yan, mali yung Code Commission. Wala namang separate
Implication: Authorized by law  Only valid. Pag authorized, dun lang rule for mixed mode. Inaccurate yung classification in A780.
sha valid. Otherwise, it’s not within authorized exception. “Contractual succession”
2 questions: Contracts which are valid because authorized by law.
There are 2. CONTRACTUAL – 100M in our conjugal property para ako only heir mo
sa will. Is that valid? Not a sale nor a gift. But how to dispose estate,
not gratuitous either. May “collatilla” not allowed because it’s
23 June 2010 contractual succession. Requirements for a valid will.
RECONSTRUCTED FROM WRITTEN NOTES
EXCEPT contract in A1347, i.e. 1080 (dati pwede yung DPN as
Principle of presumptive death.
contractual succession) but no longer allowed.
When did they die? Does it make a difference? Heir must be alive at
the time of death.
TESTAMENTARY – there has to be a will.
Memorize A783! Coz it says the characteristics of a will.
1347: General rule on contracts on future inheritance. EXCEPT when
the law allows.
Suppose a friend died and you discover a document with signature,
What are those 2 contracts? NCC provided for 2 contracts
how do we know it’s a will or not? This is important because if it is or
1. DPN future property (130 takes effect only in the event of
purports to be, it must have been prescribed with formalities of law. It
death)
must be invalid/unenforceable if not. It can be enforced for probate,
2. Mortis causa, is that a contract? Is it a future inheritance?
allowed property in document probate. Need not be brought for
probate, if not will.
Death of donor  conveyance. Donations are advances, chargeable to
the FP.
What to look for in the document? Provisions that disposes of property.
Is that a contract? Is donation a contract?
Get a copy of unauthorized publication/edition of Magic Notes
Can you contract with yourself? What do you call that contract? Tawag
Danicon. But sometimes I change my mind.
Miss Santos. Autocontracts!
Take effect mortis causa, then that document is not a will. Don’t apply
May donation be enforced? If Ron promises to give you a Montblanc
principles of succession (?) to the document.
pen.
It is not defined as instrument/document: an act of writing.
Inability to withdraw unilaterally from previous relations.  character
Noncupative (oral) will not allowed in the Philippines.
of contracts.
BUT in succession, testator can always revoke the dispositions he
John Paul, son of Eva is my son? Ron’s diary.
made.
1. Diary with a key? NO
2. Yellow pad. Humiliating me publicly, nothing goes to my
Ring of Eva found by Ron in the sink. Can he withdraw unilaterally?
property. Magic notes. Indirect disposition. Wala kay
Perfected contract, undone  there are grounds for revocation of
Tolentino yan!
donation.
How about first example, is that a will? It is a will? Part of estate
Is DPN a contract? Happen only mortis causa? A donation but in reality,
reserved to son, diba magmamana itong son? Without
it is not. DMC is a will, that’s why it required compliance with a form to
acknowledgment, will illegitimate son inherit? NO, putative must be
be valid. It’s not a contract.
recognized voluntary or involuntarily.
DPN is a contract, even if mortis causa.
How is recognition done?
VOLUNTARY – initiative of father, record of birth sign
A132, look at A127 FC. A DPN whether future or present need only be
INVOLUNTARY – court action; public document
in writing, not form of will. Compliance with SOF
A132 DPN withdrawal and revocation, there are 2 grounds.
CJ Davide: for signature to amount to recognition, father must be
Mortis causa – revocable at will of testator, not revocable at the will of
aware that he is signing record of birth.
the donor. In reality, a contract.

SUPERFICIAL LEARNING TO PASS EXAM. Learn principles forver, no
passion for law practice!
Not thinkable in our time to be in-house counsel no matter how big
gone in 5 years. The UP Law Glong. FC 176.
Anak ka sa labas, Miss Valenton borne 6PM, 10PM. Nawawala, hinahati
ang gabi. What if alam niya lahat yan kasi abogado sha. You’re not
recognized!!! You are not properly recognized, when your dad dies
tomorrow. Wala ka mamanahin!
Pano ka marerecognize?
1. Confront your father and ask him to execute something in FC
176
2. Demanda for action for compulsory recognition. If he
refuses, denies having fathered you.
Evidence:
a. Continuous possession
b. Pictures, tuition, report cards, public showing
Will you be able to inherit? NO, not voluntary.
Can you compel estate/relatives? No more. Clemeña v Clemeña
Tissue specimen sa lab kasi cancer patient sha. DNA 99.9999% result
match. Can you inherit? Not a form of recognition. It is only an
evidence in action (for involuntary recognition) which I can no longer
commence.
How about a disposition of property in favor of the illegitimate? 
Someone became an heir so it’s a will.
If a will which contains recognition of illegitimate child is not executed
validly, denied probate, will you still inherit?
2 witnesses lang (law requires 3), invalid din ba yung recognition?
Denied probate (sampal sa cannot follow)  WON the recognition
subsists depends on ground of denying probate.
- If forgery: NO, because it’s not his act.
- If other than forgery: It will not take affect as a will, but
effective as recognition because it’s still public document.
Itaga niyo sa batok niyo yan, lalabas yan, sa batok niyo.
Suppose when I die, I appoint Jovie as administrator of estate? Is that a
will? Is there disposition of property mortis causa? Makinig kayo saken,
devote all attention to me. I’m a very very jealous master.
What if I say that I pay him 10K a month? Is that not disposition of
property?
28 June 2010
II. WILLS
In Art 779 Testamentary is defined as succession that results from…
Heir has to be designated in a document that is valid as a will. Nobody
becomes an heir in testamentary succession unless the testator
executes has executed a will. If there is no will, there can be no
testamentary succession. To be testamentary heir, person point to a
valid will where his name is designated.
Suppose will does not designate an heir. May there be testamentary
succession? We have discussed last meeting that for document to be a
will, it must contain a disposition of property mortis causa and that
designation may be direct or indirect. Last meeting, for there to be
Page 4 of 72
testamentary succession, there has to be a will, without which, there
can be no testamentary succession.
Testamentary succession results if heir is designated. What if no
designation? Will there be testamentary succession, where will this
happen, suppose a testator left a disinheriting will. Contains nothing
but disinheritance of compulsory heir. None of property go to eldest
son for having attempted on my life. It disposed the share of son in
favor of other compulsory heirs but will there be testamentary
succession? There is no testamentary succession. There is a will, but no
testamentary succession. The properties of the testator will be
distributed as in intestacy. This is the reason why intestacy is not
defined in the code. Framers of code could not agree on its definition.
Some authors define it to mean, succession that results when
decedent dies without a valid will. Wrong. As in this example, there is
valid will yet his estate will be distributed in intestacy. Inaccurate kasi
ang definition sa 779.
The word heir used in 779 is general. Used in its general sense.
Anybody who will receive something from decedent mortis causa is an
heir. Basta tatanggap sha mortis cause from decedent, he is an heir.
Illustration: testator gave donation MC to a friend, the friend who will
receive something from decedent (the friend who’ll die in the future) is
he an heir? Yes he is. Because DMC is succession, it’s a will. Pag
gumagawa kayo ng DMC, will yan. Kaya favorite yan ng bar exams sa
forms. It must be executed as a will for DMC to be valid. Therefore,
Donee in a DMC is an heir because he’ll receive something from
decedent in ___.
What is the difference between DIV and DMC?
Eva <3 Ron, sired two children. Ron says “in order for my children to
save on taxes, I’d rather give them my properties while I’m still alive.”
So he made this kind of document: “To my children, I give my property
located in Greenhills, SJ, consisting of 2 adjacent lots of equal area.
However, they shall take possession and ownership of my property
only when I die.”
Smartmatic class. Let’s put it to a vote. It’s inter vivos because there is
difference between perfection and delivery of the ownership. For as
long as the contract is perfected during lifetime of donor, it is IV
although possession or ownership is withheld. Pero the contract is
already perfected. What if delivery lang?
Pero kung “take effect” ang condition kapag namatay sha? – DMC
Incidence of the contract are made subject to the condition – DIV
Two kinds of heir: The importance of this distinction is in preterition.
1. Instituted heir
o If he is given the entire estate or an aliquot part thereof
 “Aliquot part” – portion, but we don’t know what
properties comprise that portion. Basta yung value you
are entitled to receive is certain e.g. ½ of the properties
o If you are given the entire estate, or instituted as sole and
universal heir
2. Legatee or devisee
o Legatee - gift of specific movable (legacy)
o Devisee- gift of specific immovable (devisee)
Juridical basis of testamentary succession
Allow person to control the disposition of his estate beyond the grave.
Nasa ilalim na sha pero sinusunod pa rin natin.

Will, pero how can a dead person have will?
Why do we allow a person to dispose his estate after his death? In
reality, this is not disposition after death, it is before his death except it
is made subject to a condition. During his lifetime, he is entitled to
dispose his property subject to conditions. He can choose future event
to effect his disposition, why can’t it be his death. To some legal
philosophers therefore, succession is a mere species of disposition
subject to disposition. That is the juridical nature of testamentary
succession.
Characteristics of a will
1. Purely statutory
 Means that a person is allowed to make a will simply because law
allows him to make one.
 To bring discussion to extreme, may congress pass/enact a law
abolishing provisions on wills and succession? Yes! That’s why in
communist countries where private ownership is not allowed,
institution of laws succession and will become irrelevant.
 When that happens where does law left behind go? Regalian
doctrine, revert to the state
 Will is only enforced by the court because of the law. Absent that
legal command on the court to implement the will, everything is
just a request.
No longer discuss everything kasi madadaanan naman natin yan. Wala
na naman pasok sa Wednesday, sayang ang one hour.
Interpretation of wills
1. If provisions of will are susceptible of being interpreted in
different ways. Which manner shall prevail? Go to A788.
 Presumption is that testator left a will for it to be interpreted.
2. Two kinds of ambiguities in will:
a. Patent or extrinsic (how to pronounce patent? Pilipino
tayo, so short a)
- Ambiguity disclosed by the very words of the will.
- E.g. I live my house to some of the 6 children of my
brother Juan. Ilan dun sa anim ang bibigyan?
b. Latent or intrinsic
- Cannot be discovered by mere reading of provision
but when factual circumstances are considered
- E.g. “I give house to cousin Pedro.” But what if
there are 2 cousins, ambiguity becomes manifest
because of surrounding factual circumstances.
 How to resolve? Caguioa says:
a. Latent: same kind of evidence except oral. I.e.
evidence outside body of provision
b. Patent: same kind of evidence e.g. within the
words of the will, you can’t go outside. Disclosed by
very words of the will
c. Theory of old writers is to cure ambiguity by same
kind of evidence the ambiguity is disclosed, pero
tinanggal na yan lahat ng 789
Art 789: “upon the face” means patent, “within the words”
Tinanggal ng CC yung type of evidence that can cure type of ambiguity.
All kinds are now admissible except oral declaration by the testator.
3. 790 madali na yan
Page 5 of 72
4. 791 give effect to everything
5. 794: apply the ordinary rules on accession sa property.
Accessory follows the principal. He who owns the principal
owns the accessory. E.g. house standing on a piece of land,
whoever owns the land, owns the building.
Exception: Principal follows the accession. FC in the “reverse
accession” in property relations between husband and wife,
CPG. Bagong rule na yan, sa NCC regardless of value.
Bobo na kayooooo! You want more proof? Madami pa yan.
GENERAL RULE: Magkasamang ibibigay yung bahay.
UNLESS: sinabi niyang magkaiba ang pagbibigyan ng bahay at lupa.
Law governing form
There are two aspects of will: [1] form and [2] content/substance
1. FORM: manner on how will was written/executed
- Sino ba nakapirma, pano pinirmahan
2. CONTENT: yung nakasulat; e.g. Ron leaving half of his
property to mistress Miss Ausan
FORM MUNA:
Question: If Mr. Garcia will execute his will, what law must he comply
in order for the will to be valid? Law at the time he executed will or
must will comply with requirements of will at the time of his death?
Answer: A795. Time of execution. Kasi kung patay ka na, pano ka pa
magcocomply.
Concrete example: Today, Ron will execute his will after class. Under
the NCC, law requires at least 3 witness, for his notarial will to be valid.
Kayong tatlong Lady Gaga (Jam, Eds and Ani), kayo witness ko dito.
Year after he made that, congress increased the number required. Apat
na. Despite passage of new law, Ron did not bother to change his will.
Ayoko na nabayaran ko na si Atty jan, nanotaryohan na, so di na niya
binago, when he died, lumabas yung will pero tatlo lang testigo.
Is his will still a valid will? There is no question that at the time it was
executed, it was valid, at the time law enforce require only three. YES,
it is still valid. Why? Dahil sa A795.
What if A795 was also repealed? A4 pero kasi “expressly provided”
suppose law provides for retroactive application, does it also mean
retroactive effect in all cases? Retro application not allowed when it
will impair vested rights and constitutional right to impairment of
obligation of contracts. (Alameda, Velasco, Arias) Convinced na kayong
bobo kayo?
Even when the law does not provide for retroactive application, it will
nonetheless be allowed in what cases? Intention is to make it curative
statute, criminal statutes that is more favorable to accused, procedural
in nature because it’s colorless (i.e. does not impair any vested right)
In re will of Riosa (for the first example)
After Mr. Garcia has executed his will, he acquires a vested right? On
what? On the continuing validity of his will which cannot be impaired
by a retroactive application of a law amending he complied with in
executing his will.
How about the reverse? Today Ron made a will, requested 3 of friends
to act as witnesses, unfortunately, one of the friends were disqualified
from witnessing a will. (e.g. less than 18) 15 lang si Eds. If he dies today
and submitted for probate, it will definitely deny for failure to comply

with requirement of 3 witnesses. Hindi pa namamatay si Garcia, year
after execution of will, congress lowered the number of witnesses to
two. So when he died, the law only requires two witnesses. Has the
change in the law validated the will? No, because of A795. But what if
795 is itself repealed, will you answer be the same? The same pa rin
yun. Ano reason? Invalid will becomes valid at the time of death? Has
somebody acquired vested right to the invalidity of the will. Definitely
not the disposed heirs dahil inchoate lang sila. Wala jan sa syllabus
niyo. For the same reason, it will amount to impairment of vested
rights.
RULE AS TO FORM: Law that governs validity of contract, law in force
at the time of execution of the will. Not the law in force at the time of
death of testator.
AS TO PLACE OF EXECUTION: What law governs as to form?
Example: A British subject was assigned by his company to be a
regional operations manager of SE Asia, his office is situated in HK.
Countries included in his jurisdiction are Japan, Phil, Malaysia,
Indonesia and SG but his base is HK. As ROM he is required to visit all
branches in those countries and confer with officers of company
stationed in those branches. Makes rounds of these branches
regularly. Para shang si Rizal, may gf sa Japan, pag pinas, may GF sa
Mnaila. Ano tawag sa misis mo? Ron says asawa. Mashado kang
bulgar!!! Maybahay ang asawa, pero pag mistress, maycondo. So he
won’t be bored in Malaysia and Jakarta. Para shang si Rizal.
One day in Tokyo, he suffered mild heart attack. While recuperating in
hospital, he was seized of this fear of dying, to prepare for his eventual
death, he executed a will in Tokyo. I want to execute my lawyer!
Japanese lawyers: Pwede pwede we will execute will in Japan. What
law must he observe for the will to be a valid will? Supposing executed
in Tokyo observing formalities required under Jap law, but survived
heart attack in Tokyo. Nung nakita si maycondo, this is my will. When
something happens to me, this is how you distribute my properties.
You probate it sabi ni British subject.
Pano pag sa Indonesia namatay, nandito yung will, executed in
accordance with formalities prescribed under Jap law, susubmit
ngayon ni mistress sa Phil court for probate? Issue: Is the will valid as
to form?
If you were the Filipino judge, how do you rule on the issue. Is it valid
as to form? Ano ba sinusunod nating rule sa Pinas: “lex loci
celebrationis” Locus means “path” or “place” – law of the place of
celebration, where it was executed. But that’s the general rule and
there are exceptions to it:
A817 – general rule
A816 – if you read ‘em all, how do we sum up? When the foreigner is
in the Phil, he may observe law of country which he is citizen (A817) –
lex nationalii. Eh nasa Pinas sha at foreigner sha, at Fno lawyer so ang
inobserve ay Fno law. What if British subject, executed in manila under
Phil law? What law applies in determining formal validity? Yes applying
GR A817. Law of place of celebration.
Suppose foreigner is abroad like in first example, British in Tokyo, what
law must British subject executed in Tokyo for it to be valid in Phil? We
apply here conflict rules (PRIL) A817 ang sagot. May observe Jap law in
executing will.
Page 6 of 72
 HK law (place of domicile) in executing will in Tokyo? Yes,
because of A816
 UK law for will to be validly executed in Tokyo? Yes, A816 law
of country
 Phil law in executing will in Tokyo because subject for
probate in Phil court? (Bakit napasok ang Phil law? I have 4
students now in Japan, lawyering. Not Jap law but Phil law in
Japan. Lahat kayang gawin basta me bayad.) Yes, under A816
when foreigner abroad may observe Phil in execution of his
will.
What if Phil citizen? Suppose son of Phil ambassador to UN in NY
studied law in NYU sa Manhattan for tax laws. NY bar. Easiest bar ang
NY bar, most difficult is California bar. Remained natural born, never
applied for naturalization. After grad and passing NY bar, come home
for extended vacation with relatives. While in Boracay, he almost
drowned. While in hospital recovering from drowning, thinking he was
about to kick the bucket, he made a will. But since NY lawyer, wrote
will in accordance with NY Law. True to his premonition, he died in the
hospital. Now submitted for probate in Phil court.
May the will be allowed probate? No, not allowed probate.
Remember this: A Filipino in the Phil may observe only one law for it
to be valid. Phil law. Yun lang ang pwede niya gamitin.
What if he is abroad what can he use? A817 lex loci celeb. But when he
is abroad, may he execute in accordance with Phil law: Law is silent.
Pagkukulang ng batas, see Tolentino’s comment. Walang nakalagay
kung ano mangyayari. Agree si Sir kay Arthur. Di naman tama na di
natin payagan. Kung yung punyetang British subject pinayagan natin,
pano pa kaya yung citizen natin. Otherwise, violation yan ng equal
protection. He is treated a second class citizen in his own land.
Joint will not allowed in the Phil. What is it ba? Nagkatuluyan si
Gutierrez at Garcia. Imbitahan niyo ako pag nagkatuluyan kayo.
Nabuntis na ni Garcia. Tumatahimik si Ron, uuuy taking it seriously.
Gawa tayo ng will natin. Pirma na you para same tayo will. Is that
allowed? Nope.
Just to be sure you know when a will is joint. Gumawa si Ron ng will,
nakita ni wife. Kinopya niya word for word except for names, adjusted
to make her will. Joint will ba yun? Nope. Identical ≠ joint. Two
separate wills may be identical.
Miss Baviera teacher naming yan. Di sha pinagreretire kasi ayaw niya.
You will acquire the right frame of mind through Ms. Baviera.
Principles behind the law: What is the reason behind the law? That is
the bearing. The only will that will remain invalid even if valid where it
made executed. Pinakagwapo si Ron sa Timbuktu, joint will with
Princess wife na may buto sa buhok ay valid. Not valid in the Phil, even
if valid there. Public policy against joint will. Why? What is the public
policy? Hindi lang spouses yan ha, basta dalawa. Encourage parricide.
Ang layo diba? Bakit parricide? Pag-isipan niyo. We continue next
meeting. Next week because of Binoynoy’s inauguration.
5 July 2010
Why prohibit joint will? In my opinion, that will also hold true even if
the will is not joint. It will tempt the person who requested the will to
commit murder.
AS TO FORM: only joint wills are prohibited even though they are
executed abroad. Look at Art 819: “prohibited preceding article” 
 Page 7 of 72

covers only joint wills. E.g. execute joint will in Timbuktu and come
back here in the Phil. It will not be probated. Invalid if the spouses are REQUISITES FOR A VALID WILL
both Filipino citizens. Suppose one of the spouses to the joint will was 1. Testamentary capacity
a foreigner and they came home to the Phil and one of them died and 2. Animus testandi
then submitted to Phil court for probate? Will the Phil court allow the 3. Compliance with formalities or solemnities
probate of joint will of foreigner and Filipino? SC has already answer a. General
this before. If the country of the foreigner spouse allows a joint will, b. Specific: Depends on whether
the joint will shall be valid insofar as foreigner is concerned but invalid i. Notarial
insofar as Fno spouse is concerned. Some writers disagree in such a ii. Holographic
ruling of SC but until SC has found or issued another ruling that is 4. Free and voluntary act
convincing, this decision stands.

Take note that these are conflict rules with foreign element: whenever III. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY
several laws applicable, conflict rules will only be applied if will is
before Phil court being asked to admit the will to probate. Otherwise, Elements of capacity:
no room for application of conflict rules unless it is before judge in
another jurisdiction country where renvoiz may be requested to apply. a. Age
Conflict room of the forum, dun lang iaapply nung foreign judge yung How old? Not less than 18 years of age.
Phil rule. This is only material if the will is before a Phil court and judge What happens when 16 years old, what is the status of the will? Let’s
for probate. draw some parallelism.
 In case of contract, when minor enters into contract?
Law governing content Voidable. Consent of one of parties is vitiated. Only the party
who was incapacitated may bring an action for annulment.
Only the minor may bring action for annulment.
AS TO TIME: Valid at the time of death of testator - whether or not
 In case of two minors: unenforceable Art 1403 (3)
valid as to substance: time of testator’s death, not the time of
execution of the will.
What is the status of the will? Either void or valid. Dalawa lang yan.
Walang rescissible, unenforceable or voidable will.
AS TO SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS: determined by law enforced at the time
Invalid if it did not possess all the requisites of a valid will. Basta isa jan
of testator’s death.
wala, void ang will.
Miciano v Brimo: Turkish national executed will, Phil law as to form.
Suppose the 16 year old testator ratified his will when he was already
Provision: any of my heirs who will contest the validity of this will shall
20? Has the will been validated by such ratification? It depends. Why?
do so at the expense of losing his inheritance. One did not agree and
We will learn this in “republication.” Nandun ang tamang sagot.
filed a case in court contesting validity of the will.
SC held through Romualdez: In the absence of any proof as to what is
I was born 14 Feb 1960. On 12 Feb 1978, I executed a will. Is the will
provided in Turkish law, apply processual presumption. The same laws
valid? YES! Take note we don’t reckon age of person by calendar years.
in case of absence of information. The provision in the will is simply
A year is 365 days. No qualification as to leap or ordinary year. At least
illegal.
3 leap years yan. Masesetback yung 18th year ko by at least 3 days. CC
mode of computation Art. 13.
Cayetano v Leonidas: Fino Nurse migrated to US, pinamanahan yung
niece (buti hindi yung DI). Submitted to Court for probate. Disregarded
When I am 18 years old. Must the entire 24 hours lapse before I am
some of compulsory heirs. Court: we don’t apply Phil law because at
considered 18? Or the start is enough to consider me 18? 2 rules yan.
the time of her death, she was already a US citizen by naturalization.
Yung Spanish and American rule. Spanish: kailangan matapos lahat ng
American law has no system of legitimes.
24 hours ng day before your 18th year (not birthday). Sa American law,
 We’ll have problem here in terms of dual citizenship.
pag nagstart na ang midnight, yun na yun. Considered as completed.
Gumawa ng will niya pero namatay. Ano iaapply? Isa yan sa
Walang midday fractional. May 0 year ba?
loopholes ng dual citizenship law. Niraise ko yan nung
ginagawa yung law but they were rushing to pass it to get the
Sa pinas, what do we apply. But it looks like we apply Spanish. Matapos
overseas filipinos votes.
yung 24 hours ng eve. 18th year must have started. Di magiging kaso
 May the testator choose which law governs the disposition of
yan kasi isang araw lang.
his estate when he dies? Do we allow that? Wala pang
parameters.
b. Absence of express disqualification
 Problem din sa persons.
Underline the word “express.” For somebody to be disqualified, it must
 Drilon: It should only apply for political matters. (suffrage)
be expressly disqualified. He is always presumed qualified.
Yung owning of land, political ba yun. Mahihina yung
Only one person is exempted if you look at the rules: person below 18.
nandun.
Expressly disqualified yun.
 Circular No. 1 ginoma-goma pa. Di UP grad. Pwede sila
makasuhan ng falsification of public documents dun.
c. Soundness of mind
Reporting something as not an official act. In that split
Almost always element of legal capacity. In PFR, it is an element of a
second, someone might have acquired a vested right,
valid marriage, for instance. When insane marries, what is the status?
therefore constitutional right violation. So dapat inamend
Voidable. Not capable of giving full consent to the marriage. Who may
nila yun.
file? Insane party lang. Pwede ba shang magfile ng kaso? Sane spouse.
 Page 8 of 72

Kung nalaman ko lang sira pala ulo mo, di kita papakasalan. Only after
celebration of marriage. Kung alam niyang baliw, hindi sha aggrieved
party. Dun nga sila kinasal sa mental chapel. No legal capacity to file
action for annulment because he knew that he was insane. Insane
spouse: Kaya nga ako nagpakasal sayo kasi sira ulo ko!
Suppose two insane people got married: Parehong sira ulo. Sira ulo rin
yung pari. Voidable pa rin. Si Justice Paras lang nagsasabi na void yan.
Pareho silang defective ang consent, pero hindi totally absent. We
prescribe book written by Paras to criticize it. Marami shang
questionable positions.
asylum or sanitarium. Halimbawa may bag lady. Lakad ng lakad si Eva
taong grasa, namatay bigla. Ang daming pera nung binulatlat! Dami
niyang napulot. Nobody suspected that the bale she was carrying on
her head was a bale of money. There’s no case and there’s no
precedent, no other law which tells us when an insane is publicly
known as insane. Ergo, it will now upon the sound discretion of judge
to determine WON a testator is publicly known as insane 1 month or
less before making of will.
Supervening incapacity
Sane at the time of the will but became insane later on.

Is the definition of soundness of mind for purposes of marriage,

contract and crime the same in making a will? NO. law tells us what
ANIMUS TESTANDI
Made with the purpose and intention to make it his last will and
constitutes soundness of mind. San nakalagay yun? A799. To be of
testament. Manolo Quezon, umakyat nang paluhod sa Malacanang,
sound mind… NOT NECESSARY that…: SUFFICIENT that he is able to
walang historical basis. On the eve, relatives of Rizal went into hiding.
know…:
Pero bago sila nagtago, 2 sisters of rizal, Concepcion went to Fort
Santiago to visit Rizal. There, Rizal had personal effects coz he lived
1. Nature of estate to be disposed of
there for months. Waited for his trial and during his trial. Caliente
Itong si Garcia namatay. Tong gf niyang si Eva, tiningnan yung gamit sa
Adrada, his lawyer. Witnesses represented. Pio Valenzuela. Bottle still
locker. Nakakita sha ng will. Nakalagay dun: I, Ron Michael Garcia of
there, damit and writing materials. Kept after his execution in 3 or 4
sound disposing mind, with the blessing of God to hereby publish the ff
chests. They became national relics overnight when Americans
as my last will and testament:
proclaimed him as hero. Raging controversy WON he should be our
a. To my partner in life Eva Gutierez, I hereby give the QC
national hero. Heir to fortune left behind by his landed parents. Pano
Memorial Circle
yung mga shares niya jan. May isa shang anak by Josephine Bracken,
b. To Chi, the Luneta Grandstand
but he died during infancy so wala shang bloodline unlike Jesus Christ
c. To Cams, the UP College of Law.
who according to Da Vinci Code has bloodline by Mary Magdalene.
House of Lauren in France. The roselins of Scotland. Bat ba tayo
Res ipsa loquitur. May sayad yang mamang yan!!! Di mo na kailangang
napunta dun. Some of these relatives were claiming those properties
mag-isip. He doesn’t know nature of his estate he shall dispose in his
left behind by rizal by inheritance. Outside na kayo sa recognized as
will. Property nang may property yung dinidispose niya. Though you’ll
heirs, kasi walang will. He left a will daw! Yung mi ultimo adios. It’s only
find out later that he may dispose even if he does not own it, so order
a title we gave to the manuscript. Walang title yun. He gave hint to his
executor to acquire of property. Bilhan mo ng condo unit sa Alexandra
sister that something was there in the oil lamp. Copied (kasi wala pang
si Eva. Kulang na lang ipamigay ang Malacanang Arlegui house.
Xerox). One copy on lap of Andres who translated to Tagalog and it
was reproduced on day of his execution. It’s a work in verse poem,
2. Proper objects of his bounty
parang poem. Versos Alejandrinos. Perfect meter, perfect rhyme. 14
Suppose ganito, namatay ang self-made man. Dami pera! Nobody
syllables. Suspicion that this had been in his mind, months before
knows how he earned that money. ½ of all my wealth, in the interest of
execution and wrote it before his execution. Holographic will ito!
justice, to Batman and Darna. Res ipsa loquitur din. Doesn’t know
Written, signed and dated by him.
proper objects of bounty. No physical existence. Though you’ll find out
hindi necessarily you know person you’re giving to. Pwede nga
What do you look for in a will to determine won it is a will. Disposition
complete stranger. I hereby give legacy of 10M to first Filipino who
of property, mortis cause. Yung last verse po! Kami po yung relatives.
will win gold in the next Olympiad. Maeestablish naman identity nun.
Rizal was more than 18. 33 sha when he died. May animus testandi ba?
San ba gagawin yun? London. Natalo kasi ang France.
24 units of Spanish. Tierra. Marcha etc Filipina. Music by Julian Felipe.
Lyrics by Felipe Calderon. Rafael Palma. Charles something. Is mi
3. Character of his testamentary act
ultimo adios a will? And sir recites it in Spanish. O_o Really nice line I
To my bestfriend, Mr. Tensuan absent no, I give my favorite Rolex
loved. Sobre dadfaka; mia. Entre las yerba scintilla flor. If one day on
watch but pay 100,000 for it. Mejo may sayad din. Mana ito, hindi
my tomb, you will see sprouting wild grass in the midst. Milde flor.
dapat binabayaran. Essentially gratuitous. No matter how we look at it.
Humble flower. Bring it to your lips, to my soul. Frente forehead.
May sayad ka, sir. Res ipsa loquitur.
Ternura warm soplo rest haplos. Warmth of your breath halitor kaya
nga halitosis. And let your forehead Feel the tenderness of your caress
When not of a sound mind, the will becomes invalid. Not voidable. The
and warmth of your breath. WILL BA YON!?!? PARANG WALA YATANG
testator did not have requisite capacity to execute a valid will. I’m sure
WILL DUN. When my tomb is forgotten by everyone, mark the place.
you have learned in PFR that capacity of natural person is presumed.
Are is hope. Let the hope of a man till it with a shovel so that it will be
Standard Oil v Arenas. He who alleges that person has no legal capacity
disperse. Parang yung abo sa creamtion. Dig it up and till it. Get my ash
must prove it. In the absence of such proof, the presumption that
and scatter so it will form the powder. Polvo. Alpombra is carpet.
natural person has capacity shall prevail.
Mi Ultimo Adios is not a will. Rizal did not have intention to have that
Presumption is reversed (burden of proof is shifted). Art 800, 2nd Par.
document his last will and testament. It’s an expression of Rizal’s
Problem: How do we know she is publicly known to be insane.
sentiment for his countrymen on the eve of his execution. That’s his
Halimbawa yung favorite niyong senador na kung tawagin ay Brenda.
only purpose. For his countrymen to know what his sentiments were
When is publicly known as insane? Confine to mental institution,
on the eve of his execution. Kung dun sa last verse niya: Dulce

stranger. Josephine Bracken. Sweet Stranger. E di kasama rin sha sa
heredera. Mystery what happened to her. She just vanished. She went
back to Scotland.
That’s not a will because there was no animus testandi.
COMPLIANCE WITH FORMALITIES OR SOLEMNITIES
You’ll have to follow a protocol/formula in executing a will. If these
formalities were not complied with, will is invalid. Why? Kasi patay na
sha, mahirap tanungin. Baka mamaya, the will being passed on is a
forgery. Baka naman ang gumawa niyan eh one of the heirs at finorge
ang pirma ni testator. The law allows will to be implemented by court
action. The law allows it only if the will is indeed that of the decedent.
Therefore, the law has to provide safeguards to ensure that will being
passed on to us is indeed the will of the decedent testator. Ensure and
somehow help ensure the genuiness of will, the law prescribes certain
solemnities that must follow. Otherwise, there arises presumption that
will was not that of the testator or he did not have soundness of mind
at the time of execution.
VOLUNTARY ACT
Hindi pwedeng pinilit, niloko kasi kung niloko, pinaprima sa blank piece
of paper, hindi valid yung will. Kasi hindi sha voluntary act. Tinutukan
ng baril ni Eva si Ron: kumuha kang lapis at papel. Bibigay mo sakin
lahat kung indi barili kita!
Pano kung sabi ni Ron, kalabit si Eva. Amoy pinipig ka. San galing yun?
Sa john en Marsha yun. Shows age. Yung mga bata lalabas sa kwarto.
Op op op, walang kakain ng pinipig unless pripirmahan mo ito. Ano
tawag jan: PLAIN AND SIMPLE BLACKMAIL!!! Dahil gusto niya kumain
ng pinipig, pinirmahan niya. Masarap yan kasi malutong sa halo-halo.
Baka hindi sha free and voluntary.
For threat to vitiate the consent of testator, it must be enough injury
to cost him his life for him OR the threat must be believable. Kukurutin
kita til you die! Di yan believable, sufficient to vitiate consent of
testatrix.
Yung last two na lang ang ididiscuss natin in detail.
Page 9 of 72
IV. SOLEMNITIES OF WILL
FORMAL REQUISITES  Apply to all kinds of will.
A. General Solemnities
GENERAL
1. In writing
Is there definition of what writing is? Standard English definition
dictionary has it. Did you bother to look? Lagi kayo dapat nag-iisip?
Problems as to implementation. What do we mean by writing?
Mr. Garcia is Chinese pala. Kaso ayaw niya ng monosyllabic surname.
So ginamit niya yung name ng sponsor. Sakia Academy and Grace
Christian. Marunong magchinese characters. Submitted to Fino judge
for probate? Valid ba ang will in Chinese characters? Of course, it’s a
form of writing. Egyptian heiroglyphics. Or writing of Aryans.
Charlemagne pursuit. Higante, blue eyes. Lost race. Napunta ata sila sa
Antarctica. May rosette stone to decipher ito. Ginawa niya yung code
niya. The bible is written in codes parang da Vinci code to convey a
secret message. Wrote will in that code. It’s certainly a form of writing.
Mr. Garcia, yumaman, dami dami will ko. Record digitally through a
camera, nirecord niya ang last will and testament. Non-recordable disc.
Is that writing? How do you define writing? Normally, ang definition
niyan ay set of symbols, whose meaning may be perceived by a sense
of sight. Not like mahjong. Di pa sinasalat mo yan. Hindi mo tinitingnan
pero alam mo yung baraha. Braille for instance. Device invented by
Braille to allow blind people to read. Letters represented by embossed
dots. So kinakapa at sinasalat ng bulag. Configuration of dots on
writing material will make him perceive. Di naman sense of sight yung
nagpeperceive din. Sa record, hindi naman mata or hipo, but hipo yung
magsasabi ng last will and testament. Nobody will question yung Braille
though not perceived by sense of sight. Person who is not a blind man
e.g. the one who makes transcription can see.
Say: pwedeng gawan ng transcript. Pwede bang maging will yun?
Those are the issues involved in determining WON document is in
writing. Not to mention the material. Pwede bang nakasulat sa wall of
the prison? To present that as exhibit, gigibain yung prison or judge
will ocular inspection. Pwede sa cloth, pero not sa tubig. Pang-utang
lang yun. With the advent of technology, the issue of what constitutes
writing has arisen. Later on, you’ll find out, even if digital recording
qualify as writing, it’s not a will because cannot comply at the specific
requirements. The writing must be a document.
28 June 2010
2. In a language known to testator
Why? Ensure that what was written was what was intended. If the will
was written not known to the testator, how was he to know that what
was written there was what he intended? Interpreter – not accurate.
There will be a big gap between what was written and the meaning of
interpreted words. And so the law to prevent fraud against the
testator, requires that it be written in a language known to testator.
Does “in writing” requirement mean illiterate people can’t make will?
No. if you see in code, there’s no requirement that literate. But there is
an additional safeguard/requirement for illiterate.
How? Somebody will write the will for him.

He can’t read, how to know if he agrees with the content? Then ask
that person to read it aloud to him.
If written in language not known to him, there’s a second step. On the
other hand, if language known to him, all that needs to be done is to
read it. To know that he is not being defrauded, call another person to
read it. Easy for him to check whether what was written is what he
desired to be written.
Suppose: Garcia comes from Ilocos (GI), genuine Ilocano. Eva Gutierrez
Ibatan. AY Garcia, Ilonggo ka na lang. So you proposed to Eva after you
pass the bar. Uuwi tayo sa Batanes. Serve my people there. Eh true
love. TL. So Ron accepted the condition and they went to Batanes and
they lived there til old and grey. Namatay si Ron. After he died, there’s
a will in one of his drawers in his room captioned Last Will and
Testament in Yvatan. Sabi ngayon ngkamag-anak ni Ron, that will is
invalid because our brother is Ilonggo. He didn’t know Yvatan dialect,
so it wasn’t written by him. Must have been written by somebody else.
Notarial will in Yvatan. Is the will a valid will?
There’s a case assigned: Abangan v Abangan. He is presumed to know
the language/dialect of place where he habitually resided during his
lifetime. There is a presumption, so since Ilonggo Garcia resided in
Basco, Batanes and it became his habitual residence/domicile, under
the law he is presumed to know the language of the place. He is
presumed to know Yvatan. That presumption however is not
conclusive but merely rebuttable. He who alleges that despite long
years in Batanes, Ron never learned the dialect, has to prove it. It’s
gonna be a matter of evidence. What evidence may be akin to use to
prove that he did not learn it.
Suroza v Honrado: Merong gumawa ng will in English. Ano nakalagay sa
first paragraph of “sound disposing mind hereby publish this will” sa
dulo nakalagay: the foregoing is my last will and testament, it was
translated to me in the native language. If he knew the English
language, what was the need for translation. The very will provided
evidence that he did not know the language tht the will was written.
Tiyak na hindi UP Law grad yun. Gagawa ng krimen, may iniwanang
ebidinsiya.
B. Specific solemnities
Depends on:
a. Notarial/Ordinary/Attested
i. Ordinary
ii. Special
b. Holographic
Parang halo-halo at siopao lang yan. Ron, ano nilalagay pag special
halohalo? Icecream? No! Leche flan!
Why notarial? If you look at CC provision, walang special name givne.
So many writers have ascribed many different names. Some call it an
“ordinary will” some attested will if you are under Prfo. Balane. That’s
how he calls it. Caguioa calls it “notarial” Notarial na lang para mas
precise.
Have you checked English dictionary: is there an entry for
“holographic”. It’s from Spanish holografico. Shempre silent H. Teacher
ko sa engineering, sinasabi sa English. Naubusan sha ng English,
“pukpokized”. Sin of reporters: English to Spanish.
Page 10 of 72
For this will to be valid, intervention of notary public is necessary. It
must be notarized otherwise, not valid.
What are the ordinary requirements for valid notarial will?
Embodied in 805 and 806. When I was student, Sir Balane asks us to
recite it. Justice Puno: habang jumijingle recite.
805: specific ordinary requirements. Minority na ayaw mag-JD. BA lang
ang degree Oxford. Gumaya tayo sa Ateneo, gaya-gaya tayo.
May the testator in the very will, provide for a waiver in complying
with specific requirements? I hereby publish my last will and
testament. Desire not to follow the formalities prescribed by law. May
the very will provide waiver? May the testator waive compliance with
the specific requirements? NO, the testator cannot waive compliance
with specific formalities. Compliance with these specific formalities is
MANDATORY. Kasi nga di natin alam kung sha gumawa. Baka nga kaya
winewaive kasi hindi sha gumawa kaya kapag winaive hindi sila
makakacomply kasi they’re not the testators.
Reason behind formalities: close the door against bad faith and fraud.
To avoid forgeries and substitution of wills and guarantee the
voluntariness of the acts.
WHAT ARE THESE SPECIFIC FORMALITIES?
1. Every will, other than holographic, must be subscribed at
the end thereof.
What is not ordinary in that phrase? Subscribed. What do you mean by
subscribed? Assume I want to be assured supply of water and
newspaper, I subscribe. Oh I subscribe to that idea! In this context,
what does subscribe mean? Sub means under and script means write.
So “write under”! Nung araw, wala pang computers and gadgets to
facilitate communication, if businessman wants to have buyers of
newspaper, naglilibot sha ng papel. Sa papel nakakaannounce we
intend to publish newspaper for community, if you agree or support
this project, pay this much and then write your name under. Ergo,
subscribe. Kaya subscribe to the newspaper, sulat sa ilalim ng paper.
As used in wills, subscribe means sign or affix one’s signature. Yun ang
meaning nya.
Law therefore requires will to be signed by testator.
What is the purpose behind this requirement:
a. Authentication. Express authorship of the document by
signing the document, the testator admits authorship.
That document was my act. Import of somebody signing
a document. Claiming authorship of the act.
b. Identification. After the death of testator: identify the
document. “Kay Mr. Garcia yan, pirma niya yan eh!”
What signature is needed? How must testator sign in order to comply
with this requirement? Initials? Nickname? Last name? Screen name if
he is a celebrity or movie star? May he sign with his alias? Nom de
guerre, nome de plume? Rizal: Dimasalang (Masonic name wala shang
nom de guerre?) Marcelo del Pilar: Plaridel. Wow literate kayo.
How must he sign?
What if Ron does this: RON GARCIA (block prints) or in Ron Garcia
(in script) or in pirmang di maintindihan, artful may pabalik balik pa.

Any mark will do in executing his last will and testament. Pwede niyang
imispell parang si Barbra pero sa birth certificate niya Barbara yun. Ang
kuleet. Binar yung bra. Braless yung dating. So maski misspelled yan.
Yung mga tumatanda, pati spelling ng pangalann nila nakakalimutan
nila. May mga kliyente akong nalilimutan yung spelling. For so long as
they affix the name, signature, mark with the intention to use that in
executing last will and testament, that is a valid and sufficient
signature.
How about a thumbmark? May a noreadnowrite testator sign his will
with a thumbmark? Yes and there’s a case assigned in the syllabus.
Matias v Salud.
But suppose the testator was very literate. He even has PhD. But at his
death, there’s a will but it was only signed by his thumbmark. Will that
be a valid signature for the purpose of being a will? Yes! It’s still a
mark! And as long as he intended it to be his signature, it’s still valid
signature.
How about if it was a mere cross, is that a sufficient signature? In
Abaya v Salamero, SC held that if it was intended by testator to be his
signature in last will and testament, it is sufficient. How we establish
the intention is a matter of proof. However in Garcia v Lacuesta, SC
qualified Abaya v Salamero. Insufficient if it is not usual way he signs
his name during his lifetime. And if it appears that he is literate it is not
sufficient. Kailangan ipakita “it’s one the ways he signs” Baka kasi
implication ng cross ay ayaw kong pirmahan. Kaya nga di ko chineck
eh. Abaya was not abandoned in Garcia. Important: Proof of intention.
Where must the testator sign? Provisions says at the end of the will.
What will be the question you should ask yourselves? Where is the end
of the will?
Problema ba yun? Kung kayo ay imaginative, problema yun.
Halimbawa iisa lang bond paper niya. “Nagsulat sha jan. nagsulat…
nagsulat… Nako kinapos!!! Nilagyan tuloy ng arrow.” Where must he
sign? Logical end
1. Physical end: point in space farthest from beginning of the
will.
2. Logical end: where the dispositions end. Kung san sha
natapos mag-dispose.
In this example, the testator should sign here. “ROOOOON.”
 Daf;adjaf;dfa;dfkja;djkfa;df;a
Signed: Ron
Date
dkfaj;dfkad;jfka;dfdfaj;fadkfj;adj;adkfa;djfkad;fakdf;adkjf
adjkfadfadadfadfadfadfadfadkdjf;; 
What if testator has no hands? Halimbawa si Ron naaksidente,
makakapirma ba yan? Sir yung paa niya. Pwede kung natutunan niyang
sumulat at pumirma using his feet or mouth while biting the pen, then
he can do so. Wala na kasi shang thumbmark, pano yung toemark?
Valid ba kung hinlalaki ng paa niya. Any mark!!! Intended by him to be
his signature will suffice. Nakakahiya naman. Suppose di sha natuto.
Does it mean he can no longer make a will? No. he can ask somebody
Page 11 of 72
to write his name for him. Take note how the law was worded. Hindi
sinabi na he shall ask another to sign for him.
Testator may delegate the writing of name for him.
But for that somebody to write the name of testator for him, two
requirements have to be complied with:
a. Upon express direction of testator
Tatay ni Ron nasa ospital, may sakit, nakacoma. So gumawa si Ron ng
will, giving to himself all the wealth of his father. Punta sha sa hospital,
“Dad, remember napag-usapan natin before yun diba. 75% skain. So
before you leave us, gumawa na ako ng will in accordance with your
desire napag-usapan natin before. Kung di ka naman makapirma,
ipipirma na kita. Ipirpirma na kita. Hind nagshake ng hand!!! Ay hindi
nagshake. Ipipirma na kita!” Di pwede kasi nga dapat nga express.
Dapat sabihin niya “Oy isulat mo pangalan ko jna. Express direction.
Who may testator request to sign the name for him? May a minor of
tender age like 15 years, be requested by the testator as his delegate
in writing his name on the will? Correct answer is it depends. Take note
law does not require delegate to be “of age” but we can only gather
the qualification of delegate from the requirements for validity of the
act e.g. express direction. He must be of sufficient maturity to be able
to comprehend the directions of the testator. Must be able to read and
write. In DLC’s opinion, those are the only qualficiation for the
delegate:
- Read and write
- Such age to comprehend and execute the express
direction of the testator
So pwede na yung 15 year old, hs student nay un. Nakakaintindi na
yun. Pwede pa nga isulat pangalan niya sa will as an heir.
How about one of the witnesses to the will, may he be the delegate?
There are two views:
1. NOT – reason later when we reach witnesses
2.
What name must the delegate write on the will?
- Suppose he wrote his name, is the will valid? No. he is not required to
write the name on the will. What he is required to write is name of the
testator. He is not even required to copy the signature of the testator.
He is required to write the name of the testator.
- Suppose he wrote the name of testator and wrote his name too, will
the writing of his name invalidate the will? NO. name of delegate
written on the will will be treated as mere surplusage.
But if delegate wrote his name, but not the testator, the will is invalid.
It does not comply with formality that it must be signed by the testator
at the end thereof.
How must the delegate write the name of the testator?
“Iho sulat mo yung name ko jan. Nanginginig na yung kamay ko eh!”
Kinuha ni iho yung rubber facsimile stamp with his sign, how must the
delegate write the name of the testator?
In re Balonan v Javellana: Happened in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, there was this
spinster who executed her last will and testament written in Spanish,
the language known and spoken by the testatrix. Eh nangingig na
kamay testatrix so she asked the nephew to write name on the will.
The nephew typed the name in the. Por La Testadora Dona Maria
Singson De Leon. Pinirmahan nung nephew. Delegate typed the name

of the testatrix pero hindi niya isinulat with his handwriting. Is the will
valid? SC said no because the delegate didn’t write the name.
What is the implication of the court’s ruling in Balonan v Javellana: the
delegate must write name of testator in his own handwriting. Di
pwedeng mechanical ang pagsusulat ng pangalan testator. That’s the
obiter implication.
Law requires the delegate to write the name of the testator in the
presence of testator: what if ganito: Sabi ni sick Eva kay househelp
“Inday, you go to study room. Sa first drawer to the right, open it and
get my will. You see there, may papel nakasulat last will and testament.
Ieexecute ko yan.” Naku Ate (not Senora, sa old movies lang yun) ,
pano kaw pirma nakabandage ka!” Pagbalik niya: Oh ate napirmahan
ko na. Nakasulat na pangalan mo jan. Is the will valid? Strict reading of
code, not valid. Kasi delegate did not write the name in the presence of
the testator. This is mandatory. Signing not in the presence of testator
and confirming the writing before testator later on is not allowed. Will
that be substantial compliance? Later pag-uusapan natin yan.
Substantial compliance kasi amounts to compliance. But when is there
substantial compliance?
IDISCUSS NA NGA NATIN. TOTAL NASIMULAN KO NA.
Compliance with solemnity:
Compliance
- Non-compliance  VOID
- Full compliance  walang problema, natural VALID when
compliance to the law is to the letter. Literal compliance.
- Substantial compliance  VALID: manner of execution followed
by the testator was not in literal compliance with the provisions
of the law. But while the manner followed was not literal, it
nonetheless served the purpose behind the required formality.
It served the purpose of formality.
Judge-made doctrine. Never nga namention dati sa OCC yan. But now
meron na in Art 809. It’s a new provision.
So sa kaso ni Inday, pinirmahan niya sa kabilang room pero dinala
kagad kay Eva: is that substantial compliance? We will reserve the
discussion when we reach A809.
Take note that delegate not required to read the will. How to write,
block print, cursive. Pwede ba Chinese characters kung Chinese yung
delegate? Di ata.
b. In his presence of testator
Take note that the testator must sign the will in the presence of the
three witnesses, therefore, so must the delegate.
Where must delegate write testator? Where the testator is supposed
to sign. At the end of the will.
2. Attested and subscribed by 3 or more credible witnesses
Testator subscribed lang. witnesses attested AND subscribed.
Ano yung “attested”? In the documents issued by president, it means
certified. Pero in wills and succession, it means “observed and
witnessed”
What must these witnesses witness? The testator in his act of signing.
The testator’s act of executing his will.
Page 12 of 72
Ang tanong ninyo jan: bakit tatlong testigo na dapat makakita? Kasi
this will will most likely be submitted to court for probate when the
testator is dead so somebody has to vouch the authenticity of the will.
Somebody must be there. Who the judge will question and opposing
counsel will cross-examine to find out if it was executed freely and
voluntarily.
Sir bakit tatlo? At least may dalawang spare, pag namatay yung isa.
Mas mahirap nating palitan ang dokumento pag tatlo ang testigo kasi
the law requires them to subscribe. They will have to sign each and
every page of the will except the last on the left hand margin.
Later on namatay na yung testator, tas mamaya nakita ng heirs.
Binigyan ng malaking mana nung DI sa third page. Apat na pirma ang
pepekein nila kaya mahihirapan silang gawin yun. Kaya may ganyang
requirements.
Testator invited 3 close friends in the morning of a Saturday to come to
his house to become instrumental witnesses of his will. Dun na kayo
magmerienda. 9:00 AM you will witness in my execution of will. Kaya
lang la na yung testator nung dumating sila. Sabungero kasi, 10AM
sabong na. So ginawa ni testator, wala pa witness niya, pumirma na
sha. Pagbalik niya mejo good mood, nanalo manok niya. Late kayo! Oo
nga pare pasensha. O ayan pirmahan niyo yan ha. Is the will valid? If
you look at requirements of the law, no literal compliance. Di naman
pinirmahan in the presence, he signed it alone and acknowledged that
the signature on the pages of the will were his. Is there substantial
compliance?
To comply with requirement of witness attestation, must the witnesses
see that testator sign? In one case, Jaboneta v Justilo yung testator
nagschedule ng day to executive will so invited 3 close friends as
witnesses and the notary public to be there as well. Merong
photographer para nga naman may additional evidence. Kinodakan
yung event. Basta may kumilos, may shot. Some heirs given less than
expected, they want to oppose probate of will. Walang maisip na
ground. Nakita yung pictures, nakatayo sa likod yung witnesses. Notary
public nasa gilid. In so many photographs, habang pumipirma yung
testator, the witness was chatting with somebody. Walang kahit isang
photo na nakatingin sha. Disgruntled heirs used this. Therefore there
were only two witnesses kasi daldal ng daldal yung isa he didn’t
actually see the testator sign! SC: memorize taon taon lumalabas sa
bar ito: “The law does not require the witnesses to actually see the
testator sign his will. It is enough if the witness could have seen the
testator sign by merely casting their eyes in the proper direction.”
Reiterated in the cases assigned.
12 July 2010
Jaboneta v Justilo was reiterated in many cases and in fact, I assigned
to you Nera v Rimando.
Not required to actually see the testator sign. It is enough that the
testator or witnesses could have seen the other sign had they wanted
to do so by casting their eyes to the proper distinction.
Jaboneta: standing at the back of testator
Nera: one of the witnesses was in the other adjacent room. Court said:
he could have seen it despite the curtain had he wanted to. Extreme na
yun. Still, they have applied the Jaboneta doctrine.
What is the reason why the law requires witnesses for a valid will?
 To render available proof of its authenticity and due
execution. Witnesses will be proof as to the authenticity of
the will. Why? Eh makikita agad nila, “Ay nako, di yan yung

will. Di ko prima yan eh.” They can easily identify the will.
The signature appearing there is not mine. O kaya sabi niya
“DI yan yung will. I distinctly remember that the testator
used blue ink instead of black.”
 They will also be proof as to the mental condition of the
testator at the time of execution. (as to testamentary
capacity) “Nako parang wala sha sa sarili niya.”
 Purpose why law requires intervention of three witnesses. 
Proof of authenticity and due execution of will.
Bakit three witnesses? It’s an arbitrary number chosen by framers of
the code. To insulate against the supervening incapacity of the witness.
Pag sobrang dami, baka wala na sila pirmahan sa margin. Natabunan
na ng pirma yung will mismo.
Another thing required from witnesses to do:
1. Attest
2. Subscribe – affix a signature
Purpose for subscription: identify the will when presented for
probate. Witnesses can identify the will through signature
appearing on the will.
Where will the witnesses sign? In the case of testator, law is very clear
i.e. at the end of the will (thereof) How about the witnesses, where
must they sign. Unfortunately, the law is silent where the witnesses
must sign. This was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of
Taboada v Rosal. Witnesses signed all pages on the left margin, not the
last page at the end of the will. On the page which contains last
disposition, only testator signed but not the witnesses. Was the will
valid? YES, but there was a dissenting opinion.
In practice, sa kontrata, pag me piprimahan kayong deed of sale two
pages.
Deed of Sale
Text text text
(Sgd) Seller
Witnesses witnesses
Tas they also sign sa left margin
Dapat ba ganun din sa wills?
Taboada v Rosal:
1. Law does not indicate where they should sign
2. Signatures in the margin served the purpose of the signature
(identify the will later on and prevent substitution of the
page). Parang substantial compliance yan. All purposes were
served by the marginal signature affixed by the witnesses.
May a witness sign with a thumbmark? You know that a testator may
sign with thumbmark. Does the same apply for witnesses? What
signature is sufficient for him? According to Senator Tolentino, if you
read him, it depends if the witness signed with a thumbmark because
he was illiterate, it is void. A witness should know how to read and
write. Otherwise, he is disqualified to become a witness. If there are
less than three witnesses, the notarial will is invalid.
If the witness knew how to read and right BUT usually sign with a
thumbmark, it will be sufficient signature for the purpose of making of
will.
Page 13 of 72
The testator who is not able to sign may request somebody to sign his
will, he is called a delegate. How about the witness, is it required that
he is able to sign. May he request a delegate to write his name on the
will? Senator Tolentino says: Witness who was unable to write was
allowed to sign through another in New Hampshire because it was
provided in their law on wills and testament but same cannot be
applied here because law requires witness to subscribe. There is no law
which authorizes witness to sign through a delegate. Testator is
allowed to sign through delegate because authorized by law.
IMPLICATION: The general rule is that nobody is authorized to sign will
through a delegate. That’s why exception has to be provided in law for
the testator.
How many witnesses are required? 3 or more credible witnesses.
What is the effect if there is less than three? Will is void.
What if more than 3 witnesses? No effect. Because law effects
expressly allows more than 3 witnesses. Kahit ilan niyo pa gusto, pero
take note habang dumadami ang witnesses, lumalaki ang risk na
maging invalid.
What is the order of signing? Imagine nakaupo sila sa long table. Pasa-
pasa pasa sila? OR nakabigay na sa kanila lahat ng kopya tas swap swap
sila.
Must the testator sign first before the witnesses? There are two views.
Strict and liberal
1. Strict – testator must sign at least one copy. Until he has signed,
there’s no will and there’s nothing to assess on the part of the
witnesses.
E.g. Dumating lawyer with t copies of the will. Binigay sa witness
para pumirma sila. Hindi valid ito according strict view.
2. Liberal – as long as accomplished in one transaction and same
occasion, the order of signing is immaterial. In the Phil, no case of
such issue has happened before. Siguro kasi maingat lahat ng
abogado. Prima muna testator before witnesses.
Signed in the presence
Reason for signing: Para nagkakaamuyan sila kung pano pumirma ang
bawat isa. Para kung sakaling may magsinungaling mamaya, they can
easily counter the perjury. Hoy violet yung ink mo jan dati ah! Bakit iba
ang pirma mo dito?
Itong si Ron decided to make a will. He asked lawyer to make a draft in
accordance with his wishes. He invited three of his bestfirends to be his
witnesses. Nung present na silang apat and the notary public was
there. “You watch me, I will sign tese all!” tas biglang inatake matapos
primahan. Nagkikisay dun sa floor si Ron. What will the witnesses do?
Shempre dinala muna si Ron sa hospital. He has been unconscious for
one month. Sabi witnesses, pipirmahan na natin to? Oh eh sabi ng
batas, in the rpresence of Ron ayan si ron sa hospital oh. Is the will is
valid? No. while they signed it in the physical presence of the testator,
it is not what is required. He must be conscious that the witnesses are
signing his will.
May a blind man make a will? Pano malalaman ng bulag na yung
witnesses eh pumiprima sa kanyang will? Dahil nakarinig ng lecture
yung tatlong witnesses ni Ron sa hospital. Sabi ni DaniCon di natin
pwedeng pirmahan kasi hindi siya gising. After sleeping for more than 2
months, he finally woke up and recovered and discharged in his
hospital. Now he is at home. Nagpuntahan na yung tatlong testigo. O

magaling ka na. Pipirmahan na naming will mo ah! Is it valid? Not valid
because execution must be done in a signle continuous transaction. Di
pwede magkaron ng gap. Kung pwede magkaron ng gap ng 6 months,
bakit hindi 1 year. Magkakaproblem tayo diyan baka nagbago na ang
testamentary capacity yung transaction. Di pwede magkaron ng break.
The witnesses cannot sign on a different occasion.
Suppose the testator couldn’t sign his will. May piling na yung kamay
ko, may Parkinson’s ako, kaliga mo na si Michael J. Fox. So you
requested somebody to write your name, he should write in your
presence and under your direction. Must he sign in the presence of
your witnesses? Of course.
In our problem, suppose the delegate wrote the name of Ron in each
and every page of the will, however he had to leave after completion
of the signing. Umalis yung delegate? Habang pumipirima yung testigo,
wala yung delegate. When testator sign through delegate, must the
witnesses sign in the presence of delegate? No. Kaya nga agent lang
sha diba.
Suppose one of the witnesses is blind, maski anong pihit mo sa ulo
niya, hindi niya makikita talaga. No matter where you cast his face,
he’ll never see the testator sign. Is the will valid? No, blind man is
disqualified from witnessing a will.
“Each and every page must be signed by testator and witnesses”
Take note: Law requires two sets of signature:
1. Testator is required at the end of the will
Where: at the end of the will
2. Each and every page except the last
Why last? Kasi nga nandun na yung first set
Where: left margin
Who: testator and witnesses
What signature is sufficient for the second set? Issue: In the case of an
ordinary contract, e.g. sale, yung full signature natin, yung long
signature ang inaaffix sa end of the contract. Usually affix it on top of
our printed name. We are also required to sign each and every page.
Pano pinipirpirmahan ang each and every page? Initials na lang eh.
Pwede bas a will na iba ang pirma sa end at sa bawat page on the left
margin? So far this issue has not reached the SC. Danicon: there should
only be one signature of a person on all the pages of the will. Pare-
pareho dapat prima niyan. Kaya pag ako ang naging justice ng SC at
makarating sakin ang will na iba ang margin at kayo ang abogado,
isasampal ko sa inyo yan. Hindi kayo natuto. Dapat pareho ang prima
niyo. Wag lang initial. Although wala pang kaso. Dito makikita kung
gano kagaling yung abogado eh. Dapat pareho yung prima.
On the left margin
Eh sir sa right margin pumirma? Eh kaliwete eh. O kaya sa bottom/top
hindi sa margin? Sir, naubos kasi yung space. Will that invalidate? NO
because that’s substantial compliance. The purpose is served.
Suppose the will is written on only one page. Isa lang ang provision ni
Ron, “I institute my GF Eva Gutierrez as my sole and universal heir.”
Kailangan pa ban g marginal signature? What is important for a valid
will is each and every page must contain FOUR signatures (testator +
witnesses).
Suppose the will was written on two pages pero dahil Boholano (mas
kuripot pa sa Ilocano) yung testator. Pano magpaypay ang Boholano?
*Nods head in front of paper* WTF Isang sheet lang ng paper, front
Page 14 of 72
and back. Sa front ba kailangan pa ng marginal signature? Yes. Kasi
page nakalagay sa batas, hindi sheet. For all we know, baka mamaya
hindi naman back to back yung will nung ginawa. Merong separate first
page on separate sheet of paper. Yun ang sinupress at nagtype sila sa
back ng second page to make it appear na back to back. Kakainin lang
yung 1st page tas gagawa ng bago dun sa likod ng page 2.
What is the effect if not all of the pages were signed on the margin?
The will is void. Apat dapat yan palagi. Basta nawala ang isa.
Is there an exception? NO! Icasiano v Icasiano is not an exception.
Original copy walang pirma yung isang witness. Probate was opposed
by some relatives on the ground that will was invalid. One of the
witnesses did not sign one page. They presented the witness in court.
He must have lifted two pages at the same time inadvertently so he
was not able to sign the pages. What was the ruling of the court? Valid
not because it was an exception, not because the witness testified.
What was the reason the court declared it valid?
1. Di niyo naman kailagngang ipresent yung original because it
was a duplicate original. It was sufficient for them to have
submitted a copy which was a duplicate original. All of them
were originals.
2. No allegation of fraud or bad faith.  Danicon: Okay to.
3. Sabi ni JBL Reyes, all the marks of the dry seal of the lawyer,
where all concentric. Pag pinagpatong-patong mo,
magkakatugma yung dry seal. Delikado yung pronouncement
nay un. Dapat tinataktak yung papel para pantay-pantay.
Yung iba salang na lang bigla. Siguro di sha nagnotaryo dati.
Icasiano is not a case that creates an exception to the rule.
The testator requested a delegate to write his name on the will, must
the delegate write the name of the testator on each and every page of
the margin? Natural. Di nga makasulat so sha lahat ng gagawa nun.
Pipirma sha at the end of the page and on each and every margin.
Hindi pirma niya but the name of the testator. How he wrote in the last
page should be the manner how he writes on each and every page.
All the pages should be numbered
How are the pages should be numbered?
1. In letters
Letters daw oh. So “A” “B” utak Manny Pacquiao ata. Parang cheke
yan. May numerals at may letter. Para walang daya. Yung 1 pwedeng
maging 4 at 7. Yung 2 pwede maging 3 or5. Yung 6 pwedeng 8 at 4.
WTF Danicon hahah.
The correct numbering in letters is: One Two Three. Dapat yan “in
words” kaso trinanslate yan from Spanish eh. Call, sandali lang baka si
Pinoynoy ito. Hindi po si Pinoynoy yun. “In letras” may also be
interpreted as “in words”.
2. Correlatively
Show on the page of the numbering. “One/First of five pages”
“Two/Second of five pages” “Three/Third of five pages”
Why? Para alam natin kung may nawawala. Alam natin if some page
has been suppressed.
Suppose will was written on five pages, one of the pages was missing.
Can we allow probate of the four remaining pages? Itaga niyo sa mga
batok niyo. It’s all or nothing. Parang si Mayor Lim yan. Enforce the law
or enforce nothing. Why? We don’t know what’s contained on the
missing page. For all we know, the dispositions in the first four pages

are dependent on a disposition of the fifth page. Baka nga kaya nawala
kasi nandun yung magic conditions. “Ang lahat ng naririto ay magiging
mabisa lamang KAPAG…”
But SC encountered pagination literally in alphabet. SC said “Aaaay
substantial compliance na yan. Alam naman nating magkakasunod
sila.”
DaniCon: Pero ilan lahat ng pages na yun? Hanggang san ba tumigil
yung testator. Baka wala ngang pagination yung will. Tinanggal some
pages tas saka nilagyan ng numbering. But you know, wala pa naman
ako sa SC, hindi pa mababago yan. That’s an actual case but not in
your syllabus. Inallow nila yung letters of alphabet.
PURPOSE: Prevent insertion or suppression of the page. E.g.They can’t
have a Page 4-A. Parang Memorandum Circular 1-A. Hindi UP grad
gumawa nun ha!
Suppose only one page. Kailangan pa ba ng page? There’s no harm if
you write pagination on one page. Pero kung hindi nalagyan, pwede ba
yun? Yes. May kaso na yan. One page on one sheet. Reason: There can
be no substitution or suppression anymore. Pwede na walang
numbering.
“Attestation clause”
What is it? Written memorandum of facts that attended the execution
of the will executed by the witnesses to serve as evidence of the will’s
due execution.
PURPOSE: Preserve in permanent form the record of facts attending
the execution of will such that in case of failure of memory or
causualty due to supervening events. The execution of the will may still
be proven.
What is included there? All the facts required by law to appear therein.
Nakalagay sa Art. 805.
May pipirma ba jan? Witnesses.
Why must they sign? Because it’s their certification that their will was
executed in accordance with those facts written in the attestation
clause. Inadvance niyo ata yang relos na yan!
19 July 2010 – Happy birthday Renzpot!!! :D
Whose act is the attestation clause? The witnesses and since it’s their
act, they must sign it.
A805 does not require the witnesses to sign. But in the case Cagro v
Cagro, it is deemed not executed by the witnesses when not signed.
That made the will invalid. For them to be considered to have signed
the attestation clause, marginal signature where the attestation clause
were written is not enough. They must sign at the bottom. That’s the
only place where signature must be affixed to be considered signed by
the witnesses. The marginal signatures did not execute the attestation
clause.
Distinguish the case of Cagro in the doctrine of Taboada v Rosal. Both
involved marginal signature of the witnesses. In the latter, the
witnesses did not sign the end of the will, just the marginal. The
marginal signatures were sufficient compliance with 805. But in Cagro,
the marginal signatures were not enough. Those marginal signatures
did not constitute substantial compliance.
Page 15 of 72
How may the attestation be written? Art 805 tells us what is written.
But the question is “HOW”
May it be written as part of the will? Integrated in the body of the will
OR must the attestation be a separate narration/instrument from the
body of the will? The law does not tell us how the AC should be
written. For as long as the AC is a certification by the witnesses and the
contents enumerated in the law arre all contained in the AC, that
should suffice. However, if it is written as an integral part of the body
of the will. Taboada v Rosal is no longer applicable. Witnesses must
sign at the end of the will to be considered as valid AC. Pero yung mga
abogado, hindi na natin sinasama as part of the body of the will. We
make it as a separate instrument. Certification separate from the will.
Since it’s a separate instrument, it has to be executed bythe witnesses
by signing at the end or at the bottom of the attestation clause.
May the witnesses execute the AC on a separate occasion, kasi hindi
kasama sa will? Pwede ba nilang iseparate on a separate occasion. E.g.
testator and witnesses executed will today but Notary Public forgot to
prepare the AC for the witnesses to sign. May the AC be executed by
the witnesses the next day in the office of the notary public? The law
does not tell us that the AC should be executed on the same occasion.
Can it be executed on a separate occasions. In my opinion, NO, it
cannot be executed on a separate occasion. If it can be executed on a
separate occasion, how long must the gap be. If it’s one day, then why
not one year? If it can be one year, why not three or five years? Sandali
muna, when do we stop?
When the AC is executed on a separate occasion, must the testator be
present when the witnesses execute the AC? Remember what the law
provides, testator must sign each and every page of the will in the
presence of witnesses, witnesses must sign each and every page of the
will msut be signed in the presence of the testator and of each other.
Whose act is the AC? It’s that of the witnesses. The page which
contains nothing but AC must that be included in the number of pages
in the will? Di ba yun ang nakalagay sa AC? Yung number of pages in
which the will was written. The answer is NO, Abangan v Abangan, SC
says we don’t include the number of pages in the will where the AC
was written. It’s not part of the will. It’s not an act of the testator.
Rather it’s an act of the witnesses. So we don’t sama that number in
the number of pages. Kung hindi naman pala kasama, therefore, the
testator need not sign the page which contains nothing but AC, all
pages must sign in the marign. Pipirma pa ba yung testator sa AC sa
margin?
Hindi naman pala part ng will, pwede ba gawin ng witnesses separate
from the will? In DLC’s opinion: NO, you have to look at the purpose of
AC. It’s there to guard against the treachery of human memory.
Therefore, if there’s gap, the purpose wil be lost. Its purpose is to
preserve the facts surrounding the execution. Wala pang kaso yan.
Opinion ko lang iyon.
Must it be written in a language known to the witnesses? Will is act of
testator and the law requires will to be written in the language known
to the testator. AC is act of witnesses. NO, in fact, last par of 805
provides that if the AC was written in language not known, the same
has to be interpreted to them, thereby allowing AC written in a
language not known to witnesses.

Must AC be written in language known to the testator? No, it’s not his
act, he has nothing to do with it. No pint making it known to him.
Must AC be written in same language as will? No such requirement in
law that they be same language.
What is the effect if there is no AC? If the will is notarial and without
AC, the will is invalid. This requirement is mandatory.
What must the AC contain? Marami yan.
1. Number of pages
2. Testator signed the will and every page thereof in the
presence of witnesses
3. Witnesses witness and signed the will and every page thereof
in the presence of testator and of one another
In case testator signed through delegate, what should AC state?
Caused another to sign his name under the latter’s express dirrectin, in
the presence of witnesses, hindi sinabi yung testator.
Must the AC state the name of delegate? Walang nakalagay.
What is the effect if AC failed to state one of those required by law to
appear in the clause?
GENERAL RULE: Will is void.
But EXCEPTION in A809. If you will look at 809, it’s a new provision. It
was not present in the old code. A809 does not tell us that the
substantial compliance rule applies only to defective AC. Without AC
the substantial compliance doctrine has been applied by the SC, we
have discussed that in our previous meetings.
Without A809, the substantial compliance doctrine, a judge-made
doctrine is valid exercise of the equity jurisdiction of the courts. But
A809 simply provides a special substantial compliance rule when the
defect involves the AC. So pagka-AC na yung defective, we don’t apply
the general doctrine of substantial compliance. Meron nang special
substantial compliance rule in A809. Ergo, if the defect is not AC, the
general rule on substantial compliance will apply. Later na natin
ididscuss ang 809, maraming di nakakaintindi niyan.
Must AC be dated? There’s no requirement.
Must AC state place of execution? Hindi rin nakalagay sa batas yun.
AC being made part of the will? Cuevas v Achacoso
AC _________? Villaflor v Tobias.
Cagro v Cagro: Strong dissenting opinion. Read that! Essentially sabi
niya: Why should we erequired the witnesses to sign at the bottom for
validity when the law does not require/indicate where the witnesses
must sign. In fact, the law does not reuire AC has to be signed.
“Acknowledged”
What is meant by “acknowledgment”? To acknowledge means to
admit authorship of an act. So if somebody acknowledges a deed of
sale before a NP, what does he acknowledge? He acknowledges that
he is a party to the Deed of Sale either as a buyer or seller. In the case
of a will, what is to be acknowledged?
Who are required to acknowledge? All the four should acknowledge
before a NP
What does testator admit? Authorship of the will, e.g. this will was
executed by me. This is my last will and testament. Ano pa? That he
Page 16 of 72
executed it freely and voluntarily. Authorship and voluntariness of
execution.
How about the witnesses, what will they acknowledge before NP?
Authorship of the AC. Yun ang kanilang act so that’s what they would
acknowledge and the voluntariness of the act. Impliedly, the witnesses
will admit before NP, their having witnessed the execution of will by
the testator.
What is the reason why this acknowledgment is required?
PURPOSE according to code commission:
[1] ensure authrenticity of the will and
[2] minimize fraud.
It has history. Under Spanish CC which was in force in the country
before Americans came, notarial intervention for validity of will was
necessary but the Americans decided to do away with the notarila
intervention. The Civil Procedure which amended parts of the Spanish
CC, eliminated notarial acknowledgement. Many frauds were
committed especially at the testator’s bedside by affixing his
thumbmark. Kaya nirestore ito in the NCC. Akala nung gumawa ng
batas, pag may abogado nag-intervene, siguradon nang authentic yung
dokumento, sha pa nga ang namemeke. Yung mga abogadong
nagbubukas ng ataul at nonotaryuhin pa niya. Itantedate pa yung will
to make it appear it was made before testator died. Kaya lang may CSI
na ngayon eh. Pag yung thumbmark inaffix sa document after the
corpse has undergone rigor mortis stage, iba na itsura ng thumbmark.
Pag nagrigor mortis, naninigas rin yung tissues nay an. Pag ka
lumambot yung corpse, hindi na shag anon kaelastic kaya may
nangyayari sa thumbmark, siguro crumbled. At least ngayon alam niyo
kung pano dadayain. Kailangan mainit init pa yung bangkay, bago mag-
rigor mortis. Ithumbmark tas inotaryo. Palabasin niyon inexecute
before he died. The code commission decided to return the
intervention by a notary public.
BTW under the old notarial law, hindi lahat ng NP ay abogado. There
are instances where even non-lawyers were allowed to apply for
commission. Ang nacarry over lang eh yung ability to administer oaths.
LGC authorizes mayors and governors. Petition for authority to
administer oaths if the place where he resides has no lawyer/mayor.
When must the testator and witnesses acknowledge? Definitely not
before the execution of the will, kasi nothing to acknowledge before
NP. They may acknowledge only after the will was executed.
May they acknowledge on a separate occasion? Halimbawa executed
today, kaya lang the NP who was not present in the execution.
Pinadala laang yung last will and testament together with the AC. Sabi
nung lawyer, ay pasensha na po pero meron akong meeting. I cannot
be present in the signing of the will. Since the NP was present during
the signing, the testator and witnesses could not possibly acknowledge
on the same occasion. May the acknowledgment be done on a
separate occasion? Pwede ang 1 day, 1 year, 1 month. Where do we
stop? According to Justice Eduardo Caguioa, only one who wrote
about this requirement. No need to acknowledge on the same
occasion as execution on the same day of the will. No other purpose
than making usre that the will was executed by the testator himself
and that the testator have testamentary capacity. Meanin g he was still
alive and executed voluntarily byt the testator. Walang magbabago
even though acknowledgemnt done on a separate occasion. I dare not
debate with Justice cAguioa, possible na walang risk or prejudice. Yung

nga lang. kung pwede ng 1 day, why not 1 month, 1 year, 5 years, 10
years. Not only that.
May the witnesses and testator acknowledge on different occasions?
Pwede bang bukas si testator, without the witnesses, and then the
witnesses will acknowledge 1 month from today. May those four
parties on four different occasions? Kay Justice Caguioa, pwede yun. Eh
kung pwede yun. Pwede ba after the death of the testator?! What if
the witnesses acknowledge it after the death of the testator. If we
follow the logical __ of the arguments espoused by Justice Caguioa, he
will opine that it can be acknowledge after the death. Nakapirma na
naman sila sa will at AC.
If the four may acknowledge on different occasions, may they
acknowledge before different notaries public? Pwede ba yun?
According to Justice Caguioa, no requirement that they acknowledge
before the same. Ang mangyayari lang dun. Matatadtad ng dry seal
yung will. Even if they don’t acknowledge before the same notary
public pero different occasions, tadtad pa rin yun.
What is the evidence that it was acknowledge before notary public?
The “acknowledgement certificate” prepared by the notary before
whom it was acknowledged. NP certifies who appeared before him
citing proper identification (di na sufficient resident certificate ngayon,
it must be an ID issued by the government). Testator certification that
the acknowledging party acknowledged before him and executed by
him freely and voluntarily. NP must ask the party about circumstances
that will make him conclude executed the will freely and voluntarily.
The moment he is convinced that it was executed freely and voluntarily
by the party, that’s the time NP will prepare the Ackowledgment
Certificate.
AckCertif is usually in fact almost always as a separate instrument.
Kadalasan, nakaseparate na page yan. Pero kung si abogado ay
nagtitipid sa attestation at ackcertif. Hindi natin ginagawa yun kasi pag
nagkamali ka mahirap naman putulin. Madaling palitan. That sheet of
paper where ackcertif was written, is that part of will? NO.
Must testator and witnesses sign the margin of the page? No, not part
of will.
Must testator and witnesses sign at the end of ackcert? No, bec it’s the
act of the NP.
Must ackcert state the name of the witneses? (CA decision) need not
mention the names of the testator and witnesses. Parang di mangayari
yan ngayon kasi they need to identify the acknowledging parties. Pati
yung details ng ID, kailangang maisulat sa AckCert, baka di na
applicable under the present notarial law.
The ackcert, must it be signed by the testator on the same occasion
that the testator and witnesses acknowledged before him?
Javellana v Ledesma: mayaman at malapit na mamatay. Signed at the
hospital room of the testator. Nako nalimutan ko po yung ackcert,
notarial seal and document and brought at his office. When he arrived
at his office, 5thirsty club na, hindi na nanotaryo. Kinabukasan, he will
appear in court, attend hearings, he has pleadings to prepare, solo
practitioner sa probinsha, just one secretary and messenger sa
probinsha. Nalimutan niyang notaryuhin yung will hanggang isang
umaga, sabi ni secretary. Boss di pa natin nanotaryo will ni Don Pepe,
namatay na kagabi. Notaryado na, so dinala na sa court. Nag-away si
Lawyer at secretary, nung nag-away sila, ginawa ni secretary, pumunta
Page 17 of 72
sa kabila sa mga oppositors ng will. No it did not invalidate the will. The
ack cert is not the act of testator nor the witnesesse. As far as law is
concerned, they have complied with all formalities required by law.
Cannot be made to depend on act of np over whom testator and
witnesses have no control. Besides, the execution of the notarial
certificate, whether done before or after the testator does not increase
the risk of will being a forgery or fraudulently obtained. DOCTRINE:
AckCert may be prepared and executed by NP not on the same
occasion that the testator and witnesses acknowledged before him. In
fact, it can be done by the NP even after the death of the testator.
If the testator requested a delegate to write his name, must the
delegate acknowledge before a notary public? NO, it’s not required.
The delegate need not appear because the act of the delegate is
supposed to be the act of the principal testator. Therefore, it’s the
testator who should acknolwedge, not the delegate.
What is the effect if no acknowledgment? If notarial will, void. The tax
code requires a documentary stamp to be affixed and can___on every
ackcert that a notary public will prepare and execute. Hindi nalagyan
ng documentary stamp ang will, yung ackcert. The first you will
encounter is the application for admission to the bar. What is the
effect. Under the law, the document that was notarized is not
admissible in evidence. Kapag deed of sale tas yung ackdert ay walang
stamp, it’s not admissible in court. Si atty, hindi nilagayn ng
documentary stamp yung ackcert of the will, nung namatay yung
testator, the will was presented in court, ang sabi ni oppositors, the
will is invalid because the ackcert is inadmissible, therefore, since
inadmissible, the effect is no ackcert and the will is invalid.
Gabucan v Manta: No, the absence of documentary stamp does not
make the will invalid. The absence of the stamp makes the document
inadmissible but may be affixed anytime. After affixing, it becomes
immediately admissible. Wala ba? O eh di lagyan!
Ordinarily when a NP notarizes, he retains 2 copies: for his files and the
national archives. Submit the notarial register together with the
SOlGen. Sol Gen to National Archives. Deed of Sale, four copies yan. In
the case of a will, must the NP retain copy? No, not required to retain.
But may he? Yes, if allowed by testator to retain a copy, because the
testator may have interest in having it a secret before his death.
Marami makakakita niyan, secretary, messenger, record, national
archive. To address that concern of testator, the law does not require
NP to retain a copy. If not, he has to give copy of notarized will to the
testator.
CHI: Pwede bang kamag-anak yung NP?
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS ano nga yung halo-halo special?
Special testators with special conditions. Not prohibited to make a will,
but to ensure that the will was not forced upon the testator the law
imposes special formal requirements. Dalawang classes:
1. Deaf/deaf-mute
2. Blind
DEAF/DEAF-MUTE
Usually, when deafness is inborn, most likely mute din yan. Without
sound to emulate so hindi niya alam kung pano gagayahin yung sound
na yun. But if deafness was acquired, most likely bingi lang pero
nakakapagsalita. Bakit merong special requirements? Eh kasi nung
araw, ang tining nila sa deaf-mute/deaf eh dumb. Handicap so great
they are considered feeble-minded, idiots or dumb. Nung araw sa
 Page 18 of 72

society, itinatago ang deaf-mute baka nakakadena pa nga. Kulang pa

ng social skills. Eh sir pano yumaman, eh siguro nagmana o tumama sa Must the illiterate comply with special specific requirement? YES, 808.
lotto! Pero yumaman eh, magagawa natin? There must be an express In the eyes of the law, the illiterate person is blind.
provision prohibiting. Meron ngang special requirements to allow How does the law define blind? Somebody who cannot read his will is a
them. blind man. No matter how hard he looks, he cannot read.

Under 807: personally read the will if able to do so, otherwise, he shall Alvarado v Gaviola: Told his nephew who was a lawyer. After a series
designate two persons to read and communicate in some practicable of conference and draft correction, they finally agreed on the final copy
manner the contents thereof. of the will, let’s schedule a day for the execution. Atty. Nephew.
Tumawag ng tatlong testigo at isa pang lawyer who will act as the
How will these two persons read and communicate? Must they read at notary public. Gave one copy of the will to the witnesses and the NP.
the same time or must they read and communicate one after another? Read aloud slowly the contents of the will, addressed to the testator.
NB If the intention is one after another, baka dapat A808 yung wording Okay nay an. That’s my will. The testator was blind. I will sign na! Art.
na maliwanag. Ergo, mukhang an gang intention ng batas eh for these 808 requires two readings, but only one witness. Lawyer nephew was a
two to help each other. Bakit sila sabay? Para makita ng testator na not a witness, nor the NP. There was no compliance with all the
nag-aaway sila kung hindi sila magkasundo kung pano iccommunicate additional reliance. Yes. There was substantial compliance. Why? There
to him the contents of the will. was no literal but the manner followed in executing the will served the
prupose behind 808. How come? Ang purpose lang naman two
May the witnesses or NP be the two persons who will read and readings ay para masiguro ay kung ano nakasulat ay yun ang nakasulat.
communicate? According to almost all writers, no one yet says Kung iba ang sinabi nung nephew kesa sa nakasulat eh di nagreklamo
otherwise, YES, the witnesses and NP may be the two persons. yung testigo! Since none of the witness, the NP even did not raise an
objection. What was read was what was written
Sir pwede po bang apat ung idesignate niya? Hindi kasi nakalagay na
“at least two” DLC says: Since the purpose of requirement is to ensure CHI: May the drafting lawyer be the same NP?
is what he wished to be his last will. Anything to make him feel secured
should be allowed. More than substantial compliance, more than full.
No prohibition so no reason to disqualify witness and NP for as long as
21 July 2010
they were able to communicate accurately. There should be no reason
to invalidate on that ground.
Substantial compliance rule in Art. 809
A judge-made doctrine, it’s not in the law, but the courts in the
exercise of their powers in the interest of justice, created this
BLIND
substantial compliance doctrine. That is still with us. It’s still being
They are not prohibited, in fact there is a special requirement!
followed and applied by the courts but special substantial compliance
rule was incorporated in A809.
When is testator blind? It may be inborn or acquired. Inborn hindi
nakakasulat, most likely Braille. Sa elevators, required na ang dots na
BUT the A809 applies only when it involves the attestation clause. The
yan. Pagsulat niya, may cardboard at stylus tas butas lang sha ng butas.
defect involves form or language. If the defect involves form or
Invented by a French man ang pangalan ay… Braille. Natural! CAMILLE!
language, A809 applies. Provided there’s no BAD FAITH FORGERY
Camiy. Pag acquired, nakakasulat yan yung nga lang hindi pantay-
FRAUD UNDER IMPROPER PRESSURE AND INFLUENCE. Prove that the
pantay. Regardless of born blind or became blind later on.
will was in fact executed and attested in substatntial compliance with
Comply with additional specific requirement: Read twice but the
all requirements of the law.
witness and NP before whom acknowledged.
PURPOSE: to ensure that what was written is what was desired by the
What do we mean by defect in form? The manner by which the
testator.
attestation clause was prepared and executed did not comply with
formalities. E.g. attestation clause was incorporated into the body of
What is the effect of failure to comply with additional requirements?
will instead of being written as separate instrument. This is a defect in
Garcia v Vasquez: will is invalid.
the form of AC not the language.
Should the fact of compliance with these additional requirements
Defect in language? Sense conveyed by the written words of the AC is
appear in the AC? No need. Sufficient to establish in probate
ambiguous, unclear or unintelligible. Words written in attestation
proceedings. Mascarinas v Angeles.
clause. Rey v Cartajena is in point.
Should the testator be deaf-mute and blind, kawawa naman. No
Defect consists in an omission of a fact required by law to appear in the
expresss provision, disqualification. If the testator is deaf, mute and
AC?
blind. What specific additional requrieemnts must the testator comply
 Is that a defect in form? Definitely not.
with? Both bang 807 and 808? Kasi kung comply with 807 pano
 In language? Acdg to JBL Reyes, yes, that’s a defect in
idedemonstrate? Kahit anong monstra monstra gawin mo jan, hindi
language. But acdg to Jurado, an absolute omission of a fact
makikita. Kahit anong basa sa kanya, walang maririnig! How do we
required by law to appear is neither a defect in form or
ensure that this poor fellow who is wealthy? Pano? Dapat siguro
language. This was the ruling in Gil v Murciano. An old case.
disqualified na lang.
In the first ruling of court in Gil v Murciano, SC ruled that a
total omission of a fact required by law to appear in AC
How about ILLITERATE no read and no write? No express prohibition
cannot be cured by showing of substantial compliance by the
and disqualification.
testator.

May nag-dissent in the decision, si Justice Tuazon. Sabi kasi ng
majority, we can only allow showing of substantial compliance if
nothing is missing in AC. There is a defect merely in language. Dapat
walang kulang. If something is missing in the AC, that cannot be cured
by showing that the fact missing was complied with by the testator.
Wala naman nakalagay sa AC. Pag sabi ng iba, hindi natin pwede
payagan na maski wala dun eh kinomply naman. Gano kadaming facts
ang pwedeng mawala? Suppose wala lahat, hindi sinabi sa AC. Will we
allow introduction of evidence to show that there was substantial
compliance kahit wala? Eh di tanggalin na lang ang AC, mawawalan ng
value yung AC.
Dissent ngayon si Tuazon. There’s a built-in limitation, we allow
showing compliance with a requirement omitted in the attestation
clause if such substantial compliance is shown by the four corners of
the will. Evidence outside is not admissible to show that compliance
with the requirement omitted in the AC was substantially complied
with. Because of that dissent, MR was filed. While MR was pending,
the composition of court changed. I think nag-resign si Roman Ozaeta
to become the administrator or executor of the estate of Carlos
Palanca Sr. in his place was appointed was Justice Labrador, yung moot
court sa taas. Appointed by brother-in-law, Ramon Magsaysay. MR
was taken up, nagbago ng botohan. Justice Labrador sided with Justice
Tuazon. The minority ponentia became the majority ponentia by
margin of one vote.
Ano ngayon ruling ni Justice Tuazon which is the doctrine in Gil v
Murciano. A total omission of a fact of compliance with the
requirement of the law can be cured if substantial compliance with
such omitted requirement is shown by the four corners of the will.
Ano example nito? Each and every page was signed by the testator and
the witnesses. Pero kung ang nawala ay yung total number of pages.
Baka may sinupress. Evidence outside the body fo the will is not
admissible. Naging minority si Justice Jugo. Tuazon lifted heavily from
JBL Reyes’ opinion.
Comes the case of Caneda v CA: same problem, the AC omitted totally
a fact of compliance with the requirement. Proponents of will
attempted to show and prove to the court that there was substantial
compliance with requirement. Assuming substantial compliance was
proven, will it cure? Ang sabi ni Regalado (San Beda yan eh no. Highest
bar daw sabi niya. That will not make him UP grad. Highest grade nga,
San Beda pa rin sha.) Researcher of REgalado, cited as authority of
Desiderio Jurado (Phil Law School yun, hindi naman UP) and JBL Reyes.
Pano niyo sinite si JBL? Parang yung case yan ngayon ng SC sa comfort
women. Kinuote niya lang isang portion, di niya nakitang contrary
positions sila. What is the remedy against good justice of SC?
Impeachment lang naman yan? Is commission of plagiarism palpable
violation of constitution? The best they can do is to force him to resign
just like MVP resigned in the Ateneo Board. Caneda adopted the
interpretation in Gil v Murciano. Total omission, hindi kasama yan.
AND assuming that a defect is one of form or language. The only
evidence admissible are those found in the four corners of the will.
Iniba ni Caneda: Total omission not curable. Pero pag form or
language, curable pero by intrinsic lang.
When examiner pretends to know his law? Sir made some point here.
Review!
HOLOGRAPHIC WILL
Page 19 of 72
When will is holographic will. Only 3 Requirements.
1. Entire written by the hand of testator
2. Signed by the hand of testator
3. Dated by the hand of testator
Must HW be in a language known to testator? Of course, general
requirement yun eh diba?
Sandali muna. Suppose testator is illiterate. May an illiterate man
execute a will? Of course, no express disqualification in the law. If he
maeks a notarial will, there’s an additional requirement. In the eyes of
law, illiterate = blind. But suppose he wants to make a holographic
will? Can he do that? Merong isang writer na ang sabi, YES, si Paras!
The imagination of Paras is fertile, very fertile. How? Kakausap ng isang
taong bumasa at sumulat. By dictation. Gawin mong block print.
Dinikta ko ngayon kay Garcia. Basahin mo nga, o akin na. kokopyahn
painstakingly tapos thumbmark. Si Paras lang nakaisip non! Sige nga.
Think of an argument to demolish Justice Edgardo Paras.
Suppose blind man could read and write in Braille. Before death, he
made will in Braille. Is that a valid will? Yung una nating pinag-usapan,
entirely written in hand of testator. Yung Braille eh kanya bang
sinulat? Kamay naman niya yung ginamit sa pagpuncture. Kung ganon
argument mo, kamay niya rin anman ang nagpagalaw sa typewriter.
The issue is what do we mean by handwriting?
Sir, walang kamay pero adept magsulat gamit ang paa. Parang yung
Filipina who was armless despite handicap became a pilot in US. Kung
marunong dumarive ng eroplano using foot, marunong din sumulat.
Written entirely by foot. Is that a valid will? A sir, substantial
compliance yan. No literal compliance but purpose behind
requirement is served. Science has shown that no two people have the
same handwriting. Imposible na pareho sila handwriting kay
apinapayagan as long as entirely written. ABA kung yung sinulat ng
kamay hindi magkapareho, di lalo na yung paa! Tiyak na magkaiba yun.
Madidiscover kagad the forgery.
Under the law, there’s no other requirement other than those three
which I mentioned. Kailangan ba ng witnesses? Hindi po. Pero may
witness eh. Kumuha tatlo kaibigan. Regarded as surplusage. Hindi
kailangan ng AC yan, pag gumawa sila, treated as surplusage.
Kailangan bang notaryuhin? Suppose testator is deaf as old age,
gumawa ng sulat, pero teacher/lawyer, kailangan pa ba magcomply sa
special requirement? No, they only apply to notarial will, kasi iba yung
nagtype at gumawa ng notarial will.
What is the form of a holographic will to be valid? May it be in the
form of a letter to the testaor’s wife? YES, for as long as there was
animus testandi. It may even be in the form of a poem, parang si Soc
Rodrigo (I’m sure hindi niyo na kilala yun) senator of Republic before
martial law. He was a columnist and wrote in Tagalog pero maski
sumusulat or nagtatalumpati, parang si balagtas, my rhyme at meter
pag nagsalita. Parang tumutula. So nung gumawa sha ng will para ring
tula. Valid will as long as there’s animnues testandi at time of
execution.
What is the effect if not entirely written by the hand of the testator?
The will is void.
What is “entirely”? Nagkatuluyan si Garcia at Gutierrez. Isang araw,
nakita ni Gutierrez si Garcia sa table nagsusulat. Sweatheart ano sulat
you? Gumagawa me LWT na HW. E di pinabayaan ni Gutierrez. Tas
pinakeelaman niya habang natutulog si Ron. Curiosity kills the cat. She

didn’t like what she read. Kinabukasan, kinonfrotn niya si Ron, nakita
ko LWT mo ha, di ko gusto. Ano ba gusto mo? Gusto ko bigyan mo
yung DI ko. O sha sige sulat mo jan. di pa kasi tapos will niya. To my
wife’s DI, I give legacy of 50K.
Will Eva’s insertion take effect? NO, kasi hindi niya will yun. It will not
take effect.
How about the will as written in the hand of Garcia? Of course not.
Because not entirely written. The entire will is void.
Iba ang solushon kung tinapos niya na yung will. Nung makita ni Eva,
may pirma at date na. She prevailed him to give something to DI. O
sige, isulat mo after the signature. Tapos pinirmahan ulit. Will the PS
added by Ms. Gutierrez in her own handwriting but signed and dated
by Mr. Garcia take effect? Of course not.
How about the original will, will it take effect? Of course, because that
will. I will show you later on na hindi kasama yung PS sa will. PS is an
attempt to make a codicil.
There are more problems to discuss when we reach alterations.
What signature is sufficient? Pwede ba yung initials? Sabi ni Paras,
hindi pwede! Mali ang mental processing ni Paras kaya absurd.
Pwede bang pumirma with a thumbmark? Baka akala niyo settled yan
ha. Sabi Justice Edwardo Caguioa and Prof. Hector De Leon, a testator
cannot execute HW by sigining it with a thumbmark. Why? Kasi daw
nakalagay sa batas, A811 (in the probate of HW… will and signature are
in the handwriting. Underline handwriting. It’s a mark of the thumb.
Impliedly required by 811. Pero nasa 810 eh yung ‘hand’ lang. MAY
KAKAMAY PA BA SA THUMB? MAY MAS KAMAY PA BA DITO? Literal
sila Caguioa at De Leon. Eh di yung Fil-Am armless pilot eh invalid na
rin! Footwriting yun.
Ano ba purpose for requiring handwriting?That is itself an
identification. Ganun din yung thumbmark. Bakit naman kasi nasulat
na nga yung body ng pirma, thumbmark pa nilagay niya. Patay na kasi
nung tinumbmark. BUT that is a question of fact, evidentiary in nature.
Pwede rin kasi sinulat nung kaya pa niya, tapos pinirmahan na lang
nung mahina na. Buti na lang hindi ganon view ni Tolentino.
SIGNATURE.
Where must testator sign? Sa notarial, at the end dapat.
Sir’s PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. Upon coming back from master, senior
partner was legal luminary from UP Law with masteral degree in Yale
who became concom delegate. May asthma. Namatay. Week later,
pumunta sakin biyuda. Doctorate Natural Science ng Harvard. Ang tito
mo ay may iniwang LWT. Patingin? Three pieces of yellow pad. Boss ko
yun eh so kinocorrect yung pleadings namin, alam ko handwriting. Very
nice. Ay walang pirma. Nako tita. This will is void. Why?! Walang pirma
ni tito. Bakit kailangang pirmahan, until then, di tayo sure na tapos na
niya. Pag di pa tapos, di pa pwede probate. Baka may hindi sha
nailagay na provisions upon whch the other provisions depend. Lulugo-
lugo si Biyuda, di makapaniwalang *insert credential here* gumawa ng
invalid na will. “IHO…” aggressive. Nakalagay ba ang batas kung san
nakapirma ang tito mo? Look at the will.
I, Juan de la Cruz of sound and disposing mind, by the grace of God, do
hereby declare and publish the following as my last will and testament.
Page 20 of 72
Iho, tingnan mo ito. Di ba ganyan ang pirma ni tito mo?! Wrote his
name is the way he signed. Technically, this is his signature.
Oo nga tita. Pero hanggang dito lang valid yan. (yung line na merong
signature) A812 (below signature). The moment testator signs, sinasara
na niya. Everything beneath will constitute a new will, which we will
call, “codicil”.
Later on I will show you that he was brilliant and intentionally left it
unsigned to save the widow and children from expense of probate.
The law does not tell where testator must sing BUT A812 implies that it
must be at the end.
Ms. Gutierrez bat parang gustong gusto mong tinutukso kita kay Ron?
DATE.
What date must testator write on the will? Let’s get a concrete
example. Today, Mr. Garcia decided to write his will. This is a magnum
opus!!! I’m exhausted! So he decided to rest. The opening paragraph,
July 21, 2010. Nalimutan niya hanggang August 21, 2010. Kinuha ulit
ang pad paper. Ano ba ang aking first disposition. To my loving
girlfriend, Eva Gutierrez, I leave… itutuloy ko na lang. Sept. 21, martial
law yun. Naalala niya. Naku, may will ako. Nag-add ng second
disposition. To my loving nephew, tago ulit. October 21, 3rd provision
tas tago ulit. Nov. 21 inilabas ulit. Sabi niya wala na ako idadagdag,
isasara ko na!!! itinago. Kelan niya pinirmahan? Nov. 21. Dec. 21,
kinuha ulit, I will look at my magnum opus. Ay nako! Walang date! 
this will is invalid! No date!
Can he add the date on Dec. 21? No provision in the law as to when he
must affix the date. No before while after date. Ang sinabi lang for
validity, it must be dated. ERGO, on Dec. 21, he may complete the will
by dating it. Until then, hindi complete. Sarado lang, hindi complete.
What date will he write? First day of started writing will, Aug 21 - First
disposition? Sept 21 – 2nd dispo? Oct. 21 – third? Nov. 21 - signed? Dec.
21 – discovery that it did not bear a date? According to writers in Civil
Law. Write the true date, not false date. When is a date “true date”?
Any date which has a connection to the exeution of the will is a true
date. Therefore, all of those may be written to complete the HW
because all those have to do with execution of will. Pag April 21, 2010
ang nilagay, false date kasi without connection to the execution of HW.
That will be a false date that invalidate the entire will.
In Roxas v De Jesus: ang date ay “Feb ’61”. Eh kung jejemon, pano
issusulat yan? Panahon ngayon ng mga illiterates. Is that sufficient
date to make will valid? Yes, sufficient, the will was valid. Di ba kulang
ng day? Aaah sabi SC, kasi alam niyo, under old CC, the law was very
clear as to date requirement. For a HW to be valid, the day, month and
the year must be written on the will. Pero iba na kasi yung formula sa
NCC, tinanggal yung day, month and year. Date na lang. there must be
reason behind the change. If the intention is to imposed same
requirement for date of valid HW, then the lawmaekrs whould have
simply carried over the wording of old law. Eh binago nila. Alam niyo
naman, pag may binago, there’s peresumption ng reason for the
change. Even assuming the same was intention of congress in changing
formula or wording of provision. Substantial compliance yan. I.e.
Substantial compliance rule equally applies to HW.
Kung kayo ay naguguluhan pa, panahon na para magdrop. Magdoktor
na lang kayo.

Where must date be written? Beginning, body, after will but before
signature, or after signature, back page? Anywhere, but it must be
conclusive that the day is an integral part of the body of the will. Kung
front page ang will tas likod ang date, hindi qualify yun kasi hindi parte
ng will.
ALTERATIONS
Art 814: pwede pa ba ialter ang Notarial Wil? Pwede pa ba ialter ang
NW? YES, you can alter or modify your NW but only through the
execution of a codicil. Execute another will. Pwede bang icorrect na
lang? Lagyan ng caret at ng additional dispositions in his own
handwriting? Will that take effect? Natural hindi. Kasi hindi naman
kasama yang alteration nung inexecute with the witnesses. Hindi
kasama sa will. Ibang wil kasi yan na tinestiguhan ng tatlong testigo
and acknowledged before NP. For this to be modified and order.
Execute another. When we reach codicil, halimbang pinirmahan ni Ron
ito with date. In his own handwriting, will that qualify as
HOLOGRAPHIC CODICIL?
Pero ang general rule: Notarial will cannot be altered and modified
without codicil.
How about a holographic will, pwede bang i-alter at will? YES.
How? Tatlong ways to alter a written document.
1. Alteration by insertion
2. Alteration by deletion
3. Alteration by substitution (bura tas singit)
Congresswoman Juanita Nepomuceno of Pampanga – lola ni Kiko
Pangilinan yan. Mr. Speaker. Yes, what is your desire? Sponsor my bill
calendared for 2nd reading. Congressman from Mindanao. Yield to me?
Will the lady accept an insertion from this gentleman? You cannot
withdraw it without my consent!
To be a valid alteration of a holographic will. It must be handwriting of
the testator and it must be authenticated by the full signature of the
testator.
Sa kasong ito… gumawa si Ron
1. Disposition disposition disposition disposition
2. Disposition disposition disposition disposition
3. Disposition disposition ^alteration alteration then initialled disposition
disposition
(SGD) Ron Garcia (long signature)
Eva: Punyeta ka. Bakit 5k lang kay DI. Di ba usapan natin 10k?
It was not a valid alteration. Initial lang dib a dapat full sig?
Ibahin natin ngayon.
1. Disposition disposition disposition disposition
2. Disposition disposition disposition disposition
3. Disposition disposition ^alteration alteration then initialled disposition
disposition
(SGD) RBG
 Sabi ni Paras, hindi pwede initials. Dapat full signature. Kaya
nga as far as Paras is concerned, invalid lahat kasi initial lang.
hindi kasi gets ni Paras yung “full signature” hindi naman
sinabing “long signature.”
Page 21 of 72
What is a full signature? Kung ano ipinirma dun sa ilalim yun ang pirma
kapag inauthenticate ang alteration.
Example.
1. Disposition disposition disposition disposition
2. Disposition disposition disposition disposition
3. Disposition disposition ^alteration alteration then full signature Ron Garcia
disposition disposition
(SGD) RBG (initials lang)
 Alteration won’t take effect either kasi the law means full
signature is the one at the end. Law wants only one
form/type of signature. Akala kasi ni Para sang full signature
ay long signature. Magkaiba yun. Kaya nga maraming
namamatay sa maling akala.
Alteration is invalid, how about will in its original tenor? Will it still take
effect? Aujero v CA: Since original will is valid, it will take effect. What
will not take effect is the alteration.
Buti yan kung alteration eh insertion lang. may matandang dalaga
(kelan ba ang matandang dalaga? Senior citizen stage – 60 years.
Matanda na, dalaga pa rin).
“I institute my brother Jose Julian as my sole and universal heir.”
(Sgd) Juana Change
July 21, 2010
Valid ba ito? Hindi nagsasabing hindi valid, papalabasin ko!
Kaso nagkagalit si Juana at si Jose. So binura niya, ginawang Abad.
Nakalimutan niyang pirmahan hanggang sa kamatayan nia.
Sino na magmamana sa settlement proceeding? Jose: Julian was
designated by way of an alteration. Not authenticated by testatrix but
it will not take effect. Julian: Erase naman yung name mo! Jose:
Alteration din ang cancellation of my name. It did not take effect! Kung
hindi nagtake effect ang designation ni Julian at erasure ni Jose, sino
ang magmamana? Kalaw v Relova. Major errors of SC in succession.
Ang sabi SC “nobody” none was entitled to inherit.
- Not Julian: because his designation was clearly an alteration
and for that alteration t be effective, it msut be
authenticated. Since it was not, it was invalid.
- Not Jose: it was not an alteration but just revocation of
provision through cancellation. Revocation does not require
authentication to be effective.
Sir’s opinion as shared by Vitug (di ko lang alam kung sino nauna):
What is the nature of Jose’s erasure? Yes it may be revocation. Pano
papalitan kung hindi nirevoke. WON revocation, it is immaterial. We
still apply 814 not 820. This is a particular form of revocation
amounting to alteration governed by specific law, 814. Hindi dapat
mag-take effect. There’s danger nab aka mamaya may nagcancel ng
provision na hidni ginawa ng testatrix. How do we know that it was
testator himself who cancelled it out? Dun papasok si Aujero v CA.
Delikado yung kanilang ruling in Kalaw v Relova. Dangerous precedent.
26 July 2010
PNoy’s first SONA

28 July 2010
V. INCORPORATION OF
DOCUMENT BY REFERENCE
We are now in incorporation of document by reference Art 827
Sometimes, a testator has so much property to dispose that to identify
each and every property in the will shall result in the will becoming
extra-long or voluminous. Let’s suppose testator has 100 pieces of real
property, if each and every property identified in the will. You can just
imagine how long that will become. And you know, the longer the will
gets, the risk that it will not comply with the formalities also gets
bigger. Halimbawa, 20 pages na yan, e di possibility of witness lifting
two pages at the same time becomes greater. The shorter the will
therefore, the better. Eh pano yan, katakot-takot properties of
testator. Yung isang client ko, nakafile lahat ng TCTs sa isang filing
cabinet. Tatlong drawers puno ng titulo. Ganon kayaman yung client
ko. Inventory ganito kakapal. Kung lahat to papangalanan, can you just
imagine how long it will become. To aid the testator in making a short
will, A827 allows the testator to incorporate by mere referece another
document or paper. It is incorporated in the will by mere reference.
E.g. Inventory of all his assets. In his will, ganito na lang nakalagay. To
my oldest son, I give all properties in page 1-4.
However for incorporation to be effective, there are requisites
enumerated in Art. 827,
1. Document or paper referred to in the will must be in
existence at the time of the execution of the will.
- Implications of this requirement: The incorporation
is invalid. Only the incorporation, not the will itself.
The will remains a valid will, but the incorporation
will be ineffective.
2. The will must clearly describe and identify the document or
paper stating among other things the
a. Number of pages of the document or of the paper
3. Signed by the testator and the witnesses on each and every
page, except
a. Voluminous books of account or documents
4. During probate the document must be identified in court as
the document referred to in the will.
Must AC of a notarial will state about the incorporation by reference of
a document or a paper? No requirement
Are all these requirements to be effective, mandatory? E.g. signed by
testator and witnesses on each and every page. DLC opinion: It is not
mandatory because there is a built-in eception. How do we know
whether it’s voluminous? How many pages should there be and so the
signature on the pages may be dispensed with. Suppose it’s not an
inventory but another paper, how long must the paper be to be
voluminous so that the requirement be dispensed with.
How about a holographic will, may a holographic will incorporate by
reference another document? If you will look at 827, there’s a
requirement that each and every page must be signed by the testator
and the witnesses. BUT there are no witnesses in the case of the
holographic will. Does that imply that incorporation is allowed only in
notarial will? Eh sir, sabi mo hindi naman mandatory yun, so siguro pag
holographic hindi na rin kailangan. Anyway, wala pa naman sigurong
nangyayaring ganyan. Baka makickout kayo dahil dito sa subject na to
Page 22 of 72
sa college na ito pero mabibilang sa daliri yung hahawak or nakhaawak
ng settlement of estate cases. In my yers of practice, 5 settlement case
lang nahawakan ko.
Remember the principles on incorporation, this will be discussed later
in republication.
VI. CODICILS
As we have discussed in our past sessions, the testator may modify or
alter his holographic will by simply writing or inserting in his own
handwriting the alteration or simply cancelling the portion of his will
he wanted to delete or delete and insert a propvision. But for this
alteration to be effective, it only requires the authentication by the
testator with his full signature. How about in the case of a notarial will,
how may a testator modify his notarial will?
He can modify through the execution of a codicil. Under A825, it is a
“supplement” or “addition to a will” made after execution of will,
annexed to be taken as part thereof. Function of explaining a
disposition contained in the original which may be ambiguous, in order
to remove the ambiguity there is the codicil to explain it away.
Codicil may also revoke some dispositions of the prior will. Ayaw na
bigyan mana si Pedro so tinanggal na, “hereby revoked.”
Disposition may be modified. I leave to Pedro ½ of my entire estate,
nagbago ang isip, mashado malaki ½ so 1/3 na lang. disposition in favor
of the nephew reduced to only 1/3.
For this codicil to be valid, it must be executed in accordance with all
the formalites and requirements of a valid will.
Ano nga yung mga reuirements na yun?
1. At least 18
2. Testamentary capacity
3. Animus testandi
4. Compliance with the formalities prescribed by law
5. Executed freely and voluntarily
Pag nag-concur yang lima na yan, will was duly executed.
Difference between a will and a codicil
INSOFAR AS REQUIREMENTS FOR VALIDITY: no difference
San nagkaiba? Codicil necessarily refers to a prior will. If it doesn’t
hindi sha codicil.
Suppose the will was a notarial will, may the testator execute a
holographic codicil? Should they be the same form? No, a codicil need
not be executed in the same form as the will it refers to.
Why? Kasi yung wording ng A826: ang important word diyan? Kung
hindi naunderline-an, hindi pala ako brilliant? Ang uunderline jan, yung
word na “a” !!! Iba yan kung “the” which means dapat same form as
the will it refers to.
Ergo, holographic will may have holographic codicil and notarial will
may have holographic codicil. Pero may problema tayo jan.
Notarial will.
 Page 23 of 72

MARGINAL SIGNATURE 4X On what grounds may testator revoke his will? No ground required by
4. disposition disposition. ^ALTERATION signature and date law to justify revocation fo the law. As a GENERAL RULE thereof, the
5. disposition disposition testator may revoke his will at his pleasure. No matter what his reason
PS modification modification signature and date
is, he may revoke his will.

Maliwanag Malabo? Maliwanag yan.

May a testator bind himself for a valuable consideration not to revoke

Will the modification take effect?
2nd one (PS) suppose PS was written on separate sheet of paper?
Holographic will kasi separate document. Pero kapag ito tinanggal sa
page na ito. Cut out natin yan, wallang meaning. Kasi ininesert sha in
such a way na may kinalaman sa number 5. There will be no problem
kung separate sheet PERO “PS In relation to disposition number 5.
Yung changes dito maiintindihan mo lang kasi nakasunod sha sa
number 5.
his will? Halimbawa gumawa ng will si kiko pangilinan. Pamamanahan
ko si KC. Sabi ni Sharon, sigurado ka bang pamamanahan mo si KC?!
Magcocontribute ako ng 1M sa campaign fund mo upon the condition
na hindi mo irerevoke yan. Sige!!! Let’s put that into writing. Later nag-
away sila ni Sharon dahil hindi bumoto si Tito Sotto sa kanya. Kiko may
still revoke his will. A828 prohibits any waiver on the right to revoke
the will. Also prohibits any restriction on any right of testator to revoke
his will.
When is revocation valid?
May sinusunod din tayong requirements:

Will this qualify as holographic codicil? 1. Testamentary capacity

As it is, magkaqualify yung PS. Pero pano yung may caret, ininsert lang a. Age
sa notarial will, may prima at date. Take note that law does not require b. Soundness of mind
codicil to be a separate instrument. On the page where the prior will is c. Not expressly disqualified
written. Dun na rin niya isinulat. Wala pa kaso yan. Pero
nakaencounter na ako niyan. Alam mo naman mga Pinoy mahilig sa Sandali lang sir, di naman ako gumagawa ng will ah. Bat pa kailangan
ganayn. Notarial will na, kinocorrect pa. niyan? In revoking a will, He is actually disposing estate indirectly.
DLC opinion: Yung PS maliwanag na holographic codicil pero yung Indirect disposition of his estate kapag nirevoke ang will. Ron decided
insertion sa taas, hindi pa ako kombinsido na holographic codicil. Pero not to marry, tumandang binata, nameet niya ngayon ang kaibigan
baka pwede rin kasi will di naman yung kinorrect niya. Why not take niyang DI. Ang gaganda ng mga DI na babae diba? Walang isang kusing
together? One becomes holographic codicil of the notarial will. mga kapatid niya. Pwede yun. Ron has no compulsory heirs. Pero
nagalit sha kay DI so nirevoke ang will. Kanino mapupunta ang mga
Maliwanag yan Malabo? Maliwanag yan. estate, e di sa mga kapatid niya sa legal heirs. Indirect disposition in
favor of his legal heirs.
When there’s conflict between original will and subsequent codicil,
which one prevails? Codicil prevails because it is a much later 2. Animus revocandi
expression of the tsetator’s will. Sha yung amendatory law kung batas 3. Compliance with the formalities prescribed by law for a valid
pinag-uusapan natin. It’s the latest amendment prevail over or effective revocation
dispositions of a prior will.
 It depends on how revocation will be done. Pano ba
VII. REVOCATION nirerevoke ang isang will? SO TYPES/MANNER OF
REVOCATION
REVOCATION 4. Must be done freely and voluntarily
Revocation are of two types.
TYPES/MANNER OF REVOCATION

TOTAL - entire will

TOTAL - delete by operation

REVOCATION disposition of law
PARTIAL - dispositions execution of a
Revocation
contained in the will revoking will
PARTIAL - reduce act of the
amount testator
act of
destruction
Act of the mind of testator terminating the capacity of the will,
manifested by some outward or visible act or sing symbolic thereof. By operation of law
Testator will render the entire will ineffective OR will render a - E.g. the guilty spouse in case of annulment
disposition/s contained in the will inoperative or ineffective. - Testator has nothing to do with it

When may testator revoke? Art 828: Any time before his death Act of the testator

- Formalities of revoking will
- Formalities of act of destruction
What law governs the formalities of a valid revocation of will or
disposition thereof? Under the law, the applicable law depends on
whether testator is domiciled in the Phil or is effected in/out of the
country. If done in the Phil by a resident, resident has to observe Phil
law. If the resident is an alien. Can he revoke the will in accordance
with law of his nationality? 829 does not tell us that he can, rather it
has to be revoked in accordance with Phil law, applying general law, lex
loci celebrationis.
How about done in the Phil by a non-resident? Same rule, lex loci
celelbrationis. Non-resident has to apply Phil law if revoke will in the
Phil
What if done outside Phil by a non-resident? Law of the place where
will executed or the testator’s domicile.
How about law of place where will is to be revoked? Silent 829, yes he
may observe law of place where revocation takes place. Lex loci
celebrationis in A17.
Will revoked abroad by a resident of the Phil? No special rule, hence
apply A17. Law of the place where revocation will take place.
But may the Filipino testator revoke his will outside the Phil in
accordance with Phil law? Law is silent. But DLC that should be allowed
because that is the normal runt of things. Pinoy abroad and resident of
Phil will not have knowledge of the law of the place where he is and
where he will revoke the will.
FORMALITIES when testator will revoke his will by executing
SUBSEQUENT AND REVOKING WILL
If you will look at 830, the law speaks of some will, codicil or other
writing executed as provided in case of wills.
“Other writing executed as provided in case of wills” what’s this
animal? DLC’s opinion: refers to a donation mortis causa. To be valid
must be executed as in the case of a will. If a donation mortis causa
executed without complying with formalities of the will, it’s invalid.
Ang macocover ng “other writing” donation MC.
When a subsequent will is executed by testator to revoke a prior will,
revocation of the entire will in which case “total” , if only some
dispositions “partial”
PARTIAL (disposition only): Such revocation may also be total (delete
the entire disposition) or partial (reduced to smaller amount)
May revocation be subject to a condition? Pwede pala conditonal yan.
I’m sure you have learned in ObliCon what a condition is. A condition is
a future event the happening of which is uncertain. Suppose the event
is a “past event,” may it be a condition. In what instance does it
become a condition? If the happening is yet unknown. “Impossible
condition” pamamanahan ko si Ron kapag siya ay naging gwapo, pag
nanganak si Ron, pagputi ng uwak. Eh pano yung albino.
Condition may either be suspensive or resolutory.
May the revocation of a will subject to a suspenseive condition? Yes,
the revocation is made subject to a happening of a condition.
Resolutory condition? No, the moment a will is revoked, revocation
takes effect instantly. For that condition to be set aside, the testator
Page 24 of 72
must republish the will. The happening of a resolutory condition, is not
a form of republication. Revoked ka ngayon ha, pero this revocation
will terminate pag natapos yung condition.
If the testator will revoke his prior will by executing a subsequent will,
revocation may be express (when there is a revocatory clause; e.g. I
revoke the prior will I executed in 1988) OR implied/by implication
(when the subsequent will contains no revocatory clause but the
dispositions are inconsistent with dispositions of the prior will to that
extent the prior will is revoked.)
REQUISITES for the revoking will to be valid. The same as in the case of
any ordinary will.
1. Testamentary capacity
2. Compliance with formalities
a. notarial
b. holographic
3. Animus testandi
4. Freely and voluntarily executed
Revocation will only take effect when the revoking will is allowed
probate. If denied probate, the prior will remains unaffected. Para
marevoke niya yung prior will subsequent will must be admitted to
probate. Pag nadeny ng probate, walang mangyayair, prior will remains
unaffected.
“PHYSICAL ACT OF DESTRUCTION”
Testator is allowed to revoke a will by destroying it physically, i.e.
“burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating.”
Are these acts exclusively? Pwede rin yung crumpling and throwing it in
the waste basket.
For a physical act of destruction to take effect, ganon din ang
requirements. Yung 5 points. + physical act of destruction.
NB The physical act of destruction must appear on the face of the will.
Pano mo sasabihing sinunog kung buong buo pa yung will. There must
be an act of destruction appearing on the face of the will.
Illustrate:
Si Ron, decided to remain a bachelor forever. Nagkagalit sila ni Eva.
Heartbroken and in despair kaya naging woman-hater. Di na mag-
aasawa. He lived in the company of his nephews. Isa dun sa nephew ay
paborito niya, hindi namna niya minomolest. He made a will giving ½ of
his estate to his favorite nephew, let’s call him “Berto” Isang araw
nagalit sha kay Berto kasi he learned that Berto was courting the
daughter of Eva. E diba galit sha kay Eva? Tinawag si Berto “I want to
make this very very clear. Kapag napangasawa mo ang anak ni Eva,
tatanggalan kita ng mana.” Kaso pag puso na pinag-ususapna, over the
objection of Ron, nagtuloy-tuloy ng ligaw si Berto sa daughter ni Eva na
itago natin sa pangalang Eva II. Eh yung kanyang maid si Annie,
nagsumbong, sabi kay Ron, “Kuya, mag-on napo sina Berto at Eva.”
Sigurado ka. Nagkikissing kissing po doon. Sabi ngayon ni Ron, in one
family gathering hosted by him. Birthday niya. Inannounce niya
publicly sa mga kamag-anak. Mabait sanang bata pero suwail (defiant
in English). Sa kanya ko sana ipapamana yung half, pero ngayon pa lang
inaannounce ko sa inyo, tinatanggalan ko na sha ng mana! Inutusan
niya si Annie, kunin mo yung will sa kwarto ko. Sa sama ng loob,
inatake sa puso, nalalag sa floor at namatay. Di na nakuha ni Ani yung
will. Will Berto inherit the one half given him in will? Depends on the
validity of the will. Of course it is still valid because it was not revoked.

Mere expression of an intention is not enough. Testator must do
something! Revoking will or sirain niya yung will physically.
Baguhin natin yung script. Hindi inatake sa puso si Ron. Inutusan niya si
Ani, kunin ang aking testamento, pronto! Eto po. Ito ba? Ito nga!
Itinapon niya sa bonfire. Matapos itapon, umalis kasi ihing ihi na sha.
Ito naming si Ani, crush pala si Berto, snatched the enveloped from the
fire. Ang nasunog lang eh yung envelope. Yung will eh unscathed. Wala
man lamang sign na sinunog. Hindi alam ni Ron yun. Namatay si Ron.
The will he thought he already revoked is submitted for probate. Still a
valid will because the act of destruction must appear on the face of the
will. Only evidence of destruction is the will itself.
Must destruction be total for the will to be effective? No. Hindi naman
kailangan. If the testator burned the will, not required that the entire
will be burned into ashes. Enough that there is sign of act of
destruction performed by the testator on the will.
For the same reason, it was accidentally destroyed. Naglilinis si Ron ng
kwarto, nakakita ng old envelope without realizing that it was his will.
Was the will effectively revoked? No, no animus revocandi. Animus
revocandi must be coupled by act of destruction appearing on the face
of the will.
Suppose this happens: Ani get my will. Sisirain natin! Pinunit na ni Ani
before pa umabot kay Ron. Destruction may be done by 3rd party but
to be valid:
1. Destruction must be done at the express direction of the
testator
2. Done in the presence of the testator.
In case of Ani, not expressly directed/instructed to destroy the will. She
did it on her own volition. She destroyed the will not in the presence of
the testator. Eh sir napunit na, pano pa irerevoke yun ngayon? Eh di
sunugin natin! Valid pa rin yun kahit punit na. The burning of the torn
pieces will effectively produce revocation. Ang problem… suppose sa
halip pinunit ni Ani, sinunog niya. Ani is always ahead of her amo. Hindi
pa hinihinigi ni Pinoy, nakaprepare na. Pano pa irerevoke ni Ron? Eh di
gagawa na lang sha ng subsequent will? Katawa-tawa absurd diba?
Senator Tolentino, commented on that possibility. Absurd to require
testator to revoke a will that was already burned into ashes. Common
sense dictates that ratification of revocation by testator should
validate. Opinion lang ni Arthur yun. Law abhors the absurd.
Act of destruction must be completed while animus revocandi is
existing. Ron pahinging scrap paper na SCRA. Umiiyak si Ron, pumasok
si Berto break na sila. Natigil yung pagpunit halfway. So tinape niya ulit.
Will was not revoked because as far as Ron is concerned, the act of
destruction was not yet complete. Nagbago yung isip niya. Kaya nga
pinaste niya.
What if natuloy yung punit tas tinapon sa waste can. Kinabukasan
binreak ko na po, “Tito bireak ko na. I love you tito!” Kinuha niya yung
will at iniscotch tape niya. Makakapagmana pa ba si Berto?
Was the will revoked? Yes, kasi nung pinunit at itinapon na. as far as
law is concerned, act of destruction already complete!
The moment act of revocation completed, revocation takes effect
immediately and totally. Pinagdikit naman niya! Hindi ba yung
intention to make the will valid again? It may be so, but you can only
make a revoked will valid again through act of republication and
Page 25 of 72
pasting them together is not republication under the law! Maliwanag
Malabo? Maliwanag yan.
ACTS OF DESTRUCTION
Burning – sinunog
Tearing – pinunit
Cancelling – how different is this from obliteration? An act which
shows the state of the mind of the testator to remove/delete a word
from but without rendering it illegible. To render the entire document
a nullity.
E.g. Notarial will.
WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL
WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL
WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL
T
WWW
There IS A LINE drawn diagonally. Mas maganda kung merong written
word na cancelled or void. Not obliteration kasi readable pa yung
words but the line implies something.
Obliteration is to render a written word illegible or unreadable. Kung
amkikita niyo yung original manuscript ni Rizal ng Noli me Tangere,
hindi mo makita. Pero ngayon kita na sa spectography. Xray or other
radiation, makikita yung original word na gusto sana niyang gamitin.
Kung one line lang yung strikethrough, cancellation yan. If one word
lang, only the disposition where the word was used will be revoked,
not the entire will. In which case “revocation of a dispostion” not
revocation of a will.
For obliteration/cancellation to be effective, does it require
authentication by signature to be effective? Cancellation may be
proven in the probate as having been done by the testator. Proven by
competent evidence, not required that it should be authenticated by
the testator. Prove in court that it was Ani on her own volition without
Ron’s instructions.
How about in the case of a holographic will?
On testator’s own handwriting WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL
WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL
WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL
WILL WILL
T
No need for an authentication. This is not an alteration of the will. It’s a
cancellation and not a revocation of the entire will. We apply A830,
entire will was revocation. Not just a mere alteration. Ang problem is
Kalaw v Relova. Ang sabi dun:
 Page 26 of 72

I institute Jose Juan is my sole and universal heir. then we cannot prove by evidence that the revocation was
T the cause of a cause and that the cause is false.

E.g. Ron executed a will, ganito lang nakalagay, after machismisan ni

Ano’ng sabi dito? Isa lang ang provision ng will. It’s a revocation (which
does not require authentication by signature) but it’s an alteration of
the body of the will. It has to be authenticated by the full signature of
the testator. Otherwise, application of the law will not only be absurd
but also funny. Anything that will change is always a revocation since
increase or reduce of disposition is partial revocation.
Ang sabi ng Kalaw, if it will amount to revocation, hindi kailangan ng
authentication. Kapag nagbabago ang disposition, pwede ialter hindi
kailangan authentication. Pero kung iaalter yung provision na walang
effect, kailangan ng authentication. Bakit pa eh wala nga effect diba??
Application of A834 will become absurd. In effect, any modification
that will not alter needs to be authenticated even no effect on the
substance of the provision. Pero pag magbabago, pwede walang
authentication. I join Justice Vitug in his comment. It’s a wrong
decision! Dapat nga mag-amount sa partial revocation para
iauthenticate niya! Yung mga mahirap na tanong nasa exam yan.
Ani, “I revoke the disposition in favor of my nephew Jose Madrigal in
the will I executed in 2001.” Hindi niya sinabi sa revoking will kung ano
yung reason. Pwede ba yung kanyang nephew sabihin, I oppose the
probate of the revoking will on the ground of false cause. He revoked it
acitng on a mistaken belief that I eloped with his former gf. Can the
court act favorably for the nephew? No, we cannot prove this cause. If
he did not state in his revoking will, there’s no cause to be proved.
 How about if will was revoked through act of destruction?
Can we prove that destruction was moved by a false ground?
Yes, kasi wala naming nakalagay sa batas, kaya lang delikado,
mas mahirap patunayan. In the absence of any law to the
contrary, if the act of revocation was through destruction of
the will, then it may be proved by all kinds of evidence to
show that revocation was based on a cause and that the
cause was false.

2 August 2010
The last topic was applicability of provisions of revocation to
holographic wills. i.e. “If it’s an alteration of a holographic will, even if
such alteration will amount to partial revocation (it always does), it
should comply with 814 otherwise, we will be having absurd results.”
Every change in the holographic will will amount to partial revocation
of the altered provision. If we follow Kalaw v Relova, alteration will
apply only if the change introduced in the body of the holographic will
will not amount to partial revocation. Walang ganun, that’s absurd.
Walang nagbago sa will yet it has to be authenticated by the full
signature.

We go now to: DESTRUCTION BY A THIRD PARTY

Not effective but how will the testator revoke it? Invalid already.
Impractical to Follow senator Tolentino’s suggestion to allow
confirmation by the testator to allow such destruction.

REVOCATION BASED ON A FALSE CAUSE

While it is not required to have a cause to revoke will, common sense
dictates he will not revoke unless with a reason, no matter how
capricious it is, law will recognize. How about if the cause is false or
illegal? What is the effect, under A833, revocation is null and void.

When is a cause false? How do we establish that a cause is false?

Acting on a false cause. Ano ginawa mo kay Eva? Bakit nawawala si
Eva? Nawala yung favorite nephew ni Ron, sabi ni Ani nakipagtanan sa
anak ni Eva. Eh hindi naman pala nagtanan, sanga-sanga lang talaga
dila ni Ani. Ron revoked his will. That’s false cause.

How do we establish the falsity of the cause? It depends on the manner

the will is revoked.
 If the will is revoked by a subsequent will or codicil, the false
cause must appear in the revoking will. It is now for the
oppositors of probate of the will to prove the falsity of the
cause at hearing. If no cause is stated in the revoking will,

DOCTRINE OF DEPENDENT RELATIVE REVOCATION
Illustration: Series of factual circumstances.
1. Testator made a will. Later, he revoked the will by executing 2 nd
will expressly revoking the 1st. It was declared in the 2nd that
should 2nd be denied probate, revocation shall nonetheless be
effective.
- The will containing revocation being void, revocation
contained in the will must also be void. Hindi pwedeng valid
yung lalagyan pero valid yung naklaagay.
- Is this an application of doctrine of relative revocation? No,
kasi hindi valid yung revocation.
Pano ba nagkakaron ng application of DDR?
2. Testator executed a will. Later on, he executed a 2 nd will expressly
revoking 1st. Believing 2nd will is valid, testator destroyed the first.
But the 2nd will was invalid and denied probate for failure to
comply with certain formal requirements. Was the first will
revoked?
- In reality if you analyze the facts, DDR is a species of
revocation based on a false cause. The destruction of the 1st
will was based on the false cause that the 2nd will was valid.
- Act of destruction is therefore void. 1st has remained valid.
- Yung mga writers jan ang daming sinasabi. It’s an example of
a revocation based on a false cause.
Favorite ko yan. You might be surprised how the problems come out.
VIII. REPUBLICATION AND
REVIVAL
What is meant by republication?
The process of giving validity to a will which is useless or has become
useless because it was void OR because it had been revoked. A will
which is void, if you want to make it valid, republication is the process.
Ano yung revival?
The process of restoring the operation of a previously revoked will by
operation of law. Validity of the will revoked is restored not by act of
testator but by the act of law.
REPUBLICATION REVIVAL
Necessarily act of testator Not act of testator but operation of law
Both void and revoked will Only revoked will
How is republication accomplished?
Under the law, it is accomplished in 2 ways:
1. By re-execution (Art 835)
2. By reference in another valid will or codicil (Art 836)
RE-EXECUTION
Make a new will from scratch. Testator has to execute his will by
complying with all the formalities for making a valid will.
E.g. Testator executed notarial will. Later he changed his mind and
revoked the will by cancellation. So nilagyan ng line yung face ng will +
cancelled. Later on nagbago isip niya so naglagay sha ulit ng line “Will
restored. Cancellation void.”
Was the will that was previously revoked restored to its validity? No,
dalawa lang manners of republication, re-execution when he
cancelled/set aside the cancellation, it’s neither reexecution nor
Page 27 of 72
reference in another will/codicil. He has to start from scratch i.e. sign a
will at the end thereof, presence of instrumental witnesses, sign again
each and every page, in the presence and attestation clause. Appear
before a notary public to acknowledge execution of a will.
The notarial will was executed by a testator but later on, it turned out
that one of the witnesses was disqualified (previously convicted of
crime involving falsification, false testimony and perjury).
What was the effect of disqualification? Net effect is the invalidity of
the will. There were only two witnesses to such a will, it will certainly
be denied probate when presented.
How may the testator make this will valid? Ang ginawa nung testator,
kumuha ng piece of paper and executed a holographic will, “I Ron
Garcia of sound and disposing mind do hereby order that the will I
executed in 2010 be republished through this holographic will.” Iyan ay
parang reference to a void will in a subsequent will or codicil.
Was the first will republished through this reference in the subsequent
holographic will? No, it was not republished. Because A835 is very
clear. A will which is void as to form cannot be republished except by
reexecution, not reference by another will or codicil. Since void as to
form, only one way to publish it e.g. reexecution.
Kung gusto niya ng holographic, kopyahin niya yun by hand. Kung gusto
ng notarial will, eh di iexecute ulit.
When is a will void BUT NOT as to form?
IMPLICATION: Void for a reason other than as to form, reference by
codicil is enough.
Go back to the elements of due execution.
1. Testamentary capacity
2. Animus testandi
3. Compliance with formalities (Art 805 and 806)
4. Freely and voluntarily
“Void as to form” - nullity is because of number 3. For instance, if it’s
due to testamentary capacity, pwedeng irepublish through reference
in a codicil.
If the will is to be republished by reference in another will or codicil,
must the reference comply with the rerquirements of A827
(incorporation of a document by reference)? Ano yung requirements
dun? document incorporated not only referred and identified, but
signed in each and every page by testator and witnesses. Sa kasong ito,
holographic will si Ron, order the republication of the first will
executed, kailangan ba magcomply sa A827? So far, only one author
(believed, dahil patay na sha) Justice Desiderio Jurado is wrong. A827
refers to document and other papers, they are short of a will. Kapagka
will, A836 ang mag-aapply.
Binura niya yung pirma at the end of the will. He wanted to make will
valid, so pinirma niya ulit. Was the will restored to validity? Of course it
was not restored. Reaffixing is not reexecution. Eh sir, kung hindi re-
execution yun, can he just make holographic will by mere reference to
the subsequent will? That cannot be republished by mere reference,
after blotting out signature, it was will void as to form and not
republishable by direct execution.
Problem discussed by Paras in his book. Inaassign si Paras pero laging
binabanatan sa discussion, para masaya. Pag hindi tayo nakakontra sa

UP, hindi tayo masaya. The moment naging pro-institution tayo,
Atenista na tayo. Laging tayong against institution. In UP once, issued
an order requiring candidates to pay. Property qualification yun
protesta kami tas withdraw sila.
The testator made a will with only two witnesses at the time law
required three. Law was amended reducing number to two. Much later
the testator executed a valid codicil making reference to the prior will,
was the first will republished? Accdg. to Paras, a will republished by a
codicil is deemed to have been made/executed as of the same date as
the codicil was executed. San niya nakuha yun?
Ergo, law that will govern the form of the prior will should not be the
law in force at the time prior will was executed but by the law in force
at the time it was referred to at the time of the codicil. San niya nakuha
yun? If he’s correct, the reference is sufficient to republish the prior
will. Any question?
REVIVAL
Executed a first will. much later, he changed his mind and executed a
second will expressly revoking the first. Eh pababago-bago talaga ng
isip, he executed a third will expressly revoking the second.
Assuming that all the three wills are valid as to form/duly executed,
valid talaga when it comes to due execution.
Yung bang 1st will ay effective pa? Aha you’ve read your magic notes!
You learned your lesson. No, there is no revival.
Assuming they were all executed, nung inexecute yung 2 nd, revoked na
si 1st will. For the 1st will to be restored, it has to be republished by
testator or revived by law. Yung third will, hindi ba republication of 1st
will yan when he revoked the 2nd? No it’s not. Reexecution ba yan? By
reference? Lalong hindi.
Sabi ng batas, first will not revived by the execution of the third will.
Mangyayari lang ito kapag duly executed. If the 2nd will was not valid, it
did not produce any effect at all, same reason that third will produce
any effect. Ang presumption ditto ay duly executed lahat.
Sabi ng batas, hindi revival ito under A837. If not, when is there
revival? Only instance of revival: When the 2nd will only impliedly
revoked the 1st will, and the 3rd will expressly revoked the 2nd will.
Suppose the 2nd will impliedly revoked the 1st will, but the 2nd will was
revoked by destruction? It’s possible for the two wills to be valid as to
provisions that are consistent with each other.
Suppose the 2nd will is impliedly revoked by a 3rd one, what happens to
the 1st will? It’s not proper to talk about revival kasi 1 st will did not go
out of existence. So there are three wills which may be effective at the
same time insofar as provisions not inconsistent.
If the 3rd will expressly revoked the 2nd which impliedly revoked the 1st?
The execution of the second will did not render the provisions of the 1 st
ineffective, but only those inconsistent with the 2nd. Ang marerevive
lang eh yung mga narevoke. Revocation of the 2nd will removed the
inconsistency which revived the 1st.  revival of the impliedly revoked
provisions
Also true if the removal of the inconsistent provisions were by
execution of 3rd revoking will. Revocation of 2nd will therefore will
Page 28 of 72
come about even if the revocation of the 2nd was done through an act
of destruction. Pag sinira mo yun, masisira yun totally. Total
revocation, then revive the provisions which were inconsistent with
the 2nd will.
Bakit kung express yung revocation, bakit hindi revived yung first?
Logically dapat marevive kaso pinagbawal ng A837.
What is the reason behind 837? Simple lang yan. Eh kasi daw, between
express and implied eh mahirapan tayong iinfer na revocation of the
express revived the entire thing.
Since revocation may either be partial (disposition only) OR total (entire
will), will revival or republication apply to a mere testamentary
disposition? A835 applies to will only, not dispositions.
How does he restore the crossed out disposition? Apply by analogy. Ang
problem jan, kapag kinross out niya, paano sasabihin na void as to
form, void for a reason other than a form.
Pwede ba by mere reference? In Sir’s opinion: If that cancelled
provision amount to not valid as to form, pwede pa rin reexecuting the
revoked disposition.
4 August 2010
IX. ALLOWANCE OF WILLS
What do we mean by allowance of wills? The court proceeding where
extrinsic validity of the will is decreed.
Why necessary? In A838, no will shall pass real/property unless proved
and allowed in accordance with RoC. So there has to be a court order
declaring that the will is duly executed. That declaration is called
allowance of wills. Reason why there has to be a court declaration that
the will was duly executed, to ensure that the will was indeed that of
the testator, that it’s not a forgery so that the properties fo the
decedent will be distributed in accordance with his true wishes.
How do we call the proceeding for proving and allowing wills? Probate.
In practice, you don’t file action for probate unless it’s a pre or ante
mortem probate.
What is to be proven in the probate proceeding? The due execution of
the will, otherwise called “extrinsic validity of the will.” When is it duly
executed, we have discussed in our past sessions, the four
requirements must be present.
Intrinsic validity of the will is not the subject matter of probate. This
involves the validity of the dispositions contained in the will. Not
included in the probate proceeding.
Probate of a will maybe before the death or after the death of the
testator.
 If before the death – call it ante mortem probate. Filed by
the testator himself who must still be alive during that
proceeding. He will be the one to file it. The caption of the
case he will file is “petition for probate of a will”
 Probate may be done after the death – it’s the usual case.
Very few are the cases where a will is probated before death
of the testator. Most of the probate cases are done post-

mortem. When it is post-mortem, what petition is filed in
court, “petition for settlement of estate”
1. Testamentary – petition for the settlement of the testate
estate; Divided into several parts:
a. Probate proceeding
b. When admitted for probate – declaration of heirs
c. Partition
But from the time settlement proceeding is filed up to partition, the
estate is under administration. Executor named in the will applies to be
named the administrator. Pag-aaaralan niyo lahat yan sa SpecPro.
Yung iba ang unang ginagawa, pinag-iisa nila muna. Fuse together two
causes/steps, i.e. Petition for ___ where the will is attached.
Appointment of the administrator and the probate of the will. Dalawa
in two stages.
2. Intestate
Intrinsic validity of the will is not included in the coverage of probate.
Dati kasi kapag probate, it only refers to the proving of a will. Pag
sinabing probate, necessarily involves proving a will. Pero ngayon hindi
na, probate may also refer to settlement proceeding. That’s why if you
look at RoC the word probate includes the entire settlement of estate
proceeding. They call the proceeding probate. But technically,
settlement proceeding is different from probate. In reality probate is a
mere stage/phase of the settlement proceeding.
May the heirs choose not to probate the will but distributed the estate
nonetheless in accordance with the provision of the will. Wag na natin
dalhin sa court yan, gagastos pa tayo. Hire a lawyer acceptance fee
upfront. Madugo ang acceptance fee ni Concepcion. Hindi naman
pwede kasi na lahat ng lawyers pareho, may mas magagaling. Hindi
pwedeng sumingil ng maliit yung mga magagaling na lawyers. Meron
pang publication yan (cost of publishing setting the initial hearing of
the proceeding). Everytime magkakaroon ng hearing, natural may
appearance fee pa everytime yan. Kung bago, maliit lang appearance
fee. Katulad ni Titong Mendoza, mamumulubi ka dun. Mabigat bayad
dun. At hindi lang yun. If you submit the will to court for probate, it
becomes a public matter, the BIR can always look at the properties
listed in the will disposed to the heirs. Baka naman hindi niyo na
macontrol yung taxes niyan. It becomes an open book.
There’s temptation not to submit will to probate. They agreed among
themselves to implement the will to the letter. Okay ba yun? No,
whenever there’s a will left behind by testator, probate is mandatory.
A838.
I remember one of my professors, sa klase tinanong niya kami. Bakit
kailangan mandatory, pwede naman isupress ang will. Under the rules,
the person in possession of will has to submit to court within certain
period of time under pain of contempt. Sabi teacher ko, sino naman
magrereklamo dun? Mag-execute na lang sila extrajudicial settlement
of the estate. Subornation of perjury. Hindi tatanggapin ng register of
deeds kung may properties kung walang maliwanag nakalagay dun na
decedent died without a will. Pag nilagay mo na left no will, that’s why
you’re dividing among yourselves, perjury yun kasi under oath.
Required by law to be submitted to register of deeds. Nabigla si
teacher. Unethical angle yung tinuturo niya eh. Nagtuturo shang illegal.
Mandatory submission to court under pain of contempt. Settling it
extrajudiciary, all the signatories would commit perjury.
Page 29 of 72
Sir perjury lang naman yun, kaya natin lusutan yan. Kesa magbayad ako
kay Atty. Concepcion ng malaki, sige pakulong na lang.
When somebody dies without a will, how will the properties of
decedent transferred to heirs?
1. Kung cash dun sa korteng baboy (piggy bank kaya nga
korteng baboy). Buddha na maraming bata or kawayan or
bao ng niyog. Alkansha. Kung yung pera andun, no need for
EJC kasi kukupitin na lang yun.
2. Pieces of jewelry, walang title yan, easily distributed. Nobody
will run after them.
3. Bank deposit na hindi and/or
4. Vehicles registered in name of decedent
5. Lupa in TCT
How do you transfer documents in name of heirs? There must be a
deed of conveyance. Donation, sale, trust or succession.
EJD allowed only when decedent left no will. Ngayon kung meron/wala
at nagkasundo-sundo a settlement proceeding filed in court. Court will
adjudicate properties of estate to the heirs. Document of the
conveyance that you will present to the register of deeds. Authorize
them TCT outstanding and issue new one in the named order.
Kailangan ng “court order”
May the will itself provide that it should not be submitted to court for
probate? Para makatipid ang mga heredero. Heirs should execute
instead EJS in accordance with my wishes. Definitely illegal because
contrary to A838.
If that disposition is illegal, is the entire will illegal? DLC says no, only
the provision is void because it’s contrary to law but the will and other
provisiosn contained therein shall be valid. Yun nga lang, submit to
court for probate. Eh sir bawal diba. E illegal nga! Later on, you’ll learn
that testator cannot impose illegal conditions for the validity or
probate of a will.
Only the due execution of the will is covered or the only issue that the
court must resolve in a probate. Only the due execution is the issue
that the court will resolve. Issues which have to do to validity of
dispositions in the will are not covered by the probate proceeding.
HOWEVER the court in Nuguid v Nuguid, created an exception to this
rule. Ano ba nangyari dun? Matandang dalaga. Age of retirement 65.
So wala pang matandang dalaga dito. Kasi kapag as this late a stage,
hindi na kayo makakapag-asawa. I’m talking from my experience!
May dalawang magkapatid na babae. One of the sisters became
wealthy as businesswoman. Living with their mother na hindi
matandang dalaga, biyuda lang. the wealthy sister who
becamewealthy with only one provision. My younger sister is my sole
and universal heir. Nothing was mentioned about the mother. Siguro
sabi ng daughter, eh matandan na nanay ko, ano naman gagawin niya
sa mana. Magkakaron lang ng tax pag pinamana pa sa kapatid ko.
Walang ni isang kusing na duling. Everything given to younger sister.
Long short, ate died and submitted for probate. Opposed by mother.
May DI kasi. Ano sabi niya? Will not allowed probate. Because the
provision contained in the will should be allowed by preterition. I am a
compulsory heir. Totally omitted it is void. Since will is void, it’s a waste
of time proving the will. Younger sister said: Mama, you may be correct
but cannot raise that issue at probate. It has nothing to do with due
execution but validity of the disposition contained in the will. Intrinsic

validity has nothing to do with execution. Therefore, jan ka lang muna,
wait for probate to finish. Ano sabi SC? Bunso is correct. Issue has
nothing to do wtihdue execution but intrinsic validity ergo not covered
by probate. But since preterition of mother is patent on the face of the
will, why should we continue waste our time effort and litigant’s
money if after allowing this will, provision will be allowed anyway.
Even at probate, SC decided to take cognizance and ruled on the
intrinsic validity of the will. Basis: Intrinsic nullity of will is patent on its
face.
Subsequent development however tells us that simply because nothing
left to compulsory heir in the will gives rise to preterition. Hindi lang
naman will tinitingnan. Kalahati ng ratio sa Nuguid ay mali.
For our purposes, in case same issue crops up, SC has exception:
Intrinsic nullity of will is patent on the face of the will. The court may
choose to declare the will intrinsically invalid.
Same issue in Nepomuceno v CA: Ron and Eva wedding. After 1 year,
hiwalay, hindi magkasundo and so Ron requiested eva to sign
document weherein they need to separate each other and allow to live
with own partner in life. The document pag dinocument, ang kaso niyo
ay disbarment in re cunanan. Although illegal, admissible as evidence
for defense as consent to defeat prosecution for concubinage and
adultery.
Because of that document niligawan ni Ron si Ani, pero di pwede
emagpakasal prior subsisting marriage. Common law adulterous
relationship. San sila titira? So using his salaries and wages Ron bought
a house and lot in a subdivision project in a nearby municipality. Mas
maganda house ni querida kesa sa asawang eva. Ganun naman talaga
usually ang kaso. Maybahay v Maycondo. Title in name of land
registered in name of Ron married to Eva. Pag namatay ako kawawa si
Ani, aapihin ni Eva. In order to assure Ani of a house to live in when
Ron dies, he wrote a will provision sa will: give house and lot as
inheritance of Ani para may matirhan sha. Ron died Ani submitted to
court for probate. The legal wife objects. Sabi Eva, “Your honor invalid
ang will kasi disposition in favor of the mistress.” Under law, any
disposition in consideration of adulterous relationship is void, since
there’s only one provision, the will is useless. Let’s not go on anymore
with probate proceeding. Ani’s lawyer: honor eva might be correct, but
complaint has nothing to do with due execution, rather it involves
intrinsic validity of disposition contained in the will that thas to wait
until admitted to probate. SC using Nuguid exception since only
disposition contained in wll is patently illegal, then it will be useless to
continue with probate proceeding and admit the will, it will become
useless anyway.
Maninang v CA Objection involving intrinsic validity, not patent in the
face of will therefore the argument to prevent probate was denied and
dismissed by the court. Allowed by probate proceeding to continue.
On what ground may a will be disallowed probate? Enumerated in
A839, it is exclusive, no other ground to disallow probate of a will. Yun
lang! Maliwanag yan!
After court has admitted will to probate, what is the effect if the court
admits a will to probate? Due execution of will is duly established. i.e.
natural it is a declaration that tetstator had testamentary capacity,
animus testandi, all the formalities for the making of a valid will have
been complied/substantially complied with, executed freely and
voluntarily.
Page 30 of 72
ERGO, after the order has become final and executory, the
testamentary capacity can no longer be eatacked or reopened.
Voluntariness of execution may no longer be inquired into and non-
compliance of requirements of law can no longer be questioned. Due
execution of will is conclusively established.
BUT one of the heirs is in US when probate proceeding was filed and
heard by the court, when he came back from US, the order admitting
will to probate has also become final and executory. In possession of
documents that will prove beyond reasonable doubt that the testator
was at the time of execution was insane. Can he argue that he was
outside jurisdiction? No, it binds whole world, including those outside
jurisdiction of court at the time proceeding was undertaken.
Even if the signature was discovered to be a forgery. Illustrate through
example: Ron ay nag-iisang anak na lalaki ng parents niya. Merong 2
older sisters, Ani and Eva. Bunsong lalaki, paborito ng parents at
paborito dagukan nung dalawa. When father was already a widower
died, sabi Ron, ay may will si Daddy. Eto yung will, notarial will. The
two trusting Ron believed that the will was that of the father. No
reason for them to suspect that it was a forgery, the entire free portion
given to Ron. That’s ½ of estate. Magkano napunta ½ + 1/3 of ½.
Favorite naman si Ron, so okay lang yun. Mukha naming will ni Dad.
Admitted to probate by court and partition was carried out. Later Ron
Garcia naging Born Against. Praise the Lord. Charismatic movement so
one day uso sharing of experiences. Nagshare si Ron, 10 years after
partition of property. nagka-edad tas religious so isang araw sa
congregation sa Araneta. Umiyak. Yung will ng tatay ko, hindi naman
niya will yun, ako gumawa nun, niloko ko sila. Iyak sha ng iyak. Huhuhu.
Maraming chismoso sa araneta, nagsumbong kay Eva at Ani. Yung will
na submitted to probate was a forgery. Nagalit tong dalawa.
1. On the basis of such confession, may the proceeding be
opened in order to invalidate the will? NO, kasi tapos na.
after order issue admitting the will to probate. It’s
conclusively established. Cannot reopen proceeding.
2. Idemanda natin ng criminal case, punyeta sha magbayad sha!
Pwede ba yun? Hindi rin. In a forgery, there has to be forged
document. The body of the crime. Nasan yung document? Eh
sabi ng court authentic yun. Where is the forged document
now? Walang body of the crime. Criminal prosecution has to
be dismissed. Maliwanag yan!
Is there prescriptive period for probate of the will? No will was found
among his personal effects. 20 years later, it was hidden intentionally
by one of the heirs in order to prevent the distribution of estate in
accordance with its tenor, may that will be probated? Yes, there is no
express provision in the rules nor in the Code. But in Guevarra v
Guevarra, SC held that probate of a will does not prescribe.
X. DISALLOWANCE OF WILLS
Whenever submitted to court for probate, it’s not ministerial for court
to admit it. Court may disallow if a ground exists under the law. Those
grounds are exclusive.
1. Exception is substantial compliance
2. Insane is equivalent to unsound mind and un/soundness of mind
for making of will has a definition in the law on succession
3. “Force” cc has not defined what force is. Nowhere in the CC is the
term force defined. What it defines is violence in A1335.

According to the writers of civil law, force and violence must be
considered the same. There must be violence as defined in 1335.
“Intimidation” defined in law of oblicon not in succession.
Writers believe that there are the same definition.
“Undue and improper pressure and influence” not in
succession by law of oblicon. Applicable to improper
pressure and influence as used in oblicon.
Reyes v Barreto-Datu: Hindi magkaanak si Ron and Eva. Sarthou is the
sperm donor kasi best friend ni Ron. After isang anak, di na magka-
anak ulit. Eh naawa naman kalaro. Si Santos taon taon nangangak, tipid
sa Kotex hindi na dinatnan. Malas eh thirteen, ampunin mo na lang 13 th
child ko para may kalaro daughter mo. Hindi ginawang legal ang
adoption. Hindi naman talaga adopted. Ang ginawa ni Eva eh pinalaki
lang niya. Eva treated the two as her daughters, even her own niece as
her own daughter. Yun namnag dalawa, lumaki ng magkapatid treated
each other as sisters. Until mana happens.
Very close yung kanyang anak at pamangkin. Really very close. Thinking
that the real daughter would like it, sinabihian niya daughter one day, I
have a will in case something happens to me, then hati kayo equally sa
kahit anong iiwan ko. Contrary to her expectation, nagalit si daughter.
Ma bakit bibigay kalahati sa kanya, di ko naman tunay na kapatid yan.
Bakit kami pantay eh pinsan ko lang yan. Eh diba parang magkapatid
naman kayo? Eh hindi naman kayo magkpatid. Hindi ibang usapan nay
an. SO everyday niya ninag ang nanay niya, hindi na binati ang nanay.
She gave mommy cold treatment. Executed a second will changing
sharing of two in this new will, real daughter as sole universal heir and
legacy to niece as paconsuelo de bobo. Hindi sinabi sa niece yung
change so when Eva died, daughter submitted everything to court.
Niece but that revocation must be done against her will. There was
undue and improper pressure from you. Ni-nag mo yung nanay natin.
Undue and improper pressure and influence attending the execution of
the second will? NO, there was no undue and improper pressure.
Moderate and reasonable solicitation and entreaties addressed to
the tetstator. If the testator yielded intelligently and from a
conviction of duty. Daughter was may have been undue but not
improper. She has right to claim bigger inheritance. Pressure was
neither undue nor improper. Eva yielded coz realized bigger obligation
to daughter, not niece. Bigger duty in favor of real daughter.
May there be partial disallowance of wills? No. A will is probated all or
nothing. There it cannot be allowed partially and disallowed partially.
See Tolentino p. 148.
Suppose the will was obtained though fraud committed on the
testator. Misrepresentation from some heirs induced testator to make
will requested by heirs. Later on, the testator discovered the fraud but
despite having discovered the misrepresentation or fraud, the testator
decided not to change his will, and he died without having revoked the
will initially obtained by fraud, is that a valid will? ISSUE: Has the
testator ratified the will when he chose not to revoke it after discovery
of fraud?
- Caguiao with whom I agree, will is void kasi walang voidable will
that can be ratified. Either void or valid, what is the effect of that
ratification?
- According to Jurado, it depends: no reason given, if it’s void as to
form, will is void and cannot be ratified. If void due to vitiated
consent it will be validated by subsequent ratification by ttestator
citing Ozaeta v Quarter. Failure to revoke or otherwise alter as
Page 31 of 72
soon as the testator left house of the person who allegedly
influence constituted silent ratification of the contents of the will.
- DLC says: If the will was executed under duress or under undue
improper pressure and influence, will was void. It can only be
validated by republication, reexecution or reference in another
will or codicil. Ratification is not a mode of republication under
the CC. Mas maganda yung rason ko diba?
Re Migs’ question may nag-ooppose ba ng will submitted for ante-
mortem probate? Sergio Osmeña Jr. opposed antemortem probate of
his father and wanted to declare him a non compos mentis or prodigal,
filed a guardianship proceeding. This case was handled by my uncle
judge. Concepcion v Osmeña: Hermogenes Concepcion uncle ni Sir.
National scandal for the family. Yung kay Atty. Dona Chito Madrigal
Collantes was also admitted to probate during her lifetime kaya di ko
mawari ano nakain nitong si Jamby at nagwawala ng ganyan.
9 August 2010 – Happy birthday Rojiboi!!! :D
XI. INSTITUTION OF HEIRS
We’ll start with INSTITUTIONS
We are done with the formalities for execution of a valid will so we
shall now start with the validity of the written provisions of the will.
For there to be a will, an heir has to be instituted.
DEFINITION – A840: an act by virtue of which…
How? By designating him his name and surname under A843
May testator designate heir by merely describing the person e.g.
“faithful yaya/cook” “bestfriend” “favorite nephew”? Yes, such
description is allowed as a valid institution of heir provided that such a
description given in the will leaves no doubt as to the identity of the
person instituted.
Bear in mind that nobody becomes an heir unless he can show a
provision of a will or provision of law designating him as an heir. You
have to remember that. Nobody becomes an heir unless there is a
provision in a will OR a provision of law making him one. If ou cannot
point your finger to provisionof will/law making you an heir, you are
NOT and WILL NEVER BE an heir.
Suppose there are two persons who have the same name, how will the
testator make his designation to identify who among these people with
the same name was instituted? In A843 the testator shall indicate
some circumstances by which the instituted heir may be known. If the
testator fails to indicate those circumstances who will inherit? Hindi
sinabi. E.g. I institute my nephew Ramon ½ of my estate. When I died,
admitted to probate but turned out there are two nephews by the
name of Ramon. Who between the two will inherit when I did not
indicate a circumstances which will identify will inherit.
May evidence be introduced that one of the two Ramons were
intended because this Ramon was a godson of the testator? That
Ramon was closer to the testator during his lifetime? Under the old
code, that was not allowed but under new code, because of the
change/amendment, introduction of such evidence is now allowed.
E.g. 2 nephews by the name Ramon, one was living with testator at
time execution of will, that is allowable as evidence that the Ramon

living with him was the Ramon referred to at the time of making of
will.
One of those answers in the same name was intended.
But suppose there is no evidence as to who was intended, what shall
we do? Let us divide the inheritance between the two of them? We
cannot divide the inheritance to the two of them because that is
violation of the testator’s intention twice. Stole the presidency not only
once but twice.
1. In instituting one Ramon in the inheritance, testator
intended the inheritance to go to only one person. Entire
inheritance just to one Ramon. Nung hinati mo sila, maski
sino nakakuha ng kalahati, pero hindi kasi yung ang intention
niya. Rather give everything to Ramon mentioned in the will.
2. Ayaw niyang bigyan yung ibang Ramon. Yung intended
Ramon get only half and the other Ramon he didn’t want to
give got a half. Double whammy.
ERGO, nobody gets the inheritance. Problem din ito. Pero this is a
penalty to the testator. Gagawa ka ng will, gandahan mo.
The institution, pag sinabi nating institution of heir, designation of
anyone to receive something from the estate. Basta may binigyan kang
tao from the estate mortis causa, institution yun. If you are named, the
naming of somebody to participate or receive something is insituttion.
Dalawang klase yang institution.
Institution instituted entire
estate/aliquot
(Proper) heir part
gift of specific
Institution Legacy legatee movable
property
gift of specific
Devise devisee immovable
property
In institution proper, the testator gives an heir the entire estate or an
aliquot part thereof.
Entire estate – all my properties. E.g. I give Pedro my entire estate
Aliquot - is a determinate (not determined) portion. We know exactly
how much the inheritance given but we don’t know what properties
are exactly included in the inheritance. E.g. I give Pedro ½ of my estate
Legacy – gift of specific movable property e.g. I give pedro 1M; I leave
Ron my Mercedes Benz car; I give to Ani my house and lot in Greenhills
Devise – gift of specific immovable property
Is there a difference between the two? Institution proper v Legacy &
Devise. In preterition: institution of heirs is annulled while legacy and
devise are respected insofar as it does not impair the legitime. That is
how preterition is obtaining under the circumstances.
Whenever the testator will make his will, must he designate an heir for
all his properties? Must he dispose of his entire estate by naming or
instituting heirs therefor? No, under A841, the testator is not required
to dispose of his entire estate to instituted or designated heirs.
Those disposed of by will shall be respected insofar as not violative of
provisions of code on legitimes and those which were not disposed of
Page 32 of 72
in will shall be distributed in accordance with provisions of code
dealing with intestacy.
In A845, every disposition in favor of an unknown person shall be void
unless by some even or circumstance, his identity is asserted.
Concrete e.g. testator was a frustrated lawyer, 10x bar and flunked
11x. Bar review in Ceb, 9 years. Ngayon hanggang 6 tries na lang. Kung
ako yun, 2x lang. after than barred from taking the bar. Since he’s a
frustrated lawyer, in his will, he made the following provisions, to the
bar topnotcher in the bar examination that’s held immediately after
my death, I give inheritance of P5M. Is the disposition valid? Sir, hindi
ba disposition in favor of an unknown person? It’s a wild guess for
everybody. When testator will die, who will take the bar, who will pass
and be topnotcher. Is the disposition valid? Yes, the disposition is valid.
We should differentiate between an unknown person from a person
who is not known to the testator. While 845 uses the term “unknown
person” the real meaning of that phrase as used in 845 is different. The
meaning of unknown person is a non-existent person. Not unknown
identity. Somebody who does not exist.
The testator was a bachelor. Hindi nag-asawa si Ron, lost his appetite
for Miss Eva and Ani and decided to remain bachelor forever pero
yumaman sha. So gumawa sha ngayon ng will. Wala shang pamangkin
na lalaki. Lahat ng sisters and brothers, ang anak ay babae. So gumawa
sha ngayon ng will. Nagbigay sha ng incentive sa kanyang will. To my
nephew who will be born within three years after my death is given the
inheritance of 10M. Is that a valid disposition? For the nephews who
were conceived and born after Ron’s death, they will not inherit. But
for those who were conceived BEFORE his death, they shall qualify to
inherit. The disposition is valid it is not a disposition in favor of
unknown person because the identity of person maybe known BUT if
the heir is not living at the time of the death f the testator, he is not
qualified to inherit. To qualify he must be living at the time of the
testator’s death. Ergo, if born 2 years after the death of Ron, that
nephew will not inherit. Surely, that nephew was not alive at the time
Ron died. But if a sister was pregnant when Ron died, then the child in
her womb shall qualify to inherit if born alive. Kasi the fetus is
considered a person for all purposes favorable to it.
May the testator designate a class of persons as his heir? Yes, however
there is a condition. The class must be definitely indicated.
May the corporation be an heir? Yes, A1026.
If the testator designated many heirs, how will they share in the
inheritance? If the testator indicated their shares in the will, then their
shares as indicated will be respected. If the testator however did not
indicate the share he designated, they shall inherit in equal shares.
That’s the first rule in institution.
Sir mahina sa arithmetic yung testator. Kaya nga nag-law. Oi hindi lahat
ng naglolaw mahina sa arithmetic. Ako nga math teacher eh. The
testator made a will. Sabi niya, I give my entire estate to A,B and C. A
shall get ¼, B ¼ and C 1/3. Nagmarunong eh, kala niya magaling sha sa
arithmetic. Pagpalagay natin 600 M ang estate. 150, 150 and 200 for a
total of the 500. Kulang diba?
Hindi pwede ibigay sa legal heirs kasi nga entire estate kay ABC lang. so
yung 100 na tira, hahatiin natin sa tatlo pro rata.
Entire Estate to: (Art 852)
 Page 33 of 72

A ¼ 150 150/500 180 inheritance of P5M kasi he was informed that the nephew graduated
B ¼ 150 150/500 180 summa cum laude in his undergrad course here in UP. As a reward,
C 1/3 200 200/500 240 summa cum laude pala yang punyetang yan. How did he give it in the
600 will? “To my outstanding nephew, Jose, I give 5M.” Ron died,
submitted to probate, nung maghahatian na, yung mga P100K each
Pano kapag sobra naman? nephews nagreklamo saying bakit merong 5M ito? Nako hindi po
totoong suma cum laude, hindi nga nakagraduate on time, bolero lan
Entire Estate to: (Art 853) yang gagong yan. In order to reduce the inheritance of the scalawag,
may the other nephews go to court and prove that his institution to a
A 1/3 40 [40/140]20 5M was based on a false cause and that uncle testator could not have
B 1/3 40 [40/140]20 made the institution had he known the real facts? No, they can’t go to
C 1/2 60 [60/140]20
court, why not? How can they show that there was a false cause when
140 120
the will itself does not state a reason. Under the law, the exception
must appear on the face of the will. Kung wala nakalagay sa will kung
If the estate is 120M, reduce the inheritance of heir pro rata. So
ano ang rason, e di you can’t go to court that there was a reason and
minus…
the reason was false. Hindi pwede magtestify ang abogado. False cause
must appear in the will.
But when the testator did not indicate the shares of the heirs, we aply
the first rule of institution: EQUALITY. They shall inherit in equal
Sir nakalagay sa will na yun ang rason, “For my nephews outstanding
shares. (Art 846, 848)
performance in his undergraduate course in UP…” dahil nakalagay na
yung rason sa will, may the other nephews go to court, present the
witness and prove the falsity of the cause? No still. Yes it may be
Ano yung 2nd rule? SIMULTANEITY. The heirs are deemed instituted
shown to be a false cause but the statement of the false cause is
simultaneously and not successively or alternately. (Art 849)
DISREGARDED. And so the heir will still inherit. Ano dapat patunayan?
Testator would not have made the institution had he known the falsity
Last rule: INDIVIDUALITY. The heirs are deemed individuality instituted
of the cause.
and NOT collectively. (Art 847)
Pwede ba witness ang abogado who drafted the will that no institution
Illustrate second rule: SIMULTANEITY
if only to reward the nephew? NO, the fact that the testator would not
The testator has two brothers: A and B. Testator made a will with the
have made the institution had he known must appear in the will. It
following disposition: I give my entire estate to my brother A, to my
cannot be proven by any evidence outside the body of the will. Dapat
brother B and his children. Ilan anak ni brother b? Dalawa. How many
ganito nakalagay: “and to my nephew, for his outstanding performance
heirs are entitled to inherit? Apat yan. Kasi the children of b were
for graduating suma cum laude, AND ONLY FOR THAT REASON” yun
instituted simultaneously with their father B, hindi sila alternatively
lang yung dahilan kung bakit sha pinamanahan.
instituted.
TRANSMISSION OF RIGHTS TO INHERIT OF AN HEIR (Art 856)
Suppose the provision is worded like this: “I hereby institute my entire
Testamentary succession: kasi may will. Kapag walang will, hindi
estate, my brother A and the children of my brother B.” How do we
pwede magkaroon ng testamentary succession. Basic yun.
divide the estate? Divide the estate equally into three, because the
two children were deemed individually instituted, not as a group. If the
The testator, binata si Ron, made a will and gave an inheritance to Eva,
intention of the testator was to divide into two and limit the two
the former girlfriend whom I did not cease to love. I give an inheritance
children to the share of their father, the testator must indicate so in
of P10M. kaya lang. naunang namatay si Eva. Survived by her two
the twill in more express and categorical terms.
daughters by 2 different fathers. Ron did not bother to change the will
even after Eva’s death. So namatay si Ron and admitted to probate,
When the testator designates an heir in his will, must the testator have
kanino na ang mana? Makukuha ban g daughters? NO, Eva must be
a reason? No, the law does not require the testator to have a reason in
alive at the time of the testator’s death. Since she died ahead, she
designating an heir in his will. Testamentary disposition is essentially a
inherited nothing. Since she inherited nothing, she transmitted nothing
gratuitous act, an act of liberality on the part of the testator. No need
to her own heirs.
for any other reason than liberality or generosity. While it is true that
no requirement of reason and the testator may institute somebody
Baguhin natin sitwashon, naunang namatay si Ron kaya lang the will of
without a reason, common sense tells us that testator will not make
Ron was not discovered til after a year from the time he died. At the
such designation unless he has a reason. But suppose the reason is
time the will was discovered, eva was already in the hospital fighting
false, the reason behind his institution was false, what is the effect of
for her life. He died a year later. Pelikula yan eh. Nagsunuran sila, she
such falsity on the disposition. Under A850, the statement of a false
died of a broken heart. Talagang nakakamatay yan. I’m not kidding.
cause is disregarded. That’s the GR: Pag naglagay ng rason na hindi
Mga lovebirds ganyan eh. There’s scientific evidence that somebody
pala totoo, the false reason shall be disregarded. Since the statement
can die of broken heart. Who will get the 10M inheritance given by
of a false cause will not affect the validity of the disposition the heir so
Ron in his will. Matatanggap ba yun ni Eva. Sir buhay si Eva when Ron
designated will receive his inheritance but there is an exception, i.e.
died. Yes, eva inherited because she was alive when Ron died. Di nga
when it appears from the will that the testator would not have made
lang nya natanggap. Iba yung actual receipt of inheritance from
such institution had he known the falsity of the cause.
inheriting. Nakainherit na sha upon Ron’s death. Since she inherited
when she died, what she inherited from Ron although not yet
Let us illustrate the application of that principle in a concrete example.
delivered to her became part of her own estate. That was included in
Itong si Ron gumawa ng will, in his will, he gave a nephew an

the estate inherited by her two daughters. Pwede ngayon habulin nung
dalawang anak yung inheritance ng nanay nila sa estate ni Ron. They
are simply enforcing the right of the mother in the estate of Ron so
that when mother’s right has been received, Eva will be able to inherit.
What may a testator dispose in his will? Can he dispose his entire
estate by will? It depends if the testator has no compulsory heir, he
can dispose his entire estate freely. Without compulsory heir, the
entire estate is free for disposition. Kanino pwede ibigay, since no
compulsory heir, Ron may leave it to anybody of his choice including
complete OR total stranger. Pwede charitable organization, pwede sa
tiyahin. Ang babaeng DI hindi Di ang tawag, GRO. Pag lalaki DI, ang
tawag dun, attorney. Parang nakakainsulto sa profession natin no? Pati
pulis attorney na rin. Pag abogado na kayo at hinuli kayo sa traffic,
saibhin Boss pasensha na abogado po ako. Tawag jan professional
courtesy. When I was a student in England, lawyers are very unpopular
even back. Sabi nga ni Shakespeare, kill all the lawyers. Base relief na
sandstone. Kailangan law related. Two farmers quarreling over a cow,
one by horns pulling it. The other farmer holding by tail pulling it in the
other direction. The two lawyers were busy milking the cow. Nakangiti
pa sila. Ganyan tayo ka-unpopular. I don’t know why you are here. I
was given second time around, definitely not a lawyer.
Cel Gamo found the pic…
But when a testator has compulsory heirs, the law reserves a certain
portion of the testator’s estate for the compulsory heirs. Reserved
portion is called “legitime”. Later on you will learn who the compulsory
heirs are. The testator is allowed to dispose by will only that part in
excess of the legitimes, excess is called “free portion” every disposition
in excess of free portion is reduced, not necessarily invalidated for
having impaired the legitimes of the compulsory heirs. The system of
inheritance reservation is that observed in all civil law jurisdictions.
There are some which do not observe the system of legitimes or
inheritance reservation in favor of certain heirs. Sa atin, sinusunod pa
natin yan. Changes were introduced by the NCC insofar as illegitimate
children are concerned and the surviving spouse. Under the old cc, the
surviving spouse does not inherit from the other spouse, rather he will
inherit only when a child survives but the inheritance is limited to a
usufruct. Hindi talaga sha nagmamana ng property. pero kung walang
anak, ibabalik ng pamilya ng lalaki ang babae sa dati niyang pamilya.
Hindi ka na namin kaano-ano. Pero kung may anak may usufruct
hanggat diba lumalaki yung bata, may usufruct. Under the old code,
illegitimate children were not heirs at all. Kaya nga ang bastardo ay
mayroong stigma. Nasa lower class ng society. Walang mana. But the
Page 34 of 72
NCC recognized rights of illegitimate children to inherit. Kasalanan
naman ng mga parents ang pagiging bastardo nila. Not penalize
children for indiscretion committed by their parents.
Next meeting SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS
Read: fideicommissary institution. PCIB v Escolin and Vda de Kilayko.
11 August 2010
XII. SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS
What is substitution? A857 appointment of another heir so that he
may enter into inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted.
E.g. “I institute Ron as my sole heir, if in any case he cannot succeed, I
institute eva as my legal heir.”
VULGAR or SIMPLE
Gives testator absolute control how estate disposed of after his death.
Kasi baka mamaya, the heir instituted is disqualified under the law or
the ehri predeceases the testator, therefore he is not qualified at the
time testator dies.
If he does not provide a landing, to whom will the estate go?
- Legal heirs by way of intestacy
- To prevent the legal heirs from inheriting, he is allowed to appoint
a substitute. Galit sha sa legal heirs, a yaw niya magmana the legal
heirs kaya ayaw niya mamatay ng intestate to prevent dying
intestate. Pwede maglagay ng substitute.
Art 858: four types of substitution recognized and regulated by the
code. Fideicomisary is englicized form of Spanish fideicomisaria
When will the substitute inherit? It depends on the nature of thes
substitution provided by testator in his will. In the example I gave you,
it’s simple/common substitution, also termed “vulgar”
BRIEF or COMPENDIOUS
Simple din yan, kaya lang dumami yung parties.
E.g. designated heir appointed more than one substitute for the
instituted heir. Pwede ring reverse. Testator instituted 2 heirs and
appointed one substitute for the two instituted heirs. One is brief, the
other is compendious
RECIPROCAL substitutes of each other. Ron gets ½ of estate and Eva
the other half and appoint them substitutes of each other.
If you look at CC provisions, in reality there are only two substitutions:
simple and fideicommisary. Just variations yung two other of simple,
they follow the same rules.
When will the substitute inherit? In case of simple substitution, in case
the heir instituted in the will… 1 predeceases, 2 repudiates, 3 becomes
incapacitated. Actually redundant yung three instances for substitute
to inherit. The 2 other reasons are also cases of INCAPACITY: death and
repudiation. Kaya lang nilagay yan, there may be some consequences
e.g. in repudiation, baka hindi naman available/obtaining in incapacity
in general or predeceased. That’s why 3rd ground is a catch-all
provision.

May the testator limit substitution to just one reason? Yes, in which
case, substitution will not take effect for the reasons not specified in
the will.
Suppose the will is silent as to what will give rise to substitution, in
what instance will substitution occur? 2nd Par of A859: kasama yung
tatlo.
Suppose the testator made the ff provision in his will: “I institute Ron
to ½ of my estate. However if Ron dies within 5 years from my death,
Eva is appointed his substitute.” I died (baka sabihin niyo kayo lang
pinapatay ko), admitted to probate and Ron was alive when I died. But
for mysterious reasons, Ron died after my death. Will Eva inherit as a
substitute?
Baguhin ko yung tanong. Will Eva inherit? Yes, but not inherit as a
substitute. Why? Because A859 only says predeceased, repudiation or
incapacity in the case of this particular testamentary disposition, the
supposed substitution will happen not when Ron predeceases, in this
case he did not predeceased. This will not happen in case of
repudiation, he did not repudiate. This will not happen in case of
incapacity. It will happen after my death. That is allowed not as a
substitution but as a conditional testamentary institution which we will
study much later. It’s a species of a conditional testamentary
institution. In reality, there were two simulatenous institutions in that
testamentary disposition. Ron’s institution was subject to resolutory
condition while Eva is suspensive condition.
Going back to substitution, is the enumeration of instances where
substitution will happen given in A859 exclusive? In Kilayko, Justice
Romero (teacher ko yan sa PFR) sabi niya exclusive daw yan. Di niya
mashadong pinaliwanag. Kung titignan mo yung A859, sabi OR hindi
AND. In a way, she is correct because incapacity encompasses all
reasons. Kaya lang, because of “predeceased” the general principle we
can gather from A859 (and looking at the first two enumeration then
general term applies) general is limited sa nauna. All those two will
happen on or before the death of the testator. Therefore the
incapacity that will happen in 859 is generally interpreted to
INCAPACITY OCCURING ON OR BEFORE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR NOT
INCLUDE INCAPACITY THAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THE DEATH OF THE
TESTATOR.
Suppose testator instituted an heir and appointed three substitutes, is
that allowed? Yes, under A860. Brief. 1 heir, 3 substitutes.
In case the instituted heir predeceases, what will the substitutes
receive, how will they share the inheritance? Tandaan ito.
 They are entitled to inherit what the heir originally instituted
was supposed to receive.
 Substitution is secondary institution of heirs, therefore all
provisions applicable to institution is applicable to
substitution. For him to inherit, he must be alive and
qualified at the time of testator’s death. Suppose the
substitute died ahead of the testator, the answer is no.
 Suppose three of them were alive, what will the three
substitutes inherit or how will they share the inheritance?
Apply first rule institution, i.e. EQUALITY, so the three of
them will get equal shares.
 May the testator provide for unequal sharing of the
substitutes? Yes. In which case, we also apply the
computation that we discussed. Kung exceed, there will be
pro rata reduction. Pag kinulang, pro rata increase.
Page 35 of 72
Suppose one of the substitutes, die ahead of the testator, to whom
does his share go?
 Depends on the provision of the will. The will is paramount, unless
the provisions are contrary to law, public policy, morals. Ergo, if
the will has provided how the substitutes inherit, die or inherit,
the provision in the will shall prevail.
 If the will is silent, apply rules on institution. If accretion is proper.
If not proper, it will become vacant and go to legal heirs by way of
intestacy. Break in ko lang kayo sa principles.
Otherway around, 3 heirs, 1 substitute for the three heirs. One heir
dies ahead of the testator. Will the substitute inherit the share of one
of the three originally instituted? It depends on the wording of the will.
If it allows substitution to inherit the share of one of the instituted
heirs, that shall be allowed. If it does not allow him to inherit the share
of each and every heir instituted, there should be accretion as for the
remaining heirs. All three heirs must die before bring in substitution.
“I institute to ½ Ron, ¼ Ani, ¼ Eva. As substitute of the three, Chi is
hereby designated.” Naunang namatay si Ron, predeceased the
testator, under mysterious circumstances.
 Will Chi inherit the share of Ron? Yes she will. No intention
on the part of the testator to give the inheritance to no one
but the three. Designated to a specific portion.
“I institute to my entire estate Ron, Eva and Ani such that Ron shall
share ½, Eva ¼ and Ani ¼. As substitute of these three, I designate Chi.”
 Will it go to Chi? There is accretion as to the three, all three
must die.
TAKE NOTE OF THE INTENTION!
Sir, may the testator appoint substitutes in the alternative? “I institute
Ron to ½ of the estate, as his substitute I appoint Eva OR Chi.” Mahirap
iimplement ito. Kasi or, sino ang mag-iinherit.
What happens when disposition is so vague and not capable of being
implemented? Disregard the provisions.
How about substitutes in succession? “I institute Ron to my entire
estate, in case he is not entitled to inherit. I appoint Eva as substitute.
Chi is appointed as her substitute. In case Chi is not able, Ani is
appointed as her substitute. In case Ani is not capable, Eds.” Pwede
yan. Kita mo kung gano sha kagalit sa legal heirs niya. Katakot-takot na
substitution ang ginawa para hindi mapunta sa kanila ang yaman niya.
FIDEICOMMISARY SUBSTITUTION
This kind of substitution was suppressed in the draft submitted by
Code Commission to Congress. But suddenly they changed their mind.
Testator institutes first heir (who will enter inheritance BUT is obliged
to preserve the inheritance and transmit it to a second heir).
In reality, what will the first heir get? Hindi naman pala mananatili sa
kanya yung property. What it will enjoy is USUFRUCT of the
inheritance. How is this different from “legacy of a usufruct” in A869.
You know in property: Ownership of property, whether movable or
immovable, has two components.
1. Naked title – ang titulong nakahubad
2. Beneficial title – jus utendi of the property that is usufruct

Fixed assets – mga pag-aaring nakatirik
Liquid assets – mga pag-aaring tumutulo
Naked title is registered in the name of Ron therefore only he may
dispose the property because he is the owner of the naked title. Hindi
yung owner ang naked. Pero maraming gusto makakita sayong naked.
Beneficial may be given to another. Owner may divorce these two
components. Usually done when constituting a trust. Absolute owner
gives naked title to trustee and the beneficial title to a beneficiary
(cestui que trust). Trustor or settlor may be the trustee himself or the
beneficiary. Usually agreement in a trust agreement with a bank.
Money investment. Legal title to funds is given to the trust dept of the
bank nd they will invest your money and you will get whatever fruits
were generated by your funds less trustee fee deductible. Kaya nga
trust, you trust that the trust dept of bank will make your money grow
but since your business proposition is pwedeng malugi yung money.
You cannot have recourse with the bank. It cannot guarantee. Bawal
yun.
In A869: A863 – it shall not go beyond 1 degree. Hindi ba the same din
yan under A863? Sino OPF dito? Wala? Bobo ang batch na ito?
One word: Substitution
Second heir will never get legal title to the property. Limited to his
usufruct, when the time comes for SH to give up his usufruct, the first
heir will have complete ownership. Never will the usufructurary get the
legal title to the property.
In A869
Legal title First Heir
Testator
Second
Usufruct
Heir
In a fideicomisary, FH is a substitute. There is a possibility that he will
get legal title over the property. When? In those instances provided for
in A867 in realtion to A86_. Kapag naging invalid yung 2nd heir,
mapupunta yung property to FH.
Sino ang substitute? The first heir. Hindi mashadong diniscuss ni
Tolentino yan. Hindi nga niya diniscuss yan eh. A863 was considered an
entailment of property. Naka-entail sa kanya til buhay yung
usufructuary.
When does naked title go to first heir?
A863: 1st heir and 2nd heir living at the time of death of testator. E.g. 2nd
heir predeceases the testator. When the testator died, 1 st heir alive but
the second heir already dead. What will the first heir get? Usufruct?
Kanino yung naked title? To the first heir because he is the substitute.
Kaya lang, care has to be taken, for there to be fideicomissary, it must
be expressly provided for in the will. It must be there in the will.
Tinanong ko si Baviera nung student ako. Anak ni Baviera ang tawag
sakin. We shared many views, not so much with Balane. Kami lang
nagkakaintindihan. Litong-lito classmates ko.
How do we know that a particular provision is a legacy of usufructuary
OR fideicomisary? Matter of intention yan. Intention should be distilled
from the will or circumstances surrounding the execution of the will.
Page 36 of 72
PCIB v Escolin
Himayin ang kaso, otherwise, you won’t be able to use the case later
on. Superficial ang pagkakaintindi niyo sa kaso. Won’t be able to make
use of them unless you encountered a deeper treatment.
Mag-asawa si Linnie Jane and Charles Newton, they settled in Baguio
kasi malamig dun. But during the lifetime of Linnie, sha yung business
woman between the two of them. Acquired many properties, may
parity amendment pa kasi dati. She died, survived by husband, no
children, descendants. Left behind a will: “I leave all my wordly
possession to my beloved husband. Free to do whatever he wants to
do with all those properties. He is at liberty. HOWEVER, if something
remains of those properties when he dies, the remainder shall go to
borhters and sisters.” Died ahead of husband, will admitted to probate,
delivered to husband.
Nung bata akong lawyer not so long ago, I handled a case of Hodges
spouses property in Pangasinan. Merong attorney’s fees. Important
sakin yan. Charles was not very extravagant in his lifestyle. Hindi niya
naubos yung iniwan ni Linnie. Marami natira when Charles died much
later. May natirang kayamanan, may pag-aawayan. Turo ni Dean
Magallona sa amin. You should die broke. So nothing for your relatives
to quarrel about. Die broke.
Sino nag-aaway? Bro and sis of Linnie – claiming the residue vs. bro
and sis of Charles
How come, what are the arguments?
MRS: kami po magmamana kasi provided for in linnie’s will. Case of
vulgar substitution under provisions of the code.
MR: Hindi yan vulgar, fideicommisary yan. WON Vulgar happens take
at the time of testator’s death. Nakamana na si Charles eh!
Fideicommisary was void kasi nga walang nakalagay that Charles was
obliged to preserve and then transmit the property.
Justice Antonio Barredo, alumni of this College:
Escolin is relative of Mike Manotoc being first cousin of his Grandma
who is the sister of Mrs. Disini and yet he doesn’t know.
Not vulgar: heir instituted is not able to inherit. Charles (original heir)
was able to inherit.
Not fideicommisary: such substitution must be intended by the
testator. If the testator intended a fideicommisary but later on became
null and void then we apply A868. We cannot do so because Mrs.
Hodges did not intend to fideicommisary substitution because allowed
husband to spend. Since not allowed, don’t allow 868 provision on
fideicommisary.
It is neither vulgar nor fideicommisary.
Sino magmamana? Bro and sis of Linnie Ann because Mrs. was a valid
disposition. That disposition is a disposition subject to resolutory as
regards Charles, and suspensive on the part of brothers and sisters of
Mrs. Hodges.  tamang decision
Comes the case of Vda. De Kilayko.
Romero was my teacher. Nagpapalock ng pinto yan. Nalimutan niya
sabihin second day of class. I lived in Valenzuela. Late ako ng 5
minutes. Didn’t you know you’re not supposed to enter class when
you’re late. He sang in class. Founder ako ng Charivari. Three co-
founders of Charivari.
 Page 37 of 72

Discuss why Kilayko is a wrong application case and PCIB is the right
case.
ORIGINAL WILL was written in Spanish so if you know Spanish, I suggest
you look at the original will but you’ll have to go to SC to get the files. It
was the will of Dona Maria Lizares of
In the Philippines, Filipino writers in civil law are also divided.
Tolentino, Paras and Padilla: relationship. Caguiao, JBL, Ricardo Puno,
Desiderio Jurado: one degree of transfer. Unlike SC Spain which
resolved this issue in favor of transfer, it ruled in Palacios v Ramirez,
ruled that it was relationship citing Tolentino. Yung researcher hindi
magaling dapat SC of Spain ang binasa niya.

In my opinion, don’t know if this was clearly expressed in Palacios v

16 August 2010 Ramirez (kailangan may disclaimer otherwise baka maakusahan akong
plagiarism) based on report of Code commission, one degree should
Vda. De Kilayko v Tengco
be read to mean one degree of transfer. One of the entailment of
Facts are almost similar to PCIB v Escolin. Will written in Spanish, there
property within a group or family. It’s one of the devises/institutions in
was a legacy/device in favor of favorite niece who lived with her as
OCC that entail a property within a group or property. Marami yan,
they were both spinsters. To the niece was given to the Hacienda in
reservas we shall discuss later, reversiones. For a long period of time.
Negros, colatilla, should niece die without issue, property goes to
According to CC framers, one of the reforms introduced by CC is the
testatrix’s brothers and sisters.
abolition of CC which entail preopty for a long period of time. Kung yun
The first set of heirs, consisted of brothers and sisters of Dona Maria
ang cornerstone, dapat degree of transfer and not relationship. Kung
Lizares.  it’s vulgar substitution
10 kapatid yan, transfer transfer sila sa isa’t isa. Lahat sila tag-oone
Second set, brothers and sisters of niece.  this is fideicommisary, but
degree. I doubt it’s the real intention of A863.
since there’s no express provision in the will required for
fideicomissary substitution. Therefore, inheritance was already in her
Because of this ruling in Palacios v Ramirez, there are collateral rules
estate.
we can gather.
a. May a corporation be a 2nd heir?
Iba lang yung outcome nito, result applied by the ocurt.
b. May a corporation be a 1st heir? Definitely there can be no
SC: Hindi vulgar yung nasa will kasi in substitution it will happen only in
fideicommisary kasi it has no relatives. Eh sir pano yung sister
case of predeceased, repudiation and ncapacity at time of testator’s
and parent corporation
dath. Those three are exclusive according to Flerida Ruth. Since not
vulgar, the supposed substitution happens after the death who has
2. Cannot burden the legitime of compulsory heirs
already inherited, hindi vulgar so you just disregard the will.
To whom did the court award? To the bros and sis of the niece it was
3. When will the first heir transmit the inheritance to the 2nd heir?
given. Nothing in the will shows there was intention to create
May testator provide that first heir transmit it after 10 years? Yes,
fideicommisary. To be applicable and take effect, it must be shown
the will of testator may provide the time. Absence of time frame,
clear and convincing intention.
when must the property be transmitted to 2nd heir? It must be
transmitted upon the death. That’s the logical termination of his
Not fideicomisary and not vulgar, then disregard. What’s the basis? I
right to the inheritance.
think the court committed mistake. It should have applied Escolin it’s a
valid disposition, subject to two simultaneous conditions. Institution
Before the death of the fiduciary, may he sell the property? There’s no
of niece was resolutory condition and brothers and sisters of Maria
prohibition, he may sell the property but the transferee of the first heir
were subject to suspensive condition. Ang baba ng binigay saking grade
gets it subject ot the obligation to preserve and transmit property to
niyan 1.5 hindi flat one.
the second heir. Occur not upon the death of transferee but that of
fidiciuary. His right ends upon death of the transferor. Cannot get more
RESTRICTIONS THAT TESTATOR SHOULD OBSERVE IN MAKING
rights than transferor had in the first place. His right was subject to
FIDEICOMMISARY
resolutory condition.
1. Cannot go beyond one degree.
How about the fideicommisary sell the property before the death of the
fiduciary? Back track if fiduciary alive at time of testator, in absolute
What do we mean by one degree? Pwede bang in succession yung
title by the first heir. First heir becomes substitute of the
fideicommisary? I.e. many first heirs. E.g. I institute A to the
fideicommisary.
inheritance but he has the obligation to preserve and transmit
property to B. however B has obligation to preserve and transmit to C.
2nd heir dies ahead of fiduciary, who gets property? Heirs of
And then to D who will be ultimate owner of property –
fideicommisary, fideicommisary was alive therefore he inherited the
fideicommissary substitution in several successions
property.
What do we mean by one degree? This has been the subject of
At time of testator’s death, fiduciary predeceased testator and only
controversy not only here but also where our code ahs originated.
fideicomissary was alive. Who gets property? No provision in the code.
Spain and then Code Napoleon (ruler of Western Europe)
It’s one of the question, I asked Barbie. Intention was to give absolute
ownership of the property to the fideicommissary. Dinelay niya lang ng
One degree of TRANSFER or RELATIONSHIP: among Spanish writers,
onti. Kung ganon pala intention niya, maski magpredecease, dapat
interprerted to mean as one degree of transfer. Manresa and SR, one
magpunta pa rin yan 2nd heir. Bilib ako kay Barbie kasi alam niya
degree of relationship. SC of Spain had already resolved this
tamang sagot.
controversy a logn time ago: a degree must mean one degree of
transfer.
 Page 38 of 72

Both fideicomissary and fiduciary predeceased? No one inherits,

walang substitution. Exactly at the same time Art 43. There was doubt: in favor of absence of a condition. Why? A
testamentary condition is essentially gratuitous act, in the absence of
Fiduciary was the substitute of the fideicomissary. First heir has the clear provision that it’s subject to testamentary act, we assume there’s
chance of getting absolute title. As compared with legacy. Another no burden.
instance would be those under A867.
Improper/inoperative conditions. There are 4 of them under the code.
XIII. KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS a. 873: impossible, illegal or immoral
b. 872 in re 904: conditions imposed on the legitimes of
compulsory heirs
TESTAMENTARY INSTITUTIONS
c. 874: not to contract marriage
d. 875: Disposition captatoria.
1. Simple or pure 777 – no condition for inheritance to take place,
only event we should wait for is the death of the testator. Ang
a. What is an impossible condition? Happening is contrary to the
impt lang ay mamatay. The moment he dies, inheritance will
laws of nature, it will never happen. E.g. Pagputi ng uwak.
follow as a matter of force. No conditions attached to the right of
Pagwapo ni Mr. Garcia, nanganak si Mr. Garcia.
the heir to receive his inheritance. It’s enough that succession is
OPENED by the death of the testator.
What is the effect? Considered as not imposed. Institution shall be
considered as pure and simple. Bakit disregarded, diba intention was
2. Conditional 871 – subject to a condition (future and uncertain
really not to give property to the heir. Tinakaw niya lang yung heir.
condition the happening of which a juridical act is made to
Inasar lang niya. Paasa love mode.
depend).
Why do we disregard? The testator is penalized by law. Tarantado ka.
Can a past event be a condition? Yes, if we don’t have knowledge of it.
Gagawa ka lang ng disposition, nang-aasar ka pa! penalty incurred by
Perhaps that was possible during thte time where there’s no advance
testator for imposing as a condition an impossible thing.
means of communication. Paglubog ng galleon sa Pacific.
This is different from act inter vivos (will is mortis causa) A1123 makes
When is a testamentary provision conditional? Validity or efficacy of a
the obligation void if it’s made subject to impossible obligation. But
provision depends upon the happening of a condition (future and
under 873, the condition is merely disregarded.
uncertain event)
What is illegal condition? The actor’s performance violates the law.
Why is testator allowed to impose conditions on the right of an heir to
E.g. give ½ of my estate if he will supply my youngest son shabu for life.
inherit? Reason given by writers: if testator can dispose of properties
If that illegal condition is imposed, considered as not written an
by will, he is likewise free to impose conditions upon whom he wish to
imposed.
give such property. Testator cannot impose condition on the
LEGITIME, only on the FREE PORTION.
Where do we reckon illegality if it’s made subsequent? If the act was
illegal at the time it was imposed, but was already legal when testator
Why will testator impose condition on the right of an heir to inherit?
died, the heir must comply. Compliance has to be done after the death.
What will move a testator to impose such a condition? Maybe testator
But those that happened before the death should be deemed complied
wants to oblige an instituted heir to perform something. For failure to
with. Tested after the death of the testator when heir is supposed to
do so, forfeiture of right to inherit. OR maybe testator wants to
comply with the condition.
achieve a particular scenario when particular conditions set in.
What is immoral condition? Performance of the act in order to fulfill
Conditions of different kinds or type:
the condition will violate morals of our country/nation, community.
- implied/express,
E.g. Indecent Proposal. Pati sa pelikula illiterate kayo! Di ba si Demi
- potestative – fulfillment depend exclusively on will of heir
Moore, yung lalaki Ted Something played husband and wife architects
casual – chance or will of a third person
who were building their dream house in a beach front property but
mixed – fulfillment of condition depends on will of heir and
lost their money. They gambled in Las Vegas pa nga eh. And then they
chance or heir and third person,
met this dashing Robert Redford millionaire. I give you 1M if you sleep
- suspensive – prevents the effectivity of a disposition until
with me one night. Maligo ka na lang after!!! A species of prostitution
happening of condition
na ang nagbugaw eh yung asawa. Pero bakit nagbreak down their
resolutory – right to inheritance is extinguished by happening of
marriage? Demi Moore admitted she enjoyed it.
resolutory.
- Nature: positive – required to give or do an act; negative – not
Taken in the context of inheritance, pwede rin maging condition yun.
do/give anything
For an heir to receive his inheritance. E.g. of immoral condition written
- Propriety/legality: proper/improper
about by experts in civil law? Condition for the heir to change his
religious affiliation (mag-Muslim ka for mana!), or a condition for the
Take note that those conditions, to be valid, must be imposed in a will
heir to quit priesthood (Father Caluag no longer a Jesuit so one step
itself or another will. Hindi pwede in a document incorporated by
further, quit priesthood. Temping a man of God to commit a sin! Sin ba
reference, document short of a will. Ergo if those conditions were
yun? To leave his vocation). Pano kung “I institute Ron Garcia to 1M
imposed in document other than a will, but merely referred to through
provided he becomes a lawyer.” Yan ay immoral talaga. Increase the
incorporation, the condition will not take effect.  Deemed as not
number of those in the much maligned profession.
having been imposed: received free from any condition.
 Page 39 of 72

WON particular provision is immoral depend on the facts and
circumstances of the case.
b. Absolute condition not to contract first or subsequent marriage .
Itong si Ron, nagbreak sila ni Eva. Magaganda pala ang mga Ivatan.
Matagal islang mag-un (MU). Then nagbreak. Nag-asawa si Eva. Sabi
niya sa pamangkin niya. I leave my nephew ½ of my estate provided he
does not marry an Ivatan. Ganon ka kinamumuhian ni Mr. Garcia.
Without having seeing the will, nag-asawa ang pamangkin, anak ni Eva.
Matatanggap ba niya yung inheritance? Depend on WON the condition
is a valid condition. Yes it’s prohibition but NOT absolute. For condition
to be improper, the prohibition to contract should be absolute. He
cannot marry anyone, anytime, any place. Since the prohibition
absolute (just particular group of people) the condition is not an
absolute prohibition. PERO baka ito naman ay contrary to morals. Bakit
mo pinagbabawalan na mag-asawa ng Ivatan. Wala pa namang nag-
raise ng issue na iyon? Why is the condition improper? Deemed not
written. Bakit yung absolute prohibition to contract marriage? May
sariling provision, hindi lang contrary to morals. violation of human
right to enjoy his fullest human existence. Para mong pinutulan yan…
ng kaligayahan.
instituted heir to receive his inheritance will depend on the heir having
instituted or given by will to somebody specified by the testator.
When Sharon dies, Kiko did not make a will instituting KC, when he saw
the will he decided to make one so he made a will instituting KC as an
heir? May Kiko receive the inheritance provided in the will of Sharon, is
he entitled to receive what was given to him in the will of Sharon, he
had already executed a will requested by Sharon? He will not inherit
even if he complied. In the A875, not only is the condition
disregarded, (in an impossible condition, the disposition is
disregarded), the very disposition contained in Sharon’s will is void.
TRANSMISSION OF RIGHTS
In the case of a suspensive condition, what happens if the heir
predeceases the testator?
Let’s do it one by one:
 1st scenario: the condition was fulfilled even before testator
died, however heir subject to suspensive condition died
ahead of the testator.
Let’s draw it so you can visualize better:
SUSPENSIVE CONDITION

A subsequent marriage prohibition is also improper. Ron <3 Eva  A.

Annie. Annie <3 Migs. Migs die. Ron says: To my daughter Annie who’s 1. Condition was fulfilled
widow I leave ½ of my estate, provided she does not remarry at all. Eh Before death of testator
hindi makatiis si Annie na walang katabi sa gabi lalo na kung malamig. 2. Heir died ahead of testator
Gusto niya may hinahug. She wants a warm body for a pillow so Testator did not change his
pinakasalan niya si Mr. Pana. Will she receive the inheritance? Of 3. Heir was survived by his own heirs
course, the issue that you should resolve is WON the condition
imposed by her father was a valid condition. If validly imposed, she Who will get the inheritance? Will the heirs of the heir instituted
cannot receive inheritance. If the condition was improper, the subject to suspensive condition? Raise your hands. NOT GET.
condition will be disregarded and she will be able to inherit. Valid ba or Why? Your answer was right for the wrong reason. Because since the
improper yung condition? Yung tatay niya ang nag-impose eh! Hindi heir predeceased he never inherited. For an heir to inherit, he must be
naman biyenan diba so invalid. alive at the time of the death of the testator. He did not inherit at all,
since that is the case, he acquired nothing to transmit to his own heirs.
3. With a term
4. Modal 882-883 B.
1. Heir died ahead of testator
Let’s review your ObliCon. 2. Condition was not yet fulfilled when testator died
3. The condition remained in his will
I will not be able to meet you on Wednesday. Aaaaw. NAKO HA 4. A year later, the condition was fulfilled but the heir
SASAMPALIN KO KAYO. I have an arbitration hearing on Singapore. predeceased testator
5. Heir instituted subject ot condition has his own heir
23 August 2010 Heir instituted still will not inherit because he predeceased the
testator.
c. Conditions imposed on the legitime (Art 872)
The testator is not allowed to impose any condition on the legitimes of
C. Condition already fulfilled before testator’s death
his compulsory heirs. When such a condition is imposed, the condition
When testator died, the heir insitituted subject to suspensive condition
is disregarded and the compulsory heirs shall receive his legitime free
was alive
from any conditions. Not only may the testator not impose a condition,
he may not also impose a substitution on the legitime.
Yes, he will inherit.
N.B. The tesatator cannot charge a burden on the legitime. It cannot
impose any condition on the receipt or enjoyment by the compulsory
D.
heir of his legitime.
1. Heir alive upon testator’s death
2. Condition not yet fulfilled
d. Disposicion captatoria (A875)
3. Heir died when the condition was fulfilled
Illustrate through an example: Sharon Cuneta executed will instituting
4. Heir has his own heirs
Kiko Pangilinan as an heir provided Kiko will institute KC as an heir in
his will. That is an example of a disposicion captatoria. The right of the

Who will inherit? Is the heir entitled to inherit at the time of testator’s
death? Not yet because condition not yet been fulfilled. Heir must wait
until the condition has been fulfilled. When fulfilled, he will become
entitled to receive his inheritance. This is the essence of suspensive
condition, right of heir to inherit is made to depend on the happening
of an event. It’s only when that event happens that the heir will be
entitled to receive the inheritance.
Suppose the heir died before the condition has been fulfilled? It’s true
that he was alive when T died, however, the heir died before the
condition happened. He was survived by his own heirs, when the
condition happened a year after death of heir, who is entitled to
receive the inheritance? They are not entitled, under A1034 for an heir
to be able to inherit, he must not only be alive at the time of testator’s
death but also at the time of happening of the condition. That’s when
the right to inherit gels. If he was already dead at the time of
happening of event, he no longer qualified to inherit. Since he is not
entitled to inherit, he did not transmit anything to his own heirs.
Before happening of the condition, is he entitled to receive possession
of his inheritance and enjoy it? NO, that condition will be meaningless
if otherwise.
Kanino mapupunta property before inheritance? Under A880, it will go
to an administrator.
When it becomes a certainty that condition will no longer happen,
what will the administrator do? Turn over the property back to the
estate. Hindi na makakainherit si suspensive heir. I return it to estate
and therefore it goes to the legal heirs of the testator.  proceed to
intestacy!
RESOLUTORY CONDITION
Right terminates upon the happening of the condition. E.g. “I institute
Ron to ½ of my estate but if Ron will not have a son, his right to the
inheritance shall terminate.” Puro babae anak ni Ron, pambayad sa
mga utang niya. Dun sha babawiin. Pambayad utang sa ibang babae.
Nung araw kasi chattels ang babae. Oh ayan pare, bayad ko sayo, isang
anak. That was during the Roman time when women did not have
political rights. They were considered chattels. At least hindi naman
large cattle, chattel.
The heir instituted subject to resolutory condition should be alive at
the time of testator’s death. If the heir was alive, he inherits, however
in his hands, the inheritance will terminate upon the happening of a
resolutory condition. If the heir predeceased the testator, he will not
inherit at all, therefore, he will not receive inheritance when testator
dies. His heirs will not be able to get anything, there being no
transmission of rights. He never became an heir therefore he acquired
nothing to transmit to his own heirs.
When the heir was alive when testator died, the heir will enter his
inheritance but will keep it subject to happening of resolutory
condition. When that happens, he loses his rights to inheritance. To
whom does it go? To a person specified in the will, if there is a
substitute or designation. Absent that stipulation, it will go back to the
estate of the testator in which case, his legal heirs will inherit the
inheritance.
Suppose the heir who inherited from testator dies before happening of
resolutory condition, who gets inheritance? Heirs of resolutory heir will
receive the inheritance from the resolutory heir. BUT they will receive
Page 40 of 72
it subject to the same resolutory condition. Only property that
resolutory heir had over inheritance, that’s what he transmitted to his
own heirs. If it was subject to resolutory condition, that’s what he
transmits to his own heirs too.
When resolutory condition happens, heirs of resolutory heirs, they will
have to give up the property.
He can sell whatever his vested right is in the property. The property
he will sell is subject to same condition. Buyer gets same property
subject to resolutory condition. Can’t give more than what you don’t
have. No absolute ownership, you can’t give or sell absolute
ownership.
Suppose the happening of the resolutory condition is certain not to
happen anymore: What happens to the inheritance? Resolutory heirs
OR his heirs will keep inheritance forever, their ownership becomes
absolute. Usually, when an inheritance is subject to resolutory
condition, the TCT is annotated with the resolutory nature of the
inheritance. Para kanino man mabenta yun or masangla, alam nung
makakatanggap na yun lang yung extent of interest of transferor.
When it becomes certain it will not happen, annotation may be lifted
upon court petition that it will not happen anymore.
CONDITION v TERM
“Term” – future event the happening of which is certain. Alam nating
mangyayari yan but we don’t know when exactly it will happen. E.g.
death of a person, unless he’s a vampire. He will die for sure, when
exactly this son of a gun will die, we do not know.
It may be suspensive or resolutory.
SUSPENSIVE TERM – right is suspended until arrival of the term. Pag
condition, happening. Pag term, arrival. You should be precise when
answering questions in the bar. It shows breeding. Ang sama ng mga
SC decisions, parang gusto mong iedit to correct.
Testator instituted heir subject to suspensive term. Heir died ahead of
testator but survived by his own heirs. When the testator dies and the
will was admitted to probate, who will inherit? Definitely heir cannot
inherit because predeceased the testator. How about his own heirs,
will they inherit? NO because the heir instituted subject to a
suspensive term never inherited because predeceased, did not acquire
anything from testator to transmit to his own heirs.
New scenario: when T died, the heir instituted subject to a suspensive
term was alive but the term has not yet arrived. Before the arrival of
the term, the heir died. But he was survived by his own heirs. Will heirs
of the heir instituted subject to a term inherit? YES they will be able to
inherit under A878. This is the difference between institution subject
to suspensive term and subject to suspensive condition. It’s enough
that he’s alive at the time of testator’s death. His inheritance vest in
him at the time of testator’s death. arrival of the term is a mere delay
in the delivery of his inheritance. Ownership over the inheritance is
vested on the heir upon death of testator.
Before arrival of the term, who will get the inheritance? Not the heir
because that violates the express instruction of the testator. There is a
conflict between 880 and 885. 885 applies specifically to a disposition
subject to a term, while 880 applicable to both disposition subject to a
condition/term. Ano masusunod sa kanila?

There is a period for retribution. Tuwang tuwa ako pag di kayo
nagbabasa.
JBL Reyes: “There used to be no conflict between the two because 880
in the old civil code referred only to a condition institution, did not
cover institution subject ot a term. But when it was being deliberated
some smart aleck stood up and proposed an amendment. Akala niya
kasi magaling sha.” Pag-isahin na lang natin ang term at condition.
Dahil hindi sha civilista, hindi niya alam ang 885. They should have
suppressed 885 from the draft of 885. End result is a conflict between
880 and 885.
What is the solution proposed by JBL? 885 should control when it
comes to a term because it specifally applies to disposition subject to a
term whereas 880 applies to general. So far, interpretation of 2 articles
has not figured in a case that reached in the SC. Bihira ang mga
settlement cases. 5 pa lang ang settlement case na nahandle ko,
celebrity politician. Walang lumabas sa diyaryo.
Bear in mind the comments of JBL Reyes. With whom Sen. Tolentino
concurs. Tolentino has the same opinion as JBL: Administration is not
proper in case of disposition made subject to a term.
Under 885 when a disposition is made subject to a suspensive term,
the inheritance will go to the legal heirs. Pano kung sirain ng legal heirs
or hindi ibalik? Walang problema kung immovable real estate, hindi
naman pwede sirain yun. Masisira ang improvement but real estate
remains there for the heir subject to a term to take over. Pano kung
nasira yung improvements or kung movable yun? What will be the
remedy of the heir instituted subject to a term? Ano ang kanyang
remedy? The law has seen that scenario and so the court has imposed
a condition in order for the legal heirs of testator to enter the
inheritance. They will post a bond called Caucion Muciana.
Baka itanong sa inyo sa bar: What are those instances when caucion
muciana is required? This is one. There are two more. Kayo na bahala
maghanap nun.
RESOLUTORY - If inheritance is subject to resolutory term, our
discussion on resolution condition will apply.
When the term arrives, the heir will lose inheritance and give her up in
favor of party indicated in will OR in the absence of such indication,
back to estate of decedent.
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION WITH A MODE
Maraming hindi nakakaintindi dito.
Mode – obligation imposed by the testator for the heir to perform. A
duty, an act required of the heir to fulfill or perform. A charge imposed
on the heir. E.g. “I institute Eva to ½ of my estate however, Eva should
pay my widow a monthly allowance of P100,000 for as long as my
widow lives.”
Suppose Eva fails or refuses to pay the P100,000 monthly allowance,
what happens? If she loses the inheritance for her failure to do so, it
must be a resolutory condition. It’s not a mode. Payment must be the
condition that when she fails to perform condition, she loses the
inheritance.
What makes it a mode? Pag hindi sumunod, at nawala inheritance,
resolutory condition yun not mode. When the penalty for non-
performance of the obligation is not forfeiture of the inheritance. Pag
Page 41 of 72
walang ganung nakalagay na maliwanag sa will an ang penalty ay
forfeiture, dun lang nagiging mode yun. How do we enforce the
obligation of Eva to pay P100K monthly allowance to my widow, pano
natin sha pipilitin? SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE that’s the remedy available
to the heir. She goes to court and impose specific performance. Attach
all her properties in order for the obligation to comply with. Unless she
repudiates the inheritance, wala shang liability at walang charge.
Inheritance is the one that answers for the performance of the mode
imposed on the inheritance. So e.g. yung kalahati kayamanan consisted
of hacienda in Nueva Ecija earning income from agri production,
kumikita P500,000/yr. ayaw bayad Eva, I can sue for specific
performance and ask to garnish the income for delivery to the widow.
That’s the difference between mode and resolutory condition.
There’s a case decided by CJ Davide. I won’t be surprised, he was not a
civilist. Although graduate natin yan, batch 1969. If the obligation is
with a mode, caucion muciana. Isa na lang ang hinahanap niyo.
Caguiao in his book raised this question: Suppose heir instituted subject
to a mode, refused to comply or perform the mode? Hindi niya sinagot
ang tanong niya. The remedy is not to return but to enforce by specific
performance even if it will require attachment of the property
inherited so be it. Kung kailangan sale at a public auction for the mode
to be complied with.
XIV. LEGITIME
It’s in 886. Reservation for compulsory heirs. Why does the law provide
for reservation? To protect the compulsory heirs from the presumed
unjust ire or weakness or thoughtlessness or irrationality of their
parents/relatives which are the testator. Pag nagagalit magulang hindi
nakakapag-isip yan. Tatanggalan kita mana! Or nabubulagan ang
magulang like a widow. Very early in her life. For lack of entertainment,
embark in an entertainment program, ballroom dancing. Best forms of
physical exercise. Nainlove kay DI. Pag na-inlove tao, nasisira ulo niyan.
Becomes irrational. Pag hindi ka naging irrational, hindi ka inlove. In
lust ka lang. kailangan maging irrational ka. Tandaan niyo huling kabit
na kayo. Kailangan niyo ng asawa. Ha Eva? Baka pamigay lahat ng
properties sa DI because of undue and improper pressure and
influence.
Walang tutang nauulol. Matatanda lang nauulol. Mad dog. Nakakakita
ka na bang mad puppy. Old dogs, old bitches.
Members of the family who should be protected.
Who are the compulsory heirs?
1. Legitimate ascendants
2. Illegitimate parents
3. Legitimate chidlren and descendants
4. Illegitimate children
5. Surviving spouse
Lima lang yan under the CC. Under the OCC there were only 2
(legitimate ascendants and descendants) lahat ng illegitimate were not
recognized as heirs. We gave premium to legitimate relationships.
Kung pareho lang ng effects, e di wag na lang magpakasal. Gradation of
rights. Wife used to have no right under the old code except usufruct if
there’s child. If no child, balik ka na sa nanay mo.

One writer: in reality there are no illegitimate children, just illegitimate
parents.
Not all of them will inherit at the same time. There are heirs to exclude
other compulsory heirs. Excluded secondary heirs. Primary compulsory
heirs.
Sino ang primary compulsory? Yung hindi pwede exclude:
1. Unang-una ang surviving spouse. Dati dati wala shang right to
inherit, ngayon, binigyan na nga ng right, hindi pa sha
naeexclude. Para shang bawang kapag nagluluto kayo.
2. Legitimate children and descendants
3. Ganon din illegitimate children
All the others: are secondary heirs because excluded by certain by
primary compulsory heirs
LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS
Compulsory heirs when only them survive. E.g. Ron decided to remain
a bachelor dahil nabroken heart kay Eva. Nag-negosyo, yumaman.
Mysterious reasons. AIDS daw sabi ni Ani. Parents lang natira and
brothers and sisters. Who will inherit Mr. Garcia’s wealth? Nearest
relatives are parents and brothers and sisters. Sino mag-iinherit?
Legitimate ascendants are compulsory heirs. How about siblings?
When there exists compulsory heirs, exclude all relatives. Pag merong
compulsory heir, excluded lahat sila.
Compulsory heirs din sina Lolo at Lola: Direct ascending line ad
infinitum hanggang sayong ancestors. Collateral line ang tawag kila
uncle. Ginarison yung bahay ng ninuno ko kaya nung liberation,
binomba. Nasira lahat ng family memorabilia.
Suppose this happened instead:
A-B D-E H-I K-L
| | | |
C - F J - M
| |
G - N C
| G ---------------- H
O+
Sino papatayin natin jan? Si O. Lagay natin sha sa nitso hahahhaha
1. Compulsory heirs exclude non-compulsory.
2. Those compulsory heirs in the direct line, exclude the
collateral (though wala naman compulsory na collateral).
3. Those in the same line the nearer excludes the more remote.
If they all survive, GN will compulsory heirs of O to the exclusion of the
grandparents and great grant.
What if G is also dead? Definitely N will inherit to the exclusion of JM
HI KL.
Can CF take G’s share? We don’t allow that in the direct ascending line.
Hindi pwedeng bumaba sina CF kay G. Representation is not allowed.
THereofre, only N will inherit. Nearer degree, everbody will be
included.
N is in the first degree, she will exclude all those in the other degrees.
Page 42 of 72
N is already dead din. CFJN will inherit nearest legitimate surviving
ascendants. How? Divide equally portion reserved for legitimate
ascendants? Magkano ba yun? If alone, ½ of the estate. What happens
to the other half, free portion. Decedent may dispose by will but if he
dies without a will, half portion will be disposed of by intestacy.
Suppose patay na rin si C? Who are compulsory heirs of O? 3 rd degree
are excluded by the 2nd degree. What’s their share? In the ascending
line, the legitime is divided equally between paternal and maternal
lines. ½ of legitime goes to F for the paternal line and then ½ to J and
M in the maternal line, to be divided them equally. Malaki ang mana ni
F kasi wala shang kahati.
1 September 2010
When ascendants survive alone, only then are they compulsory heirs
entitled to legitime of ½ of the estate of the decedent.
What happens to the other half of the estate? It becomes the free
portion. If the testator made some legacies or devises and those
exceed the free portion, they are inofficious. Also chargeable against
free portion of estate are donation inter vivos made during the
lifetime. If exceed, they are inofficious and have to be reduced.
½ legitime shall be divded equally between maternal and paternal
lines. Among the ascendants, the nearer excludes the more remote.
Suppose ascendants are survive with brothers and sisters of the
decedent, are bros and sis compulsory heirs? They’re not under the
law.
Who should inherit as compulsory? only ascendant. Eh yung
greatgrandpa natira. Decedent survived by greatgrandpa and full blood
brother.
Pagka gastado na, hindi na nilalagay dito. Sabay itsa ng marker.
A - B E - F
| |
- - D
| .
I J - K
Brothers are in the collateral line while greatgrandparents are in the
collateral line. They are not compulsory heirs. Legal lang. Not
compulsory.
1. Rule when compulsory heirs concur with legal heirs not CH,
the LH are excluded.
2. Direct line excludes the collateral.
3. The other half is free portion.
4. Computation of legitime: I didn’t catch 
LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS
Kailan sila legitimate ascendants? When the ascendants are validly
married to each other.
Don’t forget what you learned in PFR, man and woman living together
as husband and wife for a long time, holding themselves out as
husband and wife are PRESUMED to be lawfully married to each other
(Perido v Perido)

That presumption is merely rebuttable. Interested parties may prove
that the marriage was invalid. Kung invalid marriage, hindi legitimate si
descendant. May isang kaso na decided by SC which is wrong, this is
how poor the general quality of SC have become. New rule of
procedure promulgated by SC governing declaration of nullity,
annulment and legal separation. Sabi nitong justice, under new rules,
only the spouses of the void marriage may bring action to make it null
and void. When one party died, you cannot attack.
Void marriage may be attacked directly (filed only by parties to the
marriage, not by a non-party; petition to declare marriage null and
void) and collaterally (in any action, if necessary for the disposition of
the case in that collateral case e.g. namatay mag-asawa nobody
challenged the validity. Yung anak pag naging illegitimate, lilit kanyang
mana.
Can party interested in having him declared illegitimate? Yes that may
be done and it is a collateral attack). SO DAPAT KASAL.
Sir yung kasal po ni Kris Aquino, valid ba yun? Practice of many
politicians in the province. Mayor Belmonte’s office. Wala yung mayor
so kinasal sila ni Pastor pero pumirma sa contract si Belmonte. Invalid
kay Sir, for Pastor to have an authority, he must have provided at least
one of the contracting parties is a member of the church, religion or
sect of the solemnizing officer.
What is the effect if none of the parties was a member, is the non-
compliance a mere irregularity or is it absence of authority? Does not
affect validity of the marriage, only a criminal prosecution for
solemnizing an officer, if non-compliance with proviso is absence of
authority, then the marriage is void because formal requisite was
absence. Mere irregularity or absence of authority? Maganda sana
maging amicus tayo jan so we can educate the court.
Kris and James believed in good faith? Belief of good faith does not
include mistake of law, only mistake of fact. Authority of the rabbi
priest etc is subject to a condition that one of the contracting parties is
a member. It’s a matter of law.
Tolentino says: matters of fact are included in A35 No. 2 eh di our
people will might as well marry before barangay captain, police chief,
barangay tanod, school principal.
Navarro v Domagtoy: judge was only disciplined but they may
solemnize marriage anywhere in the country.
ADOPTING PARENT
Is he a compulsory heir? There are two schools of thought.
Judge Sempio Diy and many other teachers who believed her
went very far to claim that in adoption the adopted child is totally
separated from his natural family. All connections of the child are
severed. Natatawa na lang ako. Parang hindi sila nag-iisip. Of course
not! If that’s the case, e di pwede na niya pakasalan kapatid niya dun
sa natural parents. Are you ready to allow that? Only the parental
authority of the natural parent is severed, but they remain as
legitimate parents of the adopted child.
Under A342 of NCC, it was provided there that adopting parents are
NOT legal heirs of the adopted child. Why? Because there is a
temptation on the part of the adopting parent to adopt a wealthy child
Page 43 of 72
to be his heir. E.g. Namatay yung parents sa Luneta Hostage. To
remove temptation and that adoption is solely motivated by desire of
parents to make him their own, purely familial motives, the NCC did
not make adoptive parents as compulsory heirs, not even legal heirs.
But this was expressly repealed.
984 CC1: Hindi heir ang adoptive parents. Companion provision of 342.
Hindi narepeal expressly ang 984, only 342. So what is the standing of
the 984? Yes, it is also repealed, otherwise, there’ll be inconsistency
with the provisions of FC. Sabi naman ng repealing clause ng FC, what
is his status now? I wrote an article analyzing this case with the IBP
journal. Compulsory heir ang adopting parent if he does not survive
or concur with natural or legal parents. Article was published March
2009 about domestic adoption and its effects. One thing for sure, the
adopting parents are legal heirs, under A1902 of the FC instances
where adopting parent will inherit. Since they inherit, they are
therefore legal heirs but the FC does not make them compulsory heirs
because they don’t have legitime and it’s not clear that they are CH.
But I made an analysis that the intention it would seem is to make
adopting parents LH but ONLY when they don’t concur or survive with
the natural parents of the adopting child.
Art. 39, PD 603
LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS
Suppose they concur with legitimate children. Legitimate ascendants
are excluded.
What is the legitime of the Legitimate children = ½ of estate equally
divided among the children
Why exclude from inheritance the parents? Bakit ganun ang batas?
According to framers of OCC (which came from Spain which came from
France Napoleon Code) Love of person is like flow of water in river, it
does not flow up, only down to the sea. It may flow collaterally, but
not flow up. Yung river nila ay wala sa coast. Madrid is landlocked, so
they think, the river really does not flow up. But here in Manila, it does
flow up kapag high tide.
That is the normal behavior of a normal person. He loves more his
descendants than ascendants. Kung may puzzle, si Ron sumakay sa
Bangka kasama ang anak at tatay. Si Ron lang marunong lumangoy,
boat capsized but Ron can only save one of the two. Who do you think
Ron will save? Sociologists say father will save his son, not his father.
1
In case of death of an adopted child, leaving no children or
descendants, his parents by consanguinity and NOT by adoption, shall
be his legal heirs.
2
Legal or intestate succession to the estate of the adopted shall be
governed by the following rules:
(1) Legit and illegit C and D and the SS of the adopted shall inherit
from the adopted, in accordance with ordinary rules of legal
succession.
(2) When the parents, legit/illegit, or legit ascendants of the adopted
CONCUR with the adopters, divide the entire estate ½ to be
inherited by the parents or ascendants, ½ by the adopters.
(3) When the SS or IC of the adopted CONCUR with the adopters,
they shall divide the entire estate in equal shares.
(4) When adopters CONCUR with the IC and SS of the adopted, they
shall divide the entire estate in equal shares, 1/3 to be inherited by
IC, SS and then by adopters.
(5) When only the adopters survive, they shall inherit the estate.
(6) When only collateral blood relatives of the adopted survive, then the
ordinary rules of legal succession shall apply.

Gusto niya ngang mamatay na tatay niya para makamana na sha. Even
if Ron will attempt to save his dad, the father will decline.
The legitimate children exclude the legitimate ascendants from the
inheritance fo the decedent.
But suppose legitimate ascendants concur with illegitimate children?
Are illegitimate children compulsory heirs? YES, they are. But they were
not under the OCC. Yung mga illegitimate, they were considered
strangers to the family. They have nothing against the legitimate
family. They were not entitled to any inheritance, not even from the
illegitimate father. Bastardo! Kaya noon may stigma yung pagiging
bastardo. Yung tiyahin ko turned down a suitor who was rich but
bastardo. Naging governor ng province later on. Ano tiyang nagsisisi ka
na ba?
Nung naging famous na ang bastardo, Sharon Cuneta. Juan Ponce
Enrile? Son of Don Alfonso Ponce Enrile, kasama sa Perkins Law Office.
Treasurer of Province of Cagayan. Armada siguion reyna. Naging lonely
si Don Alfonso sa Tuguegarao. Laundry woman became mother of Juan
Ponce Enrile. Furganan. Johnny Ponce Enrile looked for his dad’s law
office. Lawyer like you. I will send you to the best school on two
conditions. Best school? UP Law!!! Live with me and change your
surname. Galit tuloy si Armida. Bakit pinapatira dito ang bastardong
yan. Dahan dahan kayo magsalita, mga bastardo rin kayo! Hindi kasal si
Dona Purita at Don Alfonso.
Sikat na bastardo ngayon.
Illegitimate children under new law are compulsory heirs.
If concur with legitimate ascendants, the legit asc do not exclude illegit
children. They will concur and inherit as compulsory heirs.
Legit ascendants = ½ of estate
Illegit children = ¼ of the estate divided among them equally
Remaining ¼ = free portion
Don’t forget however, for an illegit child to inherit, he must be
recognized by putative parent either voluntarily or involuntarily.
172 FC in relation to 175: only three forms: [1] record of birth [2] public
document of recognition/affidavit of acknowledgement [3] private
handwritten document signed by putative parent
Recognition will not be effective pag hindi pumirma (?). Child is
voluntarily recognized against illegit parent.
e.g. wala lahat nay un. Pag pumirma ako jan, confession of
philandering yan. Hindi rin sha gumawa ng affidavit or ng private
handwritten document. Pero yung bata kinilala informally. Pinakilala sa
mga kaibigang putik, hawig ko talaga oh. Sha nagpaaral, tuition, report
card, pirma as parent. Those documents, photographs or public
knowledge that he was illegitimate child, they are not recognition in
itself, only as grounds for recognition.
If he dies without recognition, illegit child could not inherit. Can file
action to compel recognition only during lifetime, after that, action is
barred.
What about DNA? Yung ibang piyesa, hindi nadodonate yan.
Nakadonate ang blood, retina, liver at kidney? Pwede ba patest DNA
ng tatay tas imatch sa DNA test results? 99.9999999% makakainherit
ba illegit child? No, because it’s not a form of voluntary recognition. It’s
Page 44 of 72
just evidentiary to compel recognition. But the action to compel
recognition is already barred by the death of the putative parent.
Illegit children will divide legitime of ¼ among themselves equally,
maski ibaiba ang nanay or tatay nila. As far as common parent is
concerned, all of them are illegit children. pare-parehong anak sa labas
kaya pareho lang ng inheritance rights.
Legit asc concur with adopted child
Suppose the legit ascendant is survived by the adopted child of the
decedent who are compulsory heirs, the adopted child will exclude leg
ascendant. Because the former has all the rights of a legit child. This
includes excluding the right to inheritance of parents of adoptive
parents.
NB for a child to be considered adopted, the adoption must have been
decreed by an adoption court. Decree of adoption. Kung ipinalista
laman yung bata in the name of the parents to whom he was given,
that birth cert is not proof of his or her filiation. Because that
document is a falsified document. Crime is called: Simulation of birth.
Domestic adoption law: simulation is defined as tampering of birth
cert. napakahina sa choice of words. Simulation ≠ tampering.
Otherwise, falsification. Wlaa kang tinamper dito eh. Falsification is
absorbed by simulation as necessary act for the commission of the
latter.
LA concur with SS
Who are CH? When the spouse is survived by legit issue, the SS only
entitled to usufruct but not real inheritance. Under NCC, SS is given
real inheritance. BUT SS does not exclude the LA.
IC do not exclude LA because we have to give premium to legit
relationships. Di pwedeng walang pinagkaiba. There must be a
gradation of rights, otherwise, no motivation to legalize union with
partners in life. No value as social institution ang marriage. Make legit
rel between partners in life. Kung walang effect, bakit pa?
SS does not exclude. Why not? Because blood is thicker than water.
Kaano-ano mo ba yang asawa mo? Pero nagiintrega ka ng sweldo,
sinusunod mo lahat. Yes mam yes mam pero di mo kaanoano yan.
Blood is thicker than water. Kaya hindi maexlcude ni SS si Leg Asc.
Pag nag-aaway yung mga kilala kong mag-asawa, yung parents ang
topic. Laging nagbibigay ng sustento sa parents si Ron. Pambili ko ng
shoes, nasa parents mo! Dahan dahan ka. Makakakuha ako sampung
kapalit mo, pero walang kapalit ang parents ko. Di mo pwedeng palitan
ang parents mo pero pwede mong palitan ang asawa mo.
They concur with each other, the two of them are compulsory heirs.
Legitimes
Legit Asc = ½ of estate
SS = ¼ of estate
Arbitrary yung ¼ ng SS para may free portion.
Leg asc concur with surviving spouse and legit children
Who are CH? Leg asc are excluded. Only SS and LCD are compulsory
heirs
Legit asc concur with surviving spouse and illegit children
Hindi maeexclude ng SS and IC ang LA. Kasi nga illegit and affinity lang
sila. IC will not exclude the SS either.
Legitimes
LA = ½ estate
IC = ¼ estate

SS = 1/8 estate
1/8 = remaining free portion
Nagloko kasi si Mr., nangaliwa sha kaya lumiit yung kay misis. Ano’ng
suma total? Pinarusahan si Misis nung nangaliwa si Mister. Bakit
ganun? Bakit si Misis naprejudice? KASI BAOG SHA. She failed to
provide her husband with offspring kaya nag-experiment sa labas yung
asawa.
Noong unang panahon pag hindi nanganak ang reyna ng lalaki,
pinupugutan ng ulo. Catherine of Aragon. Henry VIII. St. Thomas Moore
refused to recognize the divorce of the king. Cessation of England from
the Catholic Church. Elizabeth I.  James I, son of Mary Queen of
Scotts the King James version of the Bible. Bat ba tayo napunta jan.
Legitime of the ascendants is fixed at ½ of the estate. Hindi nagbabago
yan. Sino ang nagbabago? Yung legitime nung ILLegit children and SS.
NEXT CLASS OF COMPULSORY HEIRS
ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS
Kanina legitimate “ascendants” pero ngayon, illegitimate “parents”
that is significant. Later on you will find out that illegit ascendants are
barred from inheriting.
If survive alone
½ of the estate as their legitime
NB only illegit parents who recognized their illegit children are entitled
to inherit.
E.g. Ron and Ani are married to each other pero nagkaron ng affair si
Ron at Eva. Si Eva naman kasal kay Mel. Nagkaanak si Eva kahawig na
kahawig ni Ron. Sabi ngayon ni Mel, bat hawig ni Ron? Napaglihian ko
kasi si Ron. Busit na busit ako jan dati. Child is your child is an act of
faith. Manampalataya ka na lang na anak mo nga ang anak mo pag
sinabi ng Misis mo.
Kaya during the old days to ensure that the crown prince is a
descendant of the monarch, binabantayan yung prinsesa. Bantay
sarado yan. Para sigurado kung magbubuntis sha, yung crown prince
ang tatay. Ganun din ang reyna. Sigurado dapat na anak ng hari yung
anak ng reyna. Anne Boleyn. Anne Boleyn rumor that she wanted to be
impregnated by her own brother. Executed for treason. It was just a
frame up for a reason to execute Anne Boleyn so he could marry again.
The Court must be present during Queen’s labor. Changeling. Baka
mapalitan! Privacy was a luxury that royalty did not enjoy. Queen
Victoria had 11 children but she considered sex as something dirty.
From all her children, descended all the monarchies of modern Europe.
Even the consort.
Nagkaanak ngayon si Eva kay Ron. What Ron did now is a affidavit is
that Eva’s son is his illegitimate son. Pag namatay si Ron, makakamana
ba yung anak ni Eva. Liyao v Liyao. Child of eva is presumed legitimate
of Eva and Mel. Presumption of law, that child is presumed to be
legitimate. Not any tom Dick and Harry can recognize the child as his
illegit chld. That would have no legal leg to stand on. That’s the
realities that the law should address and require reform. Overthrown
by action to impugn legitimacy. Only Mel can file. During minority of
illegitimate child, by his heirs. Prescriptive period din of 3 years. Hindi
basta basta nagrecognize ka, anak mo na.
Recognition of illegit child by putative father is subject to consent of
illegit child. He may refuse the recognition of the putative parent. Bakit
Page 45 of 72
ngayon lang dahil mayaman na ako? Provision allowing refusal of
recognition was repealed/suppressed in the FC.
Suppose illegitimate child is recognized by 3 fathers. Parang yung
Mamma Mia. Lalabas yan sa bar na ito!
6 September 2010
ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS
Compulsory heirs when they survive alone, they are the only CH.
Entitled to legitime of ½ of the estate of the decedent and the other
half is free portion. The question is, who are illegit parents? In your
PFR, illegit child cannot compel the illegit parent to recognize him if the
putative parent has already died. Action to compel recognition may
only be instituted before the death of the putative parent. How about
the reverse? Who is the illegit parent entitled to inherit from illegit
child? Who must recognize the illegit parent to entitle him to inherit
from the illegit child?
In CC, illegit child, over 18 years cannot be recognized by illegit parent
without consent of the child. But thi sprovision was suppressed in the
FC. Suppose very wealthy illegit child die, someone claims inheritance
now that he is illegit father. Can he prove his paternity after the death
of child. In the CC cannot do that because no consent if dead. BUT
under FC, may someone cliamiing to be illegit parent, prove his
paternity to claim his inheritance? Hindi maliwanag sa batas. Don’t
forget Liyao v Liyao ruling child presumed legit under the law, cannot
be the son of another person claiming him to be his illegit child. Hindi
pwedeng dalawa tatay mo. Isa lang. Unless somebody mpugned your
legitimate filiation.
Pano yung Mamma Mia. Tatlo yung nagkeclaim. Pareho pang buhay
yung tatlo, interesado sila malaman who the real father is, magpaDNA
na lang sila. Buti nga may DNA ngayon, noong araw wala.
Manampalataya kang anak mo yan. May the three claiming to be the
putative father enter into a compromise agreement? Mukhang mas
kahawig mo, hayop ka. Under the New CC, one of the matters which
can’t be the subject of a compromise agreement. Status of persons.
Cannot be the subject of compromise or agreement.
For our purposes, since wala nakalagay sa batas kung sino illegit
parent: In case filiation is denied by any interested party, filiation has
to be proven by all kinds of evidence admissible under the RoC. Pwede
rin siguro yung DNA. May client akong popular na movie actor. Bago
sha namatay may nagkeclaim na anak. Bago inilibing, nakausap ko yung
widow. Mam, pinaDNA mo na ba? Oo shempre.
Same shall apply in case a wealthy child applies and there are potential
claimants claiming to be illegitimate parent. That evidence should be
decisive in determining the paternity or filiation of the child.
Illegit parents are excluded by all kinds of children. Legitimate and
illegitimate alike.
Are the illegit parents excluded by the spouse? NO, if the surviving
spouse concurs with legit ascendants, more reason to allow
concurrence with illegit parents.
All of them are compulsory heirs
Illegitimate parents = ¼
Surviving spouse = ¼

Remaining half is free portion
What have you observed from this assignment of legitimes?
IP are given only ¼, unlike LA who are given ½. Legitime given to SS is ¼
when concur with LA but why oh why is the SS given the same legitime
when they concur with IP. Kasi it’s not the spouse. It has nothing to do
with issue of spouse, but legitimate relationship. That should not
benefit the spouse whose legitime remains at ¼
In FC, when legit parents concur with adopting parents: What is their
inheritance? Tag-1/2 sila sa estate. IBP Journal basahin niyo yun. Baka
dun ako kumuha ng exam.
LEGITIMATE CHILDREN AND DESCENDANTS
When legit children survive alone as a class, only them survives, only
them is CH. Legitime ½ of estate
What if it came from different marriages and the first marriage lasted
longer than other subsequent marriage?
Yes they will have same legitime. Walang kinalaman length of parents’
relationship sa kanilang filiation. It is only the valid marriage that’s
required for legitimacy. All of the children have same right against
estate of Ron as legitimate children.
Suppose legit children concur with legit ascendants. Who are CH? Only
the legit children. The legiti asc are excluded and I have already
discussed the reason why.
Suppose legit children concur with uncles (brothers and sisters of
decedent? Only the children are CH. Kung yung nanay nga naexclude
nila, lalo na siguro ang mga collaterals.
Suppose legit children concur with stepmother (father married second
time when mother died). Who are the CH? All of them are CH. All the
children by the first marriage shall inherit as legit children and the law
assigns to them a legitime of ½ of the estate.
What is the legitime of the surviving spouse? The legitime of surviving
spouse is equivalent to one legitimate child, coming from the other
half of the estate. Remainder after legitime of wife is paid shall be the
free portion.
What’s the conclusion? Habang dumadami ang legitimate na anak,
lumiliit ang surviving spouse. Bakit ganon? Kasi nga mas matimbang
ang dugo sa tubig. Hindi mo kaano-ano yang asawa mo, Ron. Mahirap
lumaki legitime niya na affinity ang relationship kesa sa blood
relationship. Though di kayo nakakasiguro na anak niyo talaga kasi yun
ang representation ni Misis. Maski di niya anak yung children, hindi
naman relationship sa wife nirereckon yung relationship ng legit
children. Rather, from the decedent, not from the surviving spouse.
The more the legit children, the smaller legitime of spouse.
Suppose survived by just one legit child and the spouse? The two are
the CH. Legit children do not exclude the surviving spouse from the
inheritance.
Legitimes: If we follow the formula that legitime of spouse is same as
legitime of the child, in this case, the legitime of legit child is ½. Then ½
din yung suriving spouse. If we allow it, nothing left for the free
portion. Hindi pwedeng wala kasi baka maya may donation intervivos
decedent gave during his life time against which those donations will
be charged. Otherwise puro inofficious sila. Para may free portion, may
binawasan natural yung surviving spouse. Hindi naman kasi sha
kadugo. In such a case, legitime of spouse is reduced to just ¼ of the
estate of the decedent so that ¼ will remain as free portion.
Page 46 of 72
Suppose surviving spouse concurs with an adopted child. Sino CH? The
two of them are the CH. Adopted child will inherit as a legit child. ½
and ¼ pa rin ang inheritance. NB legit children includes legitimated
children as well.
Suppose Ron and Ani got married. Okay mas gusto naming si Eva. Mas
popular ang labtim na ito, sorry Ani. On the 2nd year after celebration of
marriage, Eva had an affair with Mr. Pana. Nagka-anak, what’s the
child’s status. Presumed legitimate of Eva and Ron. Later. Si ron nagka-
affair kay Ani. Nagka-anak din kay Ani. Lalaki yung Eva Pana, babae Ron
Ani. Ron hid his affair with Ani, nagmeet yung mga anak nila. Hindi nila
alam na may connection sila. Nagkagustuhan nadevelop. Sabi ni Ani,
itong anak mo ay mamanhikan dito. Sabi Eva, ron mamanhikan tayo.
Pwede ba magpakasal yun? Under the law, presumed anak ni Ron yung
anak ni Eva. So magkakaron sila ng relationship dito kay Ani. Later on,
natuloy ang kasal. Pwede ba patunayan nung anak ni Eva at Pana na
hindi naman talaga sila related dun sa anak ni Ron kay Ani. Back it up
with DNA results, pwede bang isave yung validity ng kanyang
marriage?
If you allow the son of Pana by Eva to prove that his real father was
Pana, what is the effect on his inheritance from Ron? CC works on the
basis of legal presumptions and those presumptions will be
overthrown only through a procedure provided for in the law. Until
and unless that procedure is followed to prove a different paternity or
filiation, the presumption will stand.
Suppose there are no legitimate children because they died ahead of
the grandparent, sino na lang natira? Only the legit grandchildren.
X - Y (1/6)
|
A B C
D EF GHI
Ang legitime nila ½ of the estate. Kasi legitimate children AND
descendants. How will DEFGHI divide among themselves the legitime?
Take what their parent was supposed to inherit? In compulsory
succession insofar as legitime is concerned, descendants always
inherit in representation of their deceased parents. That’s A898
A, B, C gets 1/3 of ½ of estate = 1/6
D gets 1/6
EF get 1/12
GHI get 1/18
Suppose grandchildren die at the same time during a hostage. All the
greatgrandchildren inherit by right of representation.
Ang problem natin ay pag may natirang asawa si X na si Y.
Kung ang natira concurring in the inheritance with the children is Y.
Assuming children are still alive  Y gets 1/6 coming from the frree
portion. 5/6 na lang free portion.
If children are no longer alive.  Ano sabi ni Tolentino? Hindi na kasi
kayo nagbabasa. See page 307.
Gumawa tay ong problem na pareho sila ng legitime. Kuware
tagdadalawa lang sila ng anak.
X - Y (1/6)
|
A B C
 Page 47 of 72

DE FG HI
A
Di naman pwede that we compute wife’s legitime using the number of |illeg |leg
descendants kasi nga otherwise, the children will all repudiate so that BCDE F
the surviving spouse will be prejudiced. Illustration: Hindi nila nanay si
Y. ABC repudiated the inheritance, they are not to be represented, the F = 1/2e
grandchildren therefore inherit in their own right. Since the same BCDE = ¼ reduced to 1/8 each
degree, the legitime will be shared by all of them equally.
So DEFGHI each get 1/12 - descendants as a GR inherit by Reduction ang tawag jan kasi mauubos yung free portion. Preferred
representation EXCEPT in case of repudiation, where they will inherit in ang legitimate children. Di pwedeng magpautang para bayarang
their own right not be representation. No regard kung ilan silang anak legitime ng illegit children.
ng magulang nila. Next nearest of kind. Per capita na sila.
WAIT: so pwedeng maubos ng illegit children ang free portion?
Prejudice their stepmother by repudiating. Naging 1/12 na yung
legitime niya. We should not allow them to use repudiation to Illegit children used to be of 2 types: natural and spurious, but under
prejudice. If we follow Tolentino, that provision on surviving spouse the FC the distinction between 2 kinds had been abolished.
will never be applicable any time. Principle of statutory construction,
when framers insert word there, it’s intentional, there’s reason why Suppose legit children concurred with the spouse.
they inserted it. Pag sinunod natin si Tolentino, “or descendant” phrase Legitimes:
will never apply.
A - W
Problema pati kung iba iba ang legitime ng mga apo dahil iba iba sila ng |illegit |
share. Hindi nagrepudiate lahat ng anak. C B
It was a wrong provision of the code. Dapat, it should be computed on
the basis fo the children. Cannot repudiate, predecease, incapacitated. W gets ¼
Only of the basis of the legitimate children. Pero magkakaproblem din B gets ½
dun. Mabuti kung magrerepudatie lahat. What if only A repudiates? C gets ¼
Pag nagrepudiate si A, yung linya niya, din a magmamana. Burado na Naubos ang free portion, just enough to pay the legitimes.
sila sa hatian, as if he has not existed. Descendants could not represent
their representing parent. Resulting legitime: Baguhin natin ang composition.
B ¼ so EF get 1/8 each Dalawa anak sa labas at legitimate.
C ¼ so GHI get GHI get 1/8 each
Lumaki tuloy si Y naging ¼ sha. A - W
|illegit |
So anong rule? Application of the rule leads us to problems. DE BC
Napakadami niyang problema. During my early years, I will choose
subject I will teach. Isa ako sa pinagpala ng anak ni Carale na
nakapagbigay ng ganyang condition. Ako yung namili ng ituturo ko. Wife gets ¼
Hawak ko na PFR Negotiable Corpo Succession. Sa exam lagi ko BC (legiti children) get ¼
binibigay yan to test kung naintindihan niyo yung provision ng 892. DE (illegit children) get 1/8 each
Ngayon hindi na kasi extensive discussion na sa class. Supishente pa.

WAIT But suppose… tatlo anak sa labas.

So kapag lahat nagrepudiate, may right of representation all the descendants.
Pero pag isa lang, excluded totally even the descendants of the repudiating A - W
child. |illegit |
DEF B
When the legit children concur with illegit children… Who are the CH?
½ to legit children divided among them equally, ½ of the legitimate
W get ¼
child is the legitime of an illegit child coming from the other half.
B get ½
DEF get ¼ each
Let’s illustrate that:
Between children and spouse, who has preference? Legit children has
A
illeg leg highest preference, has to be paid in full for the legitime before others
| |
are paid. Between wife and illegit children, who suffers reduction?
D BC
Dilemma yan, under the old CC, not a problem, illegit children had no
successional rights.
D = 1/8 E
Ngayon sino na preferred natin. Wife without blood relation or illegit
BC = ¼
children. Framers of the code reslves the problem in favor of the
surviving spouse.
FP = ½ - 1/8(1/4)

Observation: Habang dumadami ang illegit children, nauubos ang FP.

 Page 48 of 72

Bayaran natin ang ¼ ni W so the remaining ¼ na lang ang paghahatian

nila DEF. The illegit children suffered reduction. That concludes discussion on amounts of legitimes.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN 8 September 2010

When illegit children survive alone as a class, only them are CH. How
much is their legitime, ½ of the estate. Divided among them equally,
regardless of the mothers or fathers. Parang si Dolphy. Kasi wala pa
shang pinapakasalan. Lahat ng anak niya ay illegitimate. So when he
dies, he will be survived by illegit children. May anak shang babae, si
Sally Quizon. Lou Salvador Sr. isa rin sha sa walang pinakasalan. That’s
one reason they don’t want to get married. Para walang bastardo.
Panahon ito ng suddenly diba? Legitimate na lang ay yung kay Zsazsa. 2
yung magiging legitimated na anak niya. Parang unfair. Kaya parang
ayaw na nya magpakasal. Sayang di ko naisip yung ng maaga-aga.
When illegit children survive with legit asc? Leg asc ½ illegit children ¼
divdided among them equally, FP remaining ¼
Restriction regarding the legitime
A904
A872
Must disinherit the CH for the ground provided for in the law. A905
When the testator gives his CH an inheritance less than legitime, the
testamentary provisions cannot be given full effect. Testamentary
provisions cannot impair the legitimes of CH. If legitimes are impaired,
the law directs the payment of legitimes even if such payment of the
balance will result to suppression of the other testamentary
dispositions.

Illegitimate children with illegitimate parents? Illegit parents are Let’s illustrate through some examples the operation of these
excluded. As they are excluded by all kinds of children. restrictions.

When legitimate children with illegit children? You know the formula The testator has 2 legitimate children: A and B
already.
Testator
Suppose illegit child concurs with spouse? Illegit children get 1/3 as |
their legitime divided among them equally, surviving spouse get 1/3 of A B
the estate as her legitime. Remaining 1/3 is FP.
Before T died, he executed a will. Giving A = ¼ of estate and B = ¾ of
When the illegit children concur with legit asc and surviving spouse: the estate. Ano conclusion natin jan? Paborito si B(unso). If the estate
Leg asc get ½, illegit children ¼ among them equally, surviing spouse at the time of T’s death is 240M, divide the estate. Distribute the
1/8 leaving a free portion of 1/8 estate.

SPOUSE Manresa has given a queer way of solving/approaching the problem.

Suppose SS survives with brothers/sisters/nephews/nieces of the Since T cannot dispose by will the legitimes of CH, then necessarily the
decedent, who are CH? Only spouse is the compulsory heir. She is disposition in his will can only apply to free portion.
entitled to ½ or 1/3 as legitime, depending on circumstances of
marriage to the descendent. When the surviving psouse was married Manresa’s solution: When there’s CH
to the decedent within 30 days in articulo mortis (A900), the legitime
of the SS is only 1/3 of the estate. But if married not in articulo mortis, Heirs Legitimes Will Total
even if 2 days before the death, ½. A 60 30 90
B 60 90 150
120 120 240
What is the reason behind reduction in legitime if the SS was married
to the deceased spouse in articulo mortis? Nagiging fortune hunter si
SS. She should not be rewarded for such an indecent motive. Give them their legitimes first, unless validly disinherited. What is
legitime of CH in this estate? It’s ½ of the estate = ½ of 240M.
Pero kung hindi in AM but dead day after, maski pa under mysterious
circumstances, A900 will not apply. L =½E
= ½ (240M)
Suppose the spouse = 120 M

LC1 = 120M/2
X = 60M
|
ADB - W Since there’s FP, the provisions in the will apply only to the FP.
W get ½ estate FP = Estate – Legitime
But the FP if not given to anybody through will, A will get the FP = 240 – 120
Lahat ng CH exclude all legal heirs except SS. SS concurs with = 120 M
inheritance, brothers nieces, nephews. ¾ and ¼ of 120 M
Suppose buhay pa si XAD. Only X (parent) and W will inherit. Excluded
si AD. X gets ½ wife gets 1/4
 Page 49 of 72

This is the Manresa solution. Pero maraming hindi bilib jan, isa na ako 20 being the value needed to complete BC’s legitime.
dun! Si Baviera saka si Balane din. Binigay na nga legitime, laki pa *Complete the table using these values.*
nadagdag.
In response to a question…
DLC says: When testator provides that, that’s the intention of testator.
Including the legitime already. If that ¼ is smaller than the legitime, T – W
then we have to pay additional amount to complete the legitime under |Illegit |
A906. C AB

So pano solution jan? Will:

A = ¼ (240) = 60 Legacy of 10 M to D (favorite nephew)
B = ¾ (240) = 180 E = 240
So we have to check, naimpair ba legitime niya? Hindi kasi ang legitime
ay 60 rin naman. Therefore, we’ll have to respect the disposition. Distribute first the legitime we have to pay because that would
determine the FP from which the legacy will come from.
Tolentino has a discussion on the Manresa solution.
DLC: The Manresa solution will only apply to legacies and devises NOT Heir Legitime Intestacy….
in institutions. A 60
B 60
Testator has three children ABC and surviving spouse. W 60
C 30
Testator - Wife
210
|
A B C
FP will be 240 – 210 = 30 M
Disposition in the Will
A–½E Since 30 M yung FP mo, that will be the source of 10 M legacy.
BC = ¼ E 30 – 10 M = 20 M
W=¼E How do we proceed with 20M? Intestacy.
Estate = 240 Divide the 20 M in such a manner that they get 2 parts each while C
only gets one. Basta 1/7 it’s ahead of you.
360 in the circle is arbitrary. Marami kasi shang factors.
But suppose naging 2 yung illegit children. Kasali na si E. So magdagdag
Heir Will Total us ng heir dito. 30 din. D gets nada because no more FP left. Sorry na
A 120 - 16 104 lang you. Hindi lang legacies tinatamaan. Damay din minsan ang CH.
B 30 + 10 40 Yung mga illegitimate children. Kung napakadami nila this much dapat,
C 30 + 10 40 but since onti na lang natira sa FP (from which their legitime will come
W 60 -4 56 from), their legitimes will be reduced.
240 240
Forget about the Manresa solution. It’s wrong. If we follow that, it will
Then check whether the total legitime was impaired render nugatory the provision of the Code on preterition. Bangga yan
L = ½ (240) dun.
= 120
LC1 = 120/3
= 40
Wife gets 40, too

Hindi pwede to kasi naimpair ang legitime ni BC tas sobra mashado kay
A and wife. Since BC will receive less than their legitime, they are
entitled to a completion of their legitime.

San manggagaling yung ibibigay natin sa kanila? Kay A ba or W? Who

suffers the reduction? Later on we’ll discuss that “he who received the
FP will shell out the amount needed to complete the impaired
legitimes of CH. If there are more than 1 heir who received a portion of
the FP, all of them will suffer a pro rata reduction.”

Since the legitime of A is only 40, he got 40 from the FP. Wife got 20
from the FP. Two of them will have to share the burden to complete
BC’s legitime pro rata.

A = 80/100 (20) = 16
W = 20/100 (20) = 4
 Page 50 of 72

XV. PRETERITION wala naming iaanul, walang institution in the will, everything is
legacy.
 Also, there can be no preterition if decedent left no will.
A854: If you read it, a phrase is missing there. Omission is a transitive
 Suppose no CH: pwede ba magkaron ng preterition? Lalong hindi!
object. Omitted from where? Dati kasi “omission from the will” yan.
So how did SC interpret 854? Now it means “omission from the
Illustrate: Suppose Ron died a bachelor, no legal or illegitimate issue.
inheritance”
Wala ring parents, asawa. Sino lang natira? Yung kanyang mga kapatid.
How many siblings does he have. Bigyan nating apat na kapatid si Ron
When is a CH omitted from the inheritance? It should be total omission
dahil only child sha. He gave all his properties to his bestfriend Eva.
from the inheritance.
Baka maging adulterous relationship. Bestfriend niya si Pana (eh sir
mas adulterous) ang kanyang constant companion. So executed his will
When does total omission happen? When a CH will not receive from
giving all his worldly possessions to Mr. Pana. Can the siblings complain
the testator anything by will. By intestacy or by advance from his
that they were the subjects of preterition? NO, because they’re not CH.
inheritance.
Hindi nga sila in the direct line. Collateral pa sila. Therefore, since they
cannot complain of preterition, the will shall be respected and
What is advance from inheritance? Donation IV given to CH during
everything that Ron left behind will be given to Mr. Pana.
testator’s lifetime is an advance on the inheritance of that CH-donee.
If T had given donation IV in favor of CH but totally omitted him from
Illustrate one with preterition: Let’s go back to the case of Nuguid v
the will, nothing from the will, the CH cannot cry/complain that he
Nuguid.
was totally omitted. Ano’ng totally omitted, nakakuha ka nga ng
advance diba?
A
|
If you look at standard English dictionary, there’s no such word there.
B C
Kastila yan. Englishcized na lang. In the interpretation of Old CC,
preterition is limited to total omission from the will because of
BC were old maids. Wealthy B gave everything to only sister C. Bakit ko
inadvertence or wrong assumption.
bibigyan si Mommy mamamatay na rin lang naman sha.
Magkakaproblema lang sha sa tax pag namatay sha so kay C na lang.
E.g. Yung isang anak ng mayamang royalty in England, sumama sa
Was C preterited? It depends on whether she was totally omitted from
isang expedition to East Indies looking for spices, di nakabalik. Sabi
inheritance.
siguro ng magulang, patay na. So on that assumption, in his will, he
 FIRST QUESTION: Will A receive something from the will?
gave all his wealth to remaining children and nothing for the missing
Nothing, not even a single kusing.
son. In fact, he was not even mentioned in there. Kaso biglang lumitaw
 SECOND QUESTION: Receive anything by intestacy? No
after parents’ death. Oy sandal yung mana koooo. Pag mana na ang
intestate portion from which A can get a share in the
usapan, lilitaw na. Eh kaso wala sha sa will. That’s preterition under Old
inheritance.
Code. Effect  annul the institutions made in the will. That’s the effect
 THIRD QUESTION: Is there an advance through donation IV?
also in A854.
Nothing
If we answer NO to all, there can be preterition. What is the effect?
The concept of preterition has changed under A854. No longer limited
Annul institution of heirs.
to total omission from the will, but now total omission from the
inheritance.
Will:
Institute C to the entire estate.  effect: annulled
Who may be preterited (i.e. subject of preterition)? Only CH.
Legacy to X in 10M  inofficious if exceed FP
Yung illegitimate child? CH ba yun? YES.
Estate of 240 M
So may he be the subject of preterition? YES
Everything will now go to A which is 120 M
How about the surviving spouse? CH? YES
FP = 240 M – 120 M = 120 M  charge the 10M legacy to the maid.
May he/she be preterited? NO, because not all CH are subject to
Inofficious ba? Nope.
preterition. Only CH in the direct line may be preterited. (Balanay v
After legacy, 110 remained in the FP. It goes to A, too.
Martinez)
Sir bakit nawalan si C? Hindi po kasi sha CH. Excluded pa rin ni A si C.
How about an adopted child? Is he CH of the adopting parent? YES
She’s not a legal heir.
May the adopted child be subject of preterition? YES (Acain v IAC)
Ano effect ng preterition? The entire estate went to her mother. Ayaw
Bakit legitimate children pwedeng subject of preterition? CH in the
bigyan ang nanay. But because of preterition nabaliktad.
direct line (Aznar v Duncan)
Early in our discussion, I have pointed out: institution on the one hand
and legacy and devise on the other. There is an important for you to
What is the effect if a CH has been the subject of a preterition? The
know the difference between the two and the distinction will be used
effect is annulment of the institutions in the will. However legacies and
in preterition.
devises shall be respected insofar as there are not inofficious.
Mai: As long as there’s FP, there’s no preterition. (?)
What conclusions can you gather from that?
 If the testator executed a will but all dispositions are legacies and
devises, the issue of preterition is immaterial. Kasi maski meron,
 Page 51 of 72

So kapag may binigay na kahit onti lang… icocomplete lang yung

legitime niya under 906. Pero hindi preterition, so respect pa rin ang
institution. Coming from whoever received the free portion.
Presumptive legitime first appeared in the old marriage law.
Promulgated during American occupation. Kalokohan kasi yang
presumptive legitime. How was it defined? Legitime children are
supposed to receive if we assume that parents die today. Since that is
presumptive legitime, it’s subject to adjustment later on (e.g. naghirap
ang mga magulang later). Hindi ko alam kung ano nakain ng FC
commission at ibinalik nila yan. Dun sila sa matatandang batas sanay
kaya ibinalik nila. Kaya nga tinanggal yun nung 1950. Nagkaron tuloy ng
ground si Kris Aquino.
Ixara: If the advance donation is less than the legitime, there will be
NO preterition.
That’s why Manresa’s solution is incorrect under the Philippine system.
That’s why Solano v CA is incorrect decision penned by Ameurfina
Melencio-Herrera. SC corrected itself in a subsequent case, not in your
list. Babagsak sha. But she’s the valedictorian of our class. Sereno’s
class is debacle, no one landed in the top 20.
Suppose Ron disposed everything through legacies and devises, no
institution. Will there be preterition? NO kasi nga nothing to annul.
13 September 2010
From the diagram on the board, there are four parties to a reserva.
1. Source of the property – mediate source – A
2. Prepositus – E
3. Reservista – D
4. Reservatario - A
For reserva to arise, the parties must be LEGITIMATELY RELATED to
each other. When one party is illegitimately related to the other. Hindi
pwedeng magkaron ng reserva.
How about if E is the adopted child? Suppose E is adopted by C and D.
Pwede ba magkaron ng reserva? Sino ang natural parents ni E kung
adopted sha? Napunta sa natural parents, will there be reserva. In
determining reservatario, the reservatario must be relatives of
prepositus, hindi rin babalik sa source. Applying the ordinary rules,
defeated yung purpose. OPEN QUESTION. GO BACK TO THIS LATER.
Who may be the SOURCE?
For there to be reserva, the source must be ascendant of prepositus
OR brother or sister of prepositus. Illustrate that:
A sibling of B – C
|
D
A donates to D. D dies. In the hands of C, is that property reserved?
NOT reserved. Because A is not an ascendant BUT collateral relative of
B. Ang pwede lagn maging source in reserva is ASCENDANT or
BROTHER OR SISTER OF PREPOSITUS.

XIV. RESERVA TRONCAL Aunt/uncle may not be considered an ascendant. Check the definition
in the relationships part of the code. They are collateral relatives, i.e.
May be the last remaining feature of property entailment under the come from common ancestor.
Old Civil Code. Entail a property within a family. There were many
reservas in the old CC. Reservas and reversions. Original draft of NCC Ascendant lang so dapat direct line lang. E.g.
did not have reserva troncal but smart aleck congressman from visayas
reinserted it through an amendment through floor on congress. Kala A
niya alam niya yung ginagawa. |
B
While 891 is there, there were a lot of companion provisions that were |
not restored. All principles that grew out of reserva troncal are C
deemed reintroduced even though hindi sha nakasulat.
If A donates to C, may potential reserva ka na. A is an ascendant of the
A -B F- G supposed or potential prepositus. Dapat legitimately related therefore
| | if B is illegit child of A and recognized C as his illegit grand child, there
C - D (Sabrina) can be no reserva.
|
E How about a brother or a sister, for there to be reserva, may the
brother or sister of the full-blood or must the brother of the half-
Sabrina is daughter of driver and labandera. Lolo A donated inter vivos blood.
to E. 10 years old namatay sa dengue. Ano yung nasa estate ni E when
he died? Hacienda donated to him by Lolo A. Who inherits it then? E - F G - H
Only one compulsory heir: Sabrina. Hacienda now goes to mother as | |
only CH entitled to inherit. A - B
|
So ano na sasabihin ni D kay A? Kayo na po ang labandera at driver C D
naming. Pag namatay si D, kay F and G mapupunta yan. There’s
something wrong with that. The hacienda used to be ours!  This is In the hands of B the property is reserve, for all the relative of D from
what sought to be prevented by reserva troncal. In the hands of D, the the same property.
hacienda is reserved. When D dies, property does not go to F and G but Ano sabi Tolentino?
to family where property came from.
 Page 52 of 72

Ano sabi ni JBL? Bull shit. Pag full blood brothers, pareho sila ng the property has not restriction as yet. Hindi pa sha reserved. Pwede
relatives. pa niya ibenta. Pwede niya sirain kung gusto niya. In his hands,
property has no restriction as yet.
Purpose of RT is to bring a property back to the family where it used to
belong and ahs gone astray because of accident i.e. preposterous dying What if sold to a 3rd party, wala na amamanahin reservista to
without any issue. Property getting out of the family. prepositus? How about the proceeds of the sale of donated property?
binenta tas nilagay sa bank yung P10M na pinagbentahan. Is there a
In the hands of B, property has not gone astray. It’s still under the reserva on the proceeds on the donated properties? NO there is no
family of the property of the source. reserva. It’s constituted on the very property that was gratuitously
acquired, it does not transmit. Proceeds do not substitute for the
property. it’s not carried over to proceeds or substitute of the property
Legiitmate half blood brother. donated. Reserva ataches only to very property received gratuitously
F - GH - I by the prepositus. Not attach to the substitute property.
|
A – B - D Prepositus becomes the arbiter of the reserva. If he disposes before he
| | dies, no reserva arise ever. BUT if choose to not dispose, reserva will
C E arise. Sha yung arbiter of the reserva.

Namatay si A, biyudo si B nagkaron ng 2nd wife with D and child as E. CK, what if prepositus improves the property? Apply accession rule:
C donated property to E through gratuitous title. Namatay si E without owner of land owner of all improvements. Iba ang rule for the
legal issue so nagmana si D by operation of law. In the hands of D, hast reservista.
the peropty gone astray? YES, Hindi naman sha kaano-ano ni C. not
blood relative. Step mother lang yan. Affinity lang sila. Left the RESERVISTA
property of the source. Kaya may reserva kaya go back when the Under the law, reservista is “another ascendant” of the prepositus.
reservista dies.
A
Iba ang opinion ni Tolentino. DLC agrees with JBL, Ricardo Puno and |
Balane (sabi ni Cams). B - C
|
Illustrate the application of that principle through concrete problem: D
Ron bought insurance on his life for P5M double indemnity in case of
accident. He designated as irrevocable beneficiary a favorite grandson A donated through gratuitous title to D. In the hands of B, is the
by one of his children. Namatay si lolo Ron by accident so insurance property reserved? According to Tolentino, the property is reserved.
company paid P10M to 3 yo grand son. Namatay yung father ni Ron Ano sabi ni JBL Reyes and Puno? In the hands of B, property did not
son of donor grandfather. Namatay din si apo. Sino nagmana ngayon leave the family. There’s no occasion for us to apply the RT to reserve
ng P10M insurance? Manugang. In the hands of daughter in law of the property. Instead proper interpretation: “another ascendant”
Ron, is the P10M reserved? “another” not limited to ascendant other than mediate source BUT
ascendant belonging to another family. It’s only then that the property
A will go astray. In case of B, hindi naman nawala dahil tatay niya
| nagbigay. DLC agrees with JBL and Puno.
B - C
| How must reservista acquire property for there to be reserva? Through
D INHERITANCE BY OPERATION OF LAW. Di pwede testamentary
disposition. Because it’s not inheritance by operation of law. ANo yung
A gave D irrevocable beneficiary P10M insurance. In the hands of C is by operation of law:
the 10M reserved? Anifairs says NO because P10M proceeds did not 1. Compulsory succession
come from A. Nagbabasa sha ng Tolentino. Kanino nanggaling from the 2. Intestacy
insurance company. It was not donated. It was paid by insurance
company in compliance with aleatory contract of insurance. Hindi libre Does this mean the legitime of reservista
yung dahil bayad ang premium non. A is not the source fo the P10M,
he is only the source of the premium paid, if at all. A - B
|
NB for there to be reserva, the property should be acquired by C - D
prepositus from the source by gratuitous title. Donation and |
inheritance whether testamentary or intestate. Dalawa lang ang E
gratuitous acquisition.
A donated gratuitous title by E. D must acquire title by operation of
PREPOSITUS law. CH (refers to legitime) and intestate succession. Eh pano kung yun
Must either be descendant of mediate source OR halfblood sibling of lang talaga yung property ni E? Ano ang reserved, entire property OR
mediate source. When a property was acquired by his descendant or just half of the property (since cannot impose burden/charge on the
brother or sister gratuitously, may the descendant/sibling-donee legitime)? Enitre thing is reserved. Testator is the imposer, in reserva
dispose the donated property? YES, in the hands of that descendant, troncal, it’s the law that imposed burden or charge. Legitime na niya,
 Page 53 of 72

nareserve pa. Kaya nga dapat tanggalin yang reserva troncal na yan.
Patalo yung congressman from Visaya na yan. Di ba kawaa naman si D
nareserve yung kanyang legitime.
Gumawa ng will si prepositus, died single 20 years old and with a will.
Sabi ni E, I hereby institute my mother as my sole and universal heir.
Namatay bigla si prepositus, nadengue pa. Bumabagsak ang kanyang
platelets. St. Lukes sa The Fort. Casualan lang na nag-uusap na
mamatay ka na. Ganun ba, so gagawa na ako ng holographic will. Only
one property left by E (farm donated by grandfather). Is there a reserva
constituted on the property considering there is a testamentary
disposition? Yung kalahati lang ang nadispose by will. Yung kalahati
lang naman ang legitime na nadedefeat ng reserva troncal. Reserved
insofar as half. Naacquire niya not by OPERATION OF LAW, but by
testamentary disposition
Who are entitled to the property donated by A to F? A and B, direct line
excludes collateral.
But suppose AB also dead now. Si C G H na lang natira. Si G na ang
magmamana since CH sha ni E.
What if G also dead? C and H na lang. Pareho sila ng degree. Between
the two of them, H inherits under A1009 – De Papa v Camacho:
Descending collateral excludes ascending collateral.
What if may half-blood relative? They can be reservatario, provision in
CC which says that half-blood relative get half share of full blood
relative i.e. intestate provision. Applicable to RT in Padura v Baldovino.
Suppose patay na rin si H pero may anak na si I na lang buhay. Can I
take the place of H so that he will get the 3rd degree and exclude C in
inheritance? NO, Florentino v Florentino: Among reservatarios, there is
representation BUT representative must still be within the 3rd degree.

Last case decided by SC on reserva troncal is Vizconde Massacre A - B

penned by VV Mendoza who isn’t civilist but political law lawyer kaya |
di niya nakita yung RT angle. C D - E
|
RESERVATARIOS G F H
Reserved for the relatives within 3rd degree of consanguinity. 3rd | |
degree from whom? From prepositus. I K

A - B D - E H - I K - L May K take the place of H? Yes, because she’s still within the 3rd
| | | | degree. So kung patay na rin si G, ang natira si KIC, natural si KI ang
Csource - F J - M mag-inherit. And C is in the ascending. That’s 1009 as applied in De
| | Papa v Camacho.
Q G - N
| When will it go to reservatario? When reservista dies.
S - Rsibling P
| What if reservista is vampire who wouldn’t die? Before reservista dies,
U - T what may reservista do with the property? May the reservista give the
property by will? In the earlier cases, SC said reservista cannot do that
C donated through gratuitous title to P. In the hands of N, is the because not part of the estate. That ruling had been abandoned.
property reserved? YES. Reversed. The rule now says reservista is now the owner of the
For whose benefit? Kanino na pupunta property? We count degrees reserved property, but it is subject to a resolutory condition. When
from prepositus. she dies, reservatarios still qualified to inherit, reservista loses the
property and therefore if she will the property in LWT therefore it
“Double consanguinity” or “double relation test”  related by blood cannot be implemented/given effect. BUT kung ang haba ng buhay ni
not only to the prepositus but also to the source of the property. reservista tas ubos na ang qualified reservatario, the reservista
within 3rd degree from prepositus by blood and related by blood to the becomes absolute owner of the property. Provision in her will will take
source. effect.

Burahin na natin yung mga hindi kasali. If ibinenta ng reservisa during her lifetime, what is status of the sale?
Among the remaining, direct excludes collateral. Valid but subject to resolutory condition. Nemo dat quod non habet.
Among those in the direct, descending excludes ascending. Unfortunately if property is subj to reserva but covered by TCT and
Descending and ascending, nearer excludes more remote. transferee did not know about reserved character of property, wil the
3P party’s interest defeat the reservatarios? In a case decided by my
What if si A yung source instead of C? He cannot complain kung bakit professor Flerida, Sumaya v IAC. Property was reserved but no one
kay C napunta kasi ng pinamigay na niya. Kung may anak lang si P, dun knows it is such so hindi nakatatak at the back of the title. Reservista
pa sa apo niya napunta yun. (Nearer excludes more remote) sold the property. Binabawi ngayon from 3rd party buyer. But I’m
innocent purchaser for value. Ano sabi ni Fleri Romero? You ought to
A - B know that it is reserved by looking at documents filed with the register
| of deeds. Gusto ko ibagsak yung teacher ko sa land reg. Assuming it’s
C D - E there, how would I know I’m not lawyer yung lawyer nga hindi yan
| alam. I’m not supposed to go beyond the title.
G F
| Reservistas are heirs in waiting. They novena “mamatay na sana”
H inchoate right – ownership subject to suspensive condition. What is
their right? Since that is the extent, he can only sell that interest

subject to suspensive condition. Yung buyer ngayon ang magnonovena
na mamatay na si reservista habang buhay pa si reservatario. Dahil
kung namatay si reservista na patay na si reservatario, hindi sha naging
reservatario at all.
15 September 2010
Absent si Sir. Yaaay!
20 September 2010
Administrative matters: Make up class kasi out of country on 30 th, back
on the 4th. Nov 3 ang enrollment up to 5. Discuss among yourselves
between 18 and 22.
Suppose A married B and has a son C.
D - E F - G
| |
H A - B
| acquired by operation of law (yung ½ of legitime lang).
C therefore only ½ of lot 1 is reserved applying the principle of
D donated Lot 1 to C. Now H donated also Lot 2 to C. those 2 lots are
same size, adjacent to each other in the subdivision and more or less
same value.
A died, shortly after him, C followed. Those 2 lots therefor were
inherited by B by operation of law as the only heir. H will not inherit
because collateral. EDFG won’t inherit because excluded by B who is
nearer in degree. DEFG in direct line but are more remote so only B will
inherit all properties left behind by C. Now C left behind 2 properties,
lot 1 and 2 for same value. In the hands of B, are those two lots
reserved? Yung lot 2 hindi uubra kasi galling sa uncle not being a
descendant, definitely not. About lot 1, is the entire lot reserved?
Operation of law, so how did B acquire lot 1, by operation of law both
as CH and as intestate heir. Therefore, entire lot 1 is reserved. Lot 2 is
not reserved because did not come from ascendant/brother or sister.
Maliwanag yun.
Ano ang nareserva? Lot 1 because it came from an ascendant. It was
inherited by C prepositus and all of it was inherited by B by operation
of law. Intestate heir. Suppose C left a will. In his will, he instituted
mother B as sole and universal heir. Nung mamatay ngayon sha,
mayroon bang reserva. Is lot 2 reserved? NO way. Lot 2 will never be
reserved. How about Lot 1? The entire two lots will go to B, pero
different concepts. One as testamentary heir and CH so walang
intestacy (all properties disposed by will). Therefore b will receive
legitime as CH and receive the free portion by way of testamentary
succession. ½ legitime and FP is also ½.
The FP that B will receive by will is not subject to reserva. Which of
these two properties is acquired by FP and which property is acquired
by legitime? Sabi ngayon ni B. Itong lot 2 is half so yan ang aking
legitime. Yang Lot 1, yan ang aking gagawing testamentary disposition
by will. Acquired by legitime. If you allow B to do that, mawawala ang
reserva. If we allow him as the ½ of the estate acquired by her by will,
that property will not be reserved. If we allow her to treat lot 2 as
acquired by legitime, it will not be reserved because lot 2 did not come
from an ascendant (H). if we allow B to do that, she will become the
arbiter of the reserva. Sha magsasabi kung may reserva or wala. Treat
or classify properties according to her discretion which cannot be
allowed. She cannot do the classification of property herself,
Page 54 of 72
otherwise, she will become arbiter of the reserva. Sino ba dapat ang
arbiter ng reserva? Prepositus lang dapat yun.
What to do now? 2 options.
1. Magkano ba legitime? ½ E. Gawin nating legitime yung lot 1,
therefore entire lot is reserved. Kawawa naman si B kasi we
imputed lot 1 as legitime, naging reserva na lahat. Ang tawag
dito: “reserva maxima” – maximize reservation of property
by imputing the property subject of reserva to the maximum
amount that may be covered by that part inherited by
operation of law. Isinaksak ang lot 1 dun sa pwedeng
saksakan ng legitime. Unfair ito.
2. Reserva minima – each and every property in the estate of
prepositus shall be considered to have been acquired half by
legitime and half by testamentary disposition (will).
Therefore, lot 1 is ½ legitime, ½ of lot 1 is testamentary. Then
½ of lot 2 is legitime and the remaining half of lot 2 is
testamentary. Lot 2 will never be subject to reserva because
did not come from ascednat. Only lot 1. How much of lot 1
reserva minima.
Ngayon, gugulo ang computation kung hindi sha instituted as universal
heir. E.g. B is instituted to ½ of the estate. Kalahati is deemed to have
included her legitime. The other half is FP by intestacy.
Mas magugulo ito kung hindi institution but devise. E.g. to my mother
B, I give ½ of Lot 1. Iba na naman ang solution niyan.
But in all those testamentary varioations, all you have to do is apply
reserva maxima or reserva minima to find out what part of property
that is reservable was acquired by operation of law. That part acquired
by operation of law is part that is reserved.
What do we follow in the Philippines? SC is not yet given opportunity
to rule which is applicable. Maxima or minima but all writers in Phil Civ
Law believe that reserva minima is the fairer of the two. Maliwanag
Malabo?
Tolentino has a good example on application of reserva maxima and
minima.
Who wants to discuss the homework? Reserva adoptiva.
XVIII. DISINHERITANCE
What do we mean by this? Earlier we learned that system of legitimes,
where a part of estate of decedent is reserved by law to CH. The
testator cannot impose any condition, any burden on the legitime of
his CH. May he deprive his CH of legitime. Yes. A decedent may deprive
his CH of their legitimes through disinheritance. Ano naman kaya ang
ground to disinherit or deprive a CH of his legitime.
Under A915, a CH may be deprived of his legit for causes expressly
stated by law. Underline “expressly stated”
Decedent not allow to disinherit CH for ground not expressly stated in
the law. For disinheritance to be valid, be able to point your finger to a
ground written in the law. If you can’t, disinheritance must be
ineffective.

Nasan yung mga grounds?
1. To disinherit children and descendants, whether legitimate or
illegitimate – Art 919. There are no other grounds, exclusive yan. But
there are special laws which disqualify a CH from inheriting e.g. FC.
In case of legal separation, the guilty spouse is disqualified to inherit
from the innocent spouse whether by intestacy or by testamentary
succession. Take notein such a case, it’s not disinheritance but
disqualification. In disinheritance, testator/decedent has a choice
whether to keep CH as an heir or to deprive him of his inheritance.
To exercise that choice, testator will disinherit that CH. Doon sa FC,
hindi disinherit, disqualified by law. Unless you can show a provision
elsewhere, either in this code or other special laws, then there are
no other grounds to dishinerit children or descendants.
2. To disinherit ascendants – Art 920.
3. To disinherit spouse – Art 921
How is a CH disinherited effectively?
Only one way to do that. Through a valid will.
Lolo at lola ni Mariel. Imagine kinasal sha nang hindi sila nasasabihan.
Pwede bang habang iniinterview si Lolo ni Mariel bigla niya sabihin
“Mashado sumama loob naming, so tinatanggalan naming sha ng
mana.” Nabroadcast sa buong bansa. Is that disinheritance effective?
Not an effective disinheritance. Noncupative will/oral will is not
recognized in the Phils. Kailangan gawin through a valid will, either
notarial or holographic.
Eva Carino, the Igorot mother, will also disinherit Robin, what should
she write in the will for the disinheritance to be effective? Not enough
to write the desire to deprive of inheritance. Not sufficient for testator
to simply write in his will not to leave anything to his CH. For
disinheritance to be effective, T must specify the legal cause for the
disinheritance. Kailangan ilagay doon kung ano yung cause/ground for
disinheriting a CH.
Pag di nakalagay yung specific cause for disinheriting a CH, what is the
effect? It is ineffective. Must the testator escape the ground as written
in the law? Hindi niya kailangang kopyahin kung ano yung nasa batas.
The specific act ang dapat niyang ilagay. E.g. there was this wealthy
widow who executed a will disinheriting her oldest daughter on the
ground that eldest daughter refused to cook for her her favorite
pochero. Nagkwento pa na dati dati daw ipinagluluto sha, pero lately
despite her repeated requests na ipagluto ng pochero, hindi sha
pinagluluto kaya masama ang loob niya at dinisinherit niya. Ano kaya
meron dun sa pochero? Ba marunong si Ani, we will ask her to cook it.
Yan ba yung may sawsawan na inihaw na talong at vinegar. Hindi kayo
marunong kumain. Yung isa pochero and cocido. Different sauces!
Cocido is tomato sauce and olive oil. Pochero is the talong with vinegar
and tons of garlic. You don’t know. Malamang madisinherit din kayo.
That act complained about by the mother if that falls in any of the
grounds enumerated in the law, that will be a valid cause for the
disinheritance of the daughter. BUT if the act complained of the
mother does not fall in any grounds enumerated in the law, then
disinheritance is ineffective.
Oh sige, inilagay na ni Ron yung brillante sa tenga. May protocol yan.
Pag sa kaliwa or kanan. Pag sa kanan. Sa ibaba ka po naghikaw. May
hidden metal. Lagi kang tutunog sa airport. Nagalit nanay ni Ron.
Punyeta ka bat ka may hikaw?! Tatanggalan kita mana kasi naghikaw
sha. Is that a valid ground to disinherit Ron? We’ll look at A919. Find
Page 55 of 72
out if the act complained of falls in any of those grounds enumerated
in law.
Refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent/ascendant.
Suwail na anak. May student na makitid mag-isip. Nagtanong, bakit pa
magpapamana kung kapos pala? Maikli pisi mo ng analysis! Dati
mahirap pero tumama sa lotto. Ngayon anak gaganti ako sayo anak,
wala kang mana!
May the heir subject of disinheritance deny the existence of ground
complained about? Yes.
Who has burden of proving when heir denies the existence of ground
for inheritance? Rest upon the other heirs of the testator. Those who
want to enforce the disinheritance. All the disinherited heir will do is
simply deny.
Kung biglang may proof pala sila, Ron will now present proof to the
contrary.
If disinheritance is ineffective, what is the effect?
Suppose T left nothing but a disinheriting will. The will he left behind
had only 1 provision. A provision depriving his CH disinheritance. Una,
yung legitime makukuha ba yun ng CH? Hindi kasi nga yung A915.
How about the FP, makakakuha ba sha dun? Hindi na yun legitime.
Hindi rin sha makakakuha ng share kasi nga the effect of an effective
disinheritance is TOTAL EXCLUSION/DEPRIVATION OF THE HEIR’S
inheritance.
Pwede bang ilagay ng testator sa kanyang will, I hate Ron so much
because he refused to give me support those times I neded support
more therefore, I am reducing his inheritance by half. Pwede ba yan?
NO because law does not recognize “galit ka lang ng kalahati” Hindi
pwede ang major major *grabeng grabe* It’s either galit or hindi galit.
Symbol na lang, wala nang salitaan. So so. Ano ba yung ginagamit
niyong salita? Keri. In my radio program, the listeners send txt msgs.
Nasisira ulo naming dahil di mabasa ang text. Lintek ang abbreviation.
Parang crossword puzzle solving. What is this word.
Anger/hatred that T has must be of such nature to compel that T to
do the ultimate act of depriving his CH of inheritance.
Suppose the T had already executed a disinheriting will, may the T
change his mind later on? Of course, will is revocable anytime before
the death of the T. he may change his mind before he dies. But
suppose it’s the other way around, before he executed the
disinheriting will, the T had already a prior will wherein the T
distributed in detail all his properties to named legal and CH. One of
the heirs named in the will was this CH who was disinherited will in the
subsequent will. We know that because of that disinheritance, the CH
will not receive his legitime. Not receive any share in the intestate part,
how about the earlier will which gave him testamentary deposition and
first will was not revoked by the disinheriting will executed
subsequently.
Will CH disinherited in the disinheriting will get inheritance in the
earlier will? NO kasi nga total effect ng disinheritance, pati
testamentary disposition given in prior will is also revoked.
Suppose after executing the disinheriting will, the T executed a 3 rd will
giving the disinherited heir a legacy of 1K. what is the effect of that
legacy? Ano effect? Reconciliation. Pinatawad. Hindi uubra na meja

meja lang ang galit. So when he gave the legacy of 1K. what is the
effect of reconciliation? A922. A subsequent.. .
How do we know whether there is already a reconciliation, that he has
already pardoned the offending CH? It’s a matter of evidence but there
is recon when T had forgiven the offending heir so as to restore him
back to all his rights. E.g. Galit na galit Ron’s daddy kasi suwail at
naging callboy. Ground yan! Dishonorable/disgraceful life (no. 7). What
is dishonorable about that, I’m happy! So lahat tayo as abogado
pwedeng madisinherit. Lawyer and police may be disinherited. Marami
shang kliyente rito ah. Dinishonor sha ng kanyang mother. Baguhin
natin yung ground.
Yung father ni Ron, widower. When wife has been convicted of
concubinage and adultery with father’s. Ron goes to videoke bar.
Tinetable. Takehome later. Nakita ng tatay ni Ron, nainlab tas
pinakasalan. But one night, nahuli ni tatay yung misis in bed with Ron.
Nagkukwentuhan lang po kami. Iba spelling ng kwentuhan nio. Father
filed a case of adultery against ron and his stepmother. Final judgment.
Covered ng probation kasi maliit lang ang kulong jan. So niligawan niya
yung tatay asking for apology. Nako kung ang diyos,
nakakapagpatawad, bahala na ang diyos sayo. Ano tawag sa Tagalog
dun? Bulaklak ng dila. Kasi you want to be polite. Hindi naman
pinapatawad but the words will somehow be polite to the person
asking for forgiveness. It’s a matter of evidence won the offending heir
has been forgiven. It must be of such nature that the T has restored
the offending heir back to all his rights as a CH. Meaning of
reconciliation in A922.
Supposed the disinheritance of Ron was effective. Talagang adultery
with the stepmom. Ron will not get inheritance, so who will get what
he’s supposed to inherit. If he has children, then his legitimate children
takes his place i.e. representation. That’s A923. Eh namana ng anak ni
Ron. Si Ron ang gagamit. But the disinherited parent shall not have
usufruct/administration of property which constitutes the legitime as
well as inheritance.
GROUNDS for CHILDREN
1. Attempt against the life - Found guilty must be by final judgment.
Unless convicted with finality, presumed innocent for which he
shall not be penalized.
2. Require a formal complaint? How about accusation of crime given
verbally captured by media and aired over by broadcast medium?
E.g. si Gonzales the deputy ombudsman. Binigyan ko nga P150K
yan eh inaccuse of birbery. Sufficient ba yan kung ang nag-aaccuse
eh anak? Must there be a formal charge? E.g. nagtestify lang yung
anak sa charge, became inevitable for child to declare under oath
a fact that constitutes an accusation of crime against the father.
Acccusation must be found groundless, who must find that?
Court/official proceeding that will declare accusation groundless.
Nasa comment yan.
3. Nadiscuss na natin yan.
4. Walang problema jan.
5.
6. Define “maltreatment” is cold treatment? Hindi sinasagot ang
text, phone. Walang hi hello etc. deadma si mommy. Is that
maltreatment? Some writers WON maltreatment viewed from
POV of T kasi sha ang nasasaktan. Pano yung pochero. Is that
maltreatment? Yes sabi ni Baviera. Kaya kapag nagsabi sha ng
gusto niya ng ganito, bigyan niyo na!
7. To a testator, pwedeng disgraceful ang mga bagay noong unang
panahon e.g. showbiz
Page 56 of 72
8. Civil interdiction is a penalty imposed by RPC, not SPL. Crimes
committed as penalized in the RPC.
GROUNDS for PARENT
1. Abandonment meaning in FC. 3 months sa FC failed to
communicate or provide support to tell other spouse the
whereabouts. May 3 months ba dito? Maybe we can use if there’s
definition in the child abuse law. Maybe we cannot use that as a
rule unless show that child abuse law is curative to fill in gaps.
Ibinugaw. Pano kung si Ron ang ibinugaw? May dilemma tayo jan.
under a915, grounds expressly stated by law. Dito naman hindi
kasali ang son, grandson. Pwede bang lalaki ang ibugaw? Wala
pang kaso yan, but writers say, nagkamali lang kasi at the time na
ginawa ang CC, hindi pa raw uso ang callboy. Panahon pa ni Alex
the Great, Julius Caesar. Yun ay mga companions lang. even
Achilles, he has a relationship with a cousin. Dun sa Troy sha yung
pinatay. Companions of the same sex nila. Braveheart crown
prince. James I, son of Mary Queen of Scotts, cousin of Elizabeth,
sa kanya pinangalan ang KJ version of Bible. While successor to
Elizabeth the 1. Shows my love of English history. Unheard of daw
prostitution of male during time drafted or promulgated during
the law. Ngayon hindi na sha unheard of. Maybe we should adjust
interp of provisions in order to give life to it. Interpret in a way
that will give life to each and every word. The letter that giveth
life, not the interpretation.
NB Only CH are disinherited. For that disinheritance to be effective, it
has to be done in a valid will.
Suppose Ron remained a bachelor, did not marry. No gf, meron shang
companion. Naubo ka sir. Where a person dies without CH, who will
inherit from him? As GR legal heirs inherit from him i.e. relatives within
5th degree of consaguinity. Including kapatid, pamangkin, apo sa
pamangkin, great grand children sa pamangkin.
A1 - B1
|
H2 C2 D0 (Ron)
|
E3
|
F4
|
G5 – great grand nieces/nephews
So kung ayaw niya pamanahan si C, pwede kay companion, Boy
Abunda. Who was that FBI director who had a companion. Yung flag
nasa companion. Then he has to make will to anybody of his choice.
Valid yun because he has no CH. A person who has CH may give
everything to anybody of his choice. Entire estate is free. Pwede ba
reklamo mga kapatid? Hindi pwede kasi hindi CH.
Suppose ang ginawa lang niya ay… Mejo galit si Ron kay H kasi lagi
shang inaasar. Galit ako sa punyetang yan. So Ron made a will with
only 1 provision. None of my properties shall ever go to my brother H.
Did not specify a reason.
Will the brother H inherit when Ron dies? No, hindi naman kailangan
idisinherit ang brother kasi CH lang ang dinidisinherit. That is called an
“exclusion.” A legal heir may be excluded from inheritance by the
testator. No ground is necessary, a valid will alone is sufficient to
exclude him from the inheritance. Later on when we reach intestacy,

you will find out who the legal heirs are. May isang heredero jan na di
pwedeng iexclude from his inheritance. We meet again on Wednesday:
Legacies and devises, just read the comments. They are considered as
insituttion (specifically secondary institution of heirs)
Go straight to intestacy on Wednesday.
22 September 2010
INTESTATE SUCCESSION
Just to raise our discussion in the proper context, in testamentary
succession, if the testator has no CH, then there are no legitimes to be
impaired. The estate of the testator is free for his disposition. But if
there are CH and CH are instituted, the legitime of the CH are deemed
included in the institution. The excess will be considered chargeable
against the FP. If there are legacies and devises, not inofficious if not
exceed FP. If they exceed, then those legacies have to be reduced.
Hindi inofficious yung term, dapat pang-donations lang yun. If
decedent dies with out a will, then how do we distribute his estate. We
distribute his estate to his legal heirs (LH). When does intestacy occur?
If you will look at NCC, there is no provision which tells us what
intestacy is. There is an enumeration of the cases when intestacy will
occur but there is no definition of what intestacy is. The original draft
of the NCC used by the Code Comission as its working paper has a
definition of intestacy. If my memory is correct, the definition is that
which proceeds when decedent dies without a valid will. Definition
was not adopted by Code Commission because of its being inaccurate.
“Dying without a valid will” that is not accurate because the testator
may have left a will and yet all of his estate shall be distributed by way
of intestacy. When will that happen? Suppose when executed a will
with only one provision i.e. disinheritance of a CH. OR testator left
behind a will but the institutions therein because CH in the direct line
was subject of preterition, all those institutions in the will shall be
allowed and nothing in the will to implement. Therefore the entire
estate of the decedent will be distributed by way of intestacy yet the
decedent left behind a valid will. Because of inaccuracy of definition,
code commission decided not to adopt it.
What do you think is the better definition? Tolentino and other writers,
they simply enumerated instances when intestacy will happen.
A960 four instances when intestate succession shall take place. Is the
enumeration exclusive? NO. There are other instances where intestate
succession takes place. In the absence of a will, who shall receive the
estate of the decedent? The legal heirs. Who are the legal heirs?
1. Legitimate ascendants
2. IP
3. LC and D
4. Illegitimate children
5. Surviving spouse
6. BSNieces Nephews
7. Other collateral relatives within 5th civil degree of
consaguinity
8. State
Observation: you must have observed that all CH are LH. But not all LH
are CH. The collateral relatives are not CH but they are LH. How do
these LH inherit? Do all of them concur with each other? In the OCC,
the system of intestate succession was one of exclusion. It was not a
system of concurrence. Only one class of heirs will inherit, all the
Page 57 of 72
others will be excluded. Di pwede magsabay ang dalawang classes of
heirs. That was understandable because under OCC, illegitimate
children did not have any successional rights. Neither did the surviving
spouse. SS if at all was entitled to a mere usufruct of the estate of the
deceased spouse should legit children survive. So sino lang LH under
OCC? Only two. LA, LC and collateral relatives within 3 rd degree of
consanguinity.
Under the NCC, inasmuch as illegit children were given inheritance
rights as well as the surviving spouse. Strict application of exclusionary
rule will be harsh. For this reason, the NCC has tempered the
exclusionary rule by providing for some concurrences of LH. There are
some situations where LH will concur with each other in the
inheritance of the decedent.
LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS
If the decedent is survived by nobody but his LA, only the LA are CH.
They are entitled to receive the entire estate. That is their intestate
share in the estate. The entire estate. BUT since LA are also CH, they
will receive the inheritance in two characters. First, in the character as
CH, in the character of legitime. Second one, they will receive the FP. In
the character of intestate share. The intestate share therefore
provided in the law necessarily includes the legitime. Pag ½ of the
entire estate, kasama yung legitime at the same time testamentary
disposition. ERGO, suppose Ron died and he was survived by nobody
but his parents, who will receive the inheritance of Ron? His parents.
How much? Entire estate. Half of the estate they’ll receive as their
legitime, half they will receive by intestate succession. That part
responds to the FP.
Suppose Ron was survived by grandparents and parents. Who are the
LH? Only the parents are the legal heirs. Why? Because we follow a
rule in intestacy that the more remote is excluded by those who are
nearer in degree. In legitimes, legitimes reserved by law for the
legitimate ascendants is divided equally between paternal and
maternal line. The same applies in intestacy. Dinidivide din natin yung
intestate estate equally between maternal and paternal line.
Among the legitimate ascendants, the nearer excludes the more
remote. Suppose the legit ascendants/parents of Ron concur with his
brothers and sisters of Ron. Who are the LH? All of them are LH but not
all of them are entitled to inherit. Nakalista diba? Not all of them will
inherit. Among the LH, we apply rules of intestacy.
What is the first rule? Direct line excludes the collateral. Direct line
yung parents tapos collateral lang brother or sister. Only parents
inherit the entire estate of Ron.
Suppose the legitimate ascendants concur with the legit children of
Ron, who will inherit? Legit asc are excluded by legit desc.
We follow the second rule: Among the relatives in the direct line, the
descending excludes the ascending. Only the legit children will inherit.
What will the legit children receive? The entire estate, to be divided
among themselves equally. Each desc will receive the inheritance in
two characters. The first as his legitime, the 2nd as his share in the FP.
Why do I keep on saying “share in the FP”? in intestacy, you should
know who got the FP because they are responsible for paying the
legacies and devises. Kasi nga laging sa FP kukunin yun. Pwedeng
magkaron ng legacy and devises kahit na intestacy. E.g. may will pero
nakalagay lang eh legacy and devises tas intestacy na. pay in
proportion of their shares in the FP. Those with bigger part, shall share
a bigger part of the legacy.
 Page 58 of 72

ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS
Not only are legacies and devises are chargeable against the FP. In the case of legit “ascendants” pero pag illegit, “parents” lang. kasi
Donation inter vivos given during lifetime are chargeable against FP. they will be barred by A992.
This is the reason when the donation exceeded the FP, the donation is
inofficious and must be reduced because there’s no excess in which it F* - G*
can be charged against. |
D ------ A - B*
ALWAYS REMEMBER in INTESTACY: Who received the FP? How much | |
of the FP was received? E C

Suppose the legit asc concur with illegit children. Who will inherit? It * - legitimate relative
will not be wise to make the illegit children exclude the legit asc.
Mashadong revolutionary ang reform. Dati rati hindi nagmamana ang A loves B but had extracurricular activities with D. A has child with D
illegit children tas ngayon pati magulang maeexclude na. hindi naman which is recognized. Pumirma.
pwede iexclude ng parents yung anak. Anak pa rin yun. Pero hindi rin
pwedeng parehong rights sila. Babangon si JBL Reyes, sha ang IF A will die, may E inherit from A? YES. What will he inherit? His
champion ng gradation of rights of illegit and legit children. lahat ng legitime and in case of intestacy, he is entitled to share in the intestate
doctrinal cases were penned by JBL Reyes. Clemena v Clemena, part. CH and LH sha.
Matabuena v Cervantes (donation between common law spouses is
void although there’s no provision in the CC) Enrique Fernando penned Suppose F dies. Then A dies. Can C inherit from A? Yes. F? Yes. Legit
that but cited as authority a decision by JBL Reyes in the CA. San ka desc. How about E, may he inherit from F? NO, under A992.
nakakaita ng ganyan? SC decision citing a CA case. Sabi ni JBL, di pwede
pareho ang rights ng illegit at legit. Put premium on legit relationship. A992: the iron curtain bar. Binigyan ng mana ang illegit children pero
hindi pa rin kinonsider ng batas na sila ay kapamilya ng legitimate
Ano na ngayon ang kanilang intestate share? Legit asc ½ and illegit family.  the illegit child is not a member of the legit family of the
children get the other half of the estate. Who got the FP? Nakakuha illegit parent.
ban g FP yung legit asc? Nope. Because their legitime in that
concurrence is ½ of the estate. Eh diba the intestate share also An illegit child cannot inherit “ab intestate” by intestacy from the legit
includes the legitime. What is the legitime of the ilelgit children? ¼ of relatives of his illegit parent. And vice versa. i.e. F, G, B and C cannot
estate. Leaving ¼ of the FP. Pero in intestate, magkano nakuha nila, ½ inherit from E.
of the estate. Lumaki diba? Kasi nakuha nila lahat FP na ¼. Ergo, pag
may legacy at devises, illegitimate children lang magbabayad nun to Because of A992 imposible magkaron ng illegitimate “ascendants”.
the extent of FP that they received.
There is a situation however where the illegit ascendant will inherit.
In CH, adopted child concurring with legit parents/asc. Will adopted E.g. A is also illegit child of B. A has wife and then had an affair.
children exclude the legit parents? YES, that has been decided by the
SC already.
B – illegitimate ascendant
Suppose the legit asc concur with surviving spouse. Who are the LH?
|
All of them are LH. Will all of them inherit? YES. Ganun din ang
D ---- A - C - Kiko
dilemma nila. SS cannot exclude the parents. Dugo pa rin ang
| |
nanay/tatay. Di pwedeng exclude . Win win formula. ½ of estate to LA.
E F - rankie
Other half to other ss. In intestacy. The entire estate is distributed
among legal heirs entitled to inherit. To whom does FP go? No.
Sharon is an illegitimate daughter.
because their legitime is only ½. Ano ba legitime ni SS in that situation?
D is Gabby, sir’s cousin
1/4 . so ¼ ang remaining sa FP. Mnapupunta lahat yank ay SS.
B is Mommy Elaine. A is Shawee. E is KC.
Suppose the legit asc concur with ss and the illeg children. ano ang
Namatay si A and B. E may inherit from mommy Elaine because
kanilang intestate sharing.
mommy Elaine is not a legitimate relative of shawee.
½ legit asc
How about Frankie? No, she may not inherit from mommy Elaine.
¼ ss
Sharon is an illegit child. And as an illegit child, she cannot inherit from
¼ illegitimate children.
the legitimate relatives and neither may legitimate relatives from the
Sino nakakuha ng FP? Nakakuha ba legit asc? Hindi kasi ½ din legitime
illegitimate child.
nila? Hindi rin illegit children.
Magkano ba FP? 1/8. Kanino napunta itong FP? Surivivng spouse!
MAGULO PO SIR.  Sir retracts. F is still illegitimate as far as B is
½, ¼, ¼ therefore if there are legacies and devises, only the wife is
concerned. Makakainherit si F. hindi mag-aapply si 992 sa kanya. When
bound to pay them to the extent of 1/8 FP that she is supposed to
we reach representation, we will discuss why.
receive by way of intestacy.
Hanggang illegitimate parent lang. walang illegitimate ascendants. The
Suppose the legit asc concur with BSNN. Excluded no. For the same
ascednatns will be barred by A992, the exception is the KC lineage.
reason, legit asc all other collateral relatives and also the state from
the inheritance.
 Page 59 of 72

IF illegitimate parents concur with legitimate children. Illegit parents

are excluded. LC receive the entire estate. Get the inheritance in two A - B
characters. |
C D E
Suppose illegti parents concur with illegitimate children, they are also
excluded. Illegit children receive entire estate as their inheritance, Net estate is = 120 M
again in two characters. Distribute the estate.
Who are the heirs? All the four are LH.
If illegit parents + SS  IP = ½ of estate, SS gets the other half. Who got Magkano ang hatian?
the FP? Two of them receive the FP. Sa ganitong combination, ¼ and ¼
sila. Pinaghatian nila ang FP of ½. Heirs Intestate shares Total (new intestate sharing)
C 1 30
Suppose illegit parents concur with BSNN: exclude the collateral they D 1 30
are latter. Same reason the illegit parent also exclude other collateral E 1 30
relatives and the estate. B 1 30
4 120

LEGITIMATE CHILDREN Ihuli si SS kasi mas mataas ang priority ng legit descendants.
When only legit children survived, then they are the only LH. In case of Divide 120/4 = 30
intestacy, they get the entire estate as their entire inheritance, shared Then check if legitime of legit children was impaired?
equally regardless of marraiage they came from. All children will be at LLC = ½ E = ½ (120) = 60
par with each other, all of them legitimate children. They will receive L1LC = 60/3 = 20
inheritance in 2 characters, legitime and share in the FP. Eh nakakuha sha ng 30 so this distribution stands.
Suppose they concur with the the illegit children, all of them are LH. BUT suppose only one child.
They will share the estate in such manner that one illegit child shall
receive half the share of one legitimate child. One illegit child will share
A - B
half of one legit child. In all cases, legitimes of the LC shall be
|
respected.
C
E.g.
Estate is 120M
How to distribute intestate estate of the husband? If you still
A
remember in legitimes, the legitime of the spouse varies. From ½ to
|illegit | 1/8. When the SS survives with 1 legitimate child, yung kanyang
CDE B legitime nagiging ¼ lang kasi pag pinareho na ½, mawawalang ng FP. In
intestancy, there’s a rule when spouse survives with children. But
If net estate = 120M there’s no similar rule when spouse survives with only one child. So
Died intestate. Dapat share nito doble ng share nito. how to distribute the estate? If we apply the rule for spouse with
Listing down who the heirs are: children. ANo magigign hatian jan?
Heirs Intestate shares Total (new intestate sharing)
B = ½ E = 60
B 2 48 60
C = ½ E = 60
C 1 24 20
D 1 24 20
E 1 24 20 Sabi ng ibang writers, this is unfair. Entire portion of ¼ was given to the
5 120 SS. Hindi nag-improve yung inheritance ng legit child.
Ano ba gusto niyong hatian?
Divide 120 into 5 parts. Give legitimes: B gets 60, C gets 30. 30 yung FP na natira.
But we’ll have to check if the legitime of legit children has been 1. Jurado: Paghatian yung FP na natira. B gets 75 and C gets 45.
impaired i.e. B = ½ E = ½ (120) = 60 2. Gawin nating pro-rata na 60 30 sila. B is 80 and C gets 40.
So dapat ang makukuha ni B ay not less than 60 so we scratch this and 3. Senator Padilla (who didn’t want to adopt the changes
modify the distrib so B will get 60. introduced by NCC): dapat jan excluded na SS. Ibigay lang sa
The remaining 60, yun lang ang paghahatian nilang tatlo. kanyang ang legitime, then entire FP goes to child. Apply the
exclusionary rule. B gests 90 and
Hindi pwedeng bawasan ang legitime ng legit children. dapat laging
buo kaya poprotektahan palagi. Which sharing is correct one? SC has already spoken in Santillon v
Miranda. Hatiin yan ng hati. Yun gprovision of the code which gives the
Suppose concur: LC+D and SS wife same share as one legit child shall apply. Tag ½ sila. Tolentino
Ang nakalagay sa Code: when the spouse survives with LC, the SS shall (valedictorian, weightlifting team, upsi, senate president) and Padilla
have the same share as that of one legit child or descendant. (salutatorian, basketball team, apb, majority floor leader) were
Kung pareho pala, dapat para shang anak kung magmamana sha. classmates in this college. Lagi akong di manalo dito kay Padilla, lagi na
lang ako number 2 dito kay Tolentino. Ayun, naunang namatay si
Illustration. Padilla. Mas maraming asawa si Tolentiono.
 Page 60 of 72

SS = ½
When the LC concur with IC and SS: all of them are intestate heirs. How BSNN = ½
do we share the inheritance? They will share in such a way that the If there are full/half blood; half blood gets half share of 1 full blood.
surivivng spouse shall get eh same share as one legitimate child and Rule in intestacy.
one illegit child shall get half the share of one legit child.
Suppose walang BSNN but concurs with OCR5, who are intestate heirs?
Illustration: Only the spouse. Spouse excludes all OCR5.

A - B Spouse concurs with only one group of legal heirs, i.e. BSNN.
|illegit |
D C GR: All CH (any of CH) excludes all the LH,
EXCEPT: SS who concurs with BSNN.
Estate = 120M
Poor pa ang 120M ngayon. Hindi ka pa mayaman. Wala pang bahay sa Kaya halimbawa, just to be sure that you understood. We have to
Forbes Park. P250M ang isang bahay dun. Ikaw na ang mayaman sir. illustrate that principle by example.

Heirs Intestate shares Total (new intestate sharing) D - E

C 2 48 60 |
B 2 48 48 C A - B
D 1 24 12 |
5 120 120
F
|
G
Check whether legitime of legit child was impaired? ½ of 120 = 60
Hindi niya nakuha kasi 48 lang. so magkano dapat?
Only B and G survived. What is relationship between A and G?
Pano na hahatiin yung remaining 60 between SS and illegit child?
Grandnephew. Therefore, only B will inherit.
Prefer the SS. Yung natira sa FP, kay SS muna ibigay tas kung ano
Make up class on Friday, same schedule? Very good.
matira, kay D na.
In case estate is not sufficient to pay legitime of heirs, illegitimate heir
suffers the reduction. 23 September 2010
RECONSTRUCTED FROM WRITTEN NOTES
Illustration: Damihan natin yung anak ni A.

A - B
RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION
|illegit |
FG CDE
A - B
Heirs Intestate shares Total (new intestate sharing) |
C 2 24 20 – legitime; 4 - FP C DP ER
D 2 24 20 – legitime; 4 – FP | | |
E 2 24 20 – legitime; 4 – FP F GH IJK
B 2 24 20 – legitime; 4 – FP
F 1 12 10 – legitime; 2 – FP A died survived by everyone. Who are A’s heirs? B is like bawang,
G 1 12 10 – legitime; 2 – FP laging sahog. CDE concur with their mom. Granchildren excluded
because more remote.

Check impairment of legitime Suppose D predeceased A survived by BSNN. Who will inherit?
L LC = ½ of 120 = 60
L LC1 = 60/3 = 20 Makakainherit ba si D? No, kasi condition na buhay at the time of A’s
Since 24 > 20;  Distribution has to be respected. death. EXCEPT: Fetus inside womb, but must be alive at birth.
Magkano yung share received from the FP? 4 Who inherits then? C&E exclude GH more remote, BUT BECAUSE OF
REPRESENTATION, they’ll take the place of D. they now become 1° and
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN NOT EXCLUDED anymore. They can get what D’s supposed to receive
If they survive alone: they get everything BUT must be recognized had he inherited.
properly.
If they concur with BSNN: BSNN are exluded. NB: REPRESENTATION takes place in DIRECT LINE in DESCENDING and
NOT in ascending line.
SURVIVING SPOUSE
Suppose C dies ahead of A. His ¼ goes to F. E dies ahead of A, IJK gets
If they survive alone: entire estate goes to him. Sha lang natira. Asawa
their parent’s ¼. Is it not unfair to IJK that they have only 1/12
lang!
compared with F’s ¼? No, they should only take share of respective
But suppose SS and BSNN: Under the law, the SS concurs with BSNN.
parents. Kasalanan ng tatay niyo yan. This is called “per stirpes”
 Page 61 of 72

Descendants in direct line have right of representation, EXCEPT in

Now suppose A dies buhay lahat sila. E repudiated the inheritance kasi case of repudiation.
masama loob niya. May tumatanggi ba sa mana? 100 ha mother of
Gibo refused inheritance from aunt kasi sakit lang sa ulo yan. A - B
|
Who inherits? CD not E. How about IJK? Ayaw ni Daddy, so kami na CR DR ER
lang? No representation in repudiation. | | |
F G H I J K
Suppose estate is 120M, we divide by scratching E. In eyes of law, he | | | | | |
does not exist. 2 na lang ang anak niya. Everything computed on the LM N O PQ R S
basis na 2 lang ang anak. Ano legitime nina CD? Tumaas ang legitime
from 1/6 to ¼. Pag D repudiates too, C gets ½ legitime, illegit children How to compute the share of SS? Use the 3 children or shares of
becomes problem. grandchildren?
If predeceased – always per stirpes.
B – 40 If repudiate – per capita, in their own right.
C – 40
D – 40 Order of interstate succession: A996 says “children”
Distribution respected. Of with legitime  A892 2nd par says “children or descendants”
Intestate share of the SS on basis of number of children. maski
Check if legitime impaired: magrepudiate sila, children pa rin.
LC1 = 20  okay lang since 20 ≥ 40 PROBLEM: When all the children repudiates.
= ½ (120) = 60; 60/2 children = 30 IF only one repudiates, 2 yung anak. Pag si D rin, 1 anak. Pag lahat sila,
0 na yung anak. So the 3 can easily prejudice their stepmom B because
ehtey can lower her inheritance by repudiation.
Another example.
Follow Tolentino’s wise comments: Compute on the basis of the
A - B D - E number of children even if it would make us inconsistent.
| |
C - F If we follow Arthur’s formula:
| B=¼
G Grandchildren share on the remaining ¾
If not:
May A & B represent C to inherit together with F? NO, representation B = 1/7
is only allowed in favor of the descending line. Grandchildren share with 1/7

Now suppose: Wala kasing provision in law. Cf A999 and 996.

A P2 - B Appreciate application of this problem.

| Exam: you’re free to choose whichever, if you have another
C D P1 E interpretation, we’ll consider.
| | |
F GH I R JK In their own right inherit, may LM represent for F? Yes, it wasn’t F who
| | repudiated. Represent F in the inheritance of A.
L M
| NB A982 descendants always inherit by right of representation except
N- in repudiation.

Who inherits? ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN

B – Shempre as bawang.
F – No, inexcluded by C A - B
D – patay na, but represented by H | |
May L represent G? Yes, in direct descending line, representation is ad Dillegit C
infinitum. Basta may descendant, pasa yung right to inherit. H&L now | |
has the same degree. Eleg Fillegit Hleg Gillegit
E may be represented by JK
Pwede ba magrepresent si M? No, nagrepudiate tatay mo eh, ergo CD predeceased. We distribute A’s estate.
putol ang right of representation. May D represent E in inheritance of A? Look at legitime A902?
Transmitted to own heirs.
Nung namatay si E, nirepudiate ni I yung mana kay E. May I represent Legitime of illegit child – there is representation A902. Intestate
for E in A’s estate? YES. portion, is there representation, A989.

May C be represented by H? YES

 Page 62 of 72

By G? No, barred by A992 Strict application of Teotico: Pwede magpakasal.

Illegitimate cannot inherit from legitimate relatives of illegitimate
parent.
Eh bakit si E? Kanya-kanyang linis ng kalat yan. While E is legitimate
child of D, as far as A is concerned, E is also illegitimate. Lahat ng anka
ni D ay illegitimate. Kung di nagkalat si A ng D, eh di sana, hindi rin
illegit si E. PERO hindi kasalanan ni A ang kalat ni C i.e. G.
Law says D and E cannot marry.
How about A and E? DLC does not agree: May kinalaman si A sa pag-
ampon kay C.
Suppose C dies ahead of A. A cannot marry D. Wait, kung purely
personal pala, bakit bawal to? Absurd kung affinity, not allowed tas
yung blood relative pwede.

NB in representation: Representative must be legal heir of relative who
he represents and also the relative from whome he seeking to inherit.
 DOUBLE LEGAL REPRESENTING.
G must be legal heir of C, but barred by 992 to represent to A.
Relating this to succession: C predeceased A. May E represent C in A’s
inheritance? Under the law, C became legitimate child of A, as such C is
entitled to all rights of legitimate child e.g. to be represented by own
heirs whether legitimate child or illegitimate chld. Therefore, DLC’s
opinion: E may represent C in A’s inheritance.

E is LH of D and A. (allowed by 989 and 902).
F may also represent D and A.  Representation in favor of illegitimate
children.
HOWEVER, F still gets only half of E.  Good point by Joni. Gradation
of rights, even if in the eyes of law, both illegitimate as to A.
I can’t remember which diagram Cel’s good question refers to: What if
illegit children both repudiated, who will inherit? Not G, only EFH. How
should they share? Illegit – ½ of LC’s share. Give me your answer to
that later.
Same way that adopted child may be preterited. Because she is a direct
descendant by fiction of law. One right of the legitimate child is not to
be subject of preterition.
Is there representation in the collateral line? Yes, there is
representation, but limited lang - A975.
Principles:
1. Representation allowed in collateral line, but in favor only of
nephews and nieces. ERGO…

ADOPTION A - B
|
A married when she was only 18 yo C D E F
| | | |
B (abaeng anak), 40yo G H I J K L
} adopted | | |
C M N O

A to B: mag-alaga ka na lang ng aso! Wag ka na mag-ampon. Pag suwail
yan, di na pwede itapon (since no more rescission of adoption allowed
now). Topo topo barega didila sa baga. Over the consent of her father,
B adopted C who turned out to be a magandang bata, kahawig ni Maja
Salvador. Naging doctor, nagdebut si C. Napansin ni A, maganda tong
naampon ni B. nagkasakit si A, sabi ni B, dun ka na lang kay Dr. C!
Ano nangyari after? Mapurol ang imagination ni Ron at Annie! Those
who say they can’t marry, babagsak kayo sa bar.
There are no relatives by adoption. Not prohibited by law for adopting
parent’s parent to marry the adopted child! Personal relation only to
adopted and adoptive. They can marry!
B died ahead of A, may C represent B in inheritance of A? Teotico v del
Val. C is LH of B, no doubt after adoption, C is LC of B. But C is not LH of
A. strangers of each other. RULE: Double legitimacy for representation.
Who are C’s legal heirs? No ascendant/descendant. Brothers and
sisters.
- D may be represented.
- G died ahead of C, may M represent G? No way, nephews
and nieces only.
Suppose E dies, too.  HI may represent.
F predeceases, too. JKL? No. only if there’s living aunt or uncle.
If all brothers and sisters died ahead of the decedent, no more
representation, in own right as nearest surviving relative. Per capita na.
G is scratched. Only HIJKL in own right.
If you’re a bright student, A975 – repudiate/survive.
E only living repudiates, cannot be represented. FD predeceased,
physical survival ba ang A975?

REVERSE THE SITUATION: Para makita niyo pinagngangangawa ko dito.

A - B A - B
}adopted |
C - D C D E F G
| | | | |
E – became a doktora H I J K L M N O

C: Dad dun ka sa hospital ni E. Ano nangyari? Ani says: nadevelop sila! How will HJMNO inherit in view of F’s repudiation? Bakit di kasali si KL?
You are the guy we’re looking for! By their own right na diba?

DLC: Survive is not physical. Survive = inheriting together. Apply
representation in A975. Favorite ko to!
27 September 2010
Representation as a matter of law?
May a testator provide for representation in favor of his testamentary
heirs? YES, but it’s not called representation, but “substitution” occur
as matter of testamentary provision. But in such case, it’s not
representation, but substitution.
We are now in provisions common to both testate and intestate
succession.
RIGHT OF ACCRETION
What do we mean by accretion? A1015. This is the definition of
accretion among testamentary heirs. There is accretion among those
designated as heirs in the will.
Is there accretion in intestate succession? Yes, A1018
Meron ding accretion in favor of compulsory heirs in A1021.
DLC: 1st par of A1021 is incomprehensible. Parang may kulang.
What is accretion? When the testator instituted or designated 2 or
more persons as heirs to the same inheritance pro indiviso, the share
of one of those heirs who may have [1] predeceased, [2] repudiated or
[3] become incapacitate will go to the other co-heirs. That is called
accretion.
Illustration:
“I institute X, Y and Z to my entire estate.”
Assuming that T has no CH and he died AND assuming XYZ are all alive
at the time of his death. Who will inherit entire estate? XYZ
How will they share? Apply the rule. Equality in the absence of
designation of shares. Tag-wa 1/3 silang lahat.
Change the factual situation. Suppose X predeceased the testator, BUT
despite X having died, testator did not bother to change his will. X was
survived by his own children, ABC. After the death of the testator, who
are entitled to inherit? Will ABC represent X in the inheritance of the
testator? NO because there’s no representation in testamentary
succession. Eh wala ring substitution so ABC cannot inherit either.
Tandaan niyo ito. NO REPRESENTATION IN TESTAMENTARY
SUCCESSION.
If Y is alive, then Y is entitled to inherit. Same goes for Z. Question:
Who gets X’s share? It shall go to Y and Z by accretion.
How will they share? The portion that was supposed to be received by
X? IN equal shares.
Now, suppose the will says:
“I institute to my entire estate: X = ½, Y = ¼ and Z = ¼.”
Z predeceased T. May the heirs of Z represent? No, no representation
in testamentary succession.
Who will now inherit? Who gets Z’s share? To X and Y by accretion.
Because you have to look at A1017. Underline the word “determinate”
… shall not exclude the right of accretion.
Page 63 of 72
Pwede pa ring magkaroon ng accretion. How do they distribution Z’s
share now? They share it 2 is to 1. Get the common denominator. 2/3
go to X and 1/3 go to Y. Add 2 and 1.
2/4 = ½
¼
Kaya may math sa LAE. Because of succession.
New problem:
“I institute x to ½, y to ¼ and z to remaining ¼ of the estate.”
When Z predeceases, will share of Z go to x and y by accretion? NO.
Tell me the difference between the previous and current example.
Ano ba mga requirements for accretion to take place? Heirs must be
instituted to the same inheritance, pro indiviso.
In the first will the phrasing “entire estate” means that testator
intended that the estate go to nobody but the three.
In the second will, not the same inheritance. ½ of X is different from ¼
of Y and Z.
Change the first will: “I institute X, Y and Z to my entire estate such that
X ½, Y ¼ and Z ¼.”  readily see intention to give estate to nobody but
XYZ.
While given aliquot part, we don’t know what properties comprise that
portion.
Another example: “I give ½ of my estate to ABC.”
Will there be accretion in favor of coheirs? Of course, intention is same
inheritance, i.e. the ½
“I institute my 10M bank deposit to X, Y and Z.”
Accretion in the legacy? Yes, because testator gave the entire 10M to
the three.
Pero kung ganito:
“I institute ½ of my 10M bank deposit to A, the other half to B.”
No accretion because not instituted to the same inheritance. They get
different half. It might be pro indiviso, but not the same inheritance.
ACCRETION in LEGAL/INTESTATE SUCCESSION – A1018
Comparing 1015 and 1018:
1. 1015 has three scenarios (predeceased, repudiation and
incapacity) Actually incapacity is a catch-all provision.
2. 1018 only repudiation because as GR in legal succession,
there is representation. Therefore, the share of the interstate
heir who predeceased will go to hisown heirs by right of
representation. No right of representation in case of
repudiation.
COMPULSORY SUCCESSION
See 1st par of 1021 – may “only” pa eh.
Why? I don’t understand the “FP given to 2 or more, 1 or more of them
AND a stranger.” I still have yet to come up with a proper
interpretation. Bakit limited lang sa situation na ito?
A - W
|
BR C
|
D E
Will: “Entire estate”
1/3 to B
 Page 64 of 72

1/3 to C 200
1/3 to W B 1/3 = 80

Estate – 240 M Coincidence lang na pareho. Pero pag illegitimate child na yung isa,
B repudiated. mag-iiba na yan.
Distribute the estate.

NB since B is aCH, his repudiation applies to both his legitime and his Another example. Lagyan natin ng illegitimate na anak.
share in the intestate party. Pero wala dahil nga the entire estate
disposes of it. A - W
|illegit |
Yung testamentary part, is that covered by his repudiation? YES, E D BR C
because unless qualified repudiation, it is total i.e. entire inheritance. |
Pede bang partial repudiation? Later go there. As a rule, repudiation is F Gillegit
total.
Walang will, intestate tayo ngayon.
How did Jurado solve this problem? A had 2 legit by W, B and C.
D predeceased A but survived by own heir F.
HEIRS Will Since B repudiated Total
B 1/3 = 80 0 Estate = 240 M
C 1/3 = 80 40 120
W 1/3 = 80 40 120 JURADO SOLUTION

HEIRS Intestate shares Distribute B’s share Total

Is there something wrong with this? YES, legitime that is part of what by accretion
was repudiated was included. It should go in his own right. B 2 60
How to do that? C 2 60 20 80
W 2 60 20 80
Tanggalin na si B. DANICON SOLUTION E 1 30 10 40
D 1 30 10 40
HEIRS Will Legitimes, considering By accretion Total 8
B’s repudiation
C 1/3 = 80 120 20 140 Wrong ito. Dinistribute niya legitime ni B among other CH by accretion.
W 1/3 = 80 60 legit, 20 fp 20 100 DLC opinion: the correct opinion I’m sure. In order to comply with 2 nd
200 par of 1021. Solve this problem like this.
B 1/3 = 80
Remove B already.
Provisions respected only if legitimes were not impaired. HEIRS Intestate shares Legitimes Reducing, new distribution
Ano ba legitime ni C? ½LC = 120 (eh isa na lang shang anak!) not in C 2 80 120 120
their accretion but in own right. Lumaki legitime ni C. W 2 80 20 FP; 60 60
Wife’s legitime = ¼ E = 60 legitime
E 1 40 60 30
What was giving B under will is 80. The 1/3 given him is considered D 1 40 60 30; by representation
given to a stranger, therefore chargeable againt FP. But since it (F – 20; G – 10)
6 300 – Sobra.
impaired legitime, it is reduced. B should have gotten 40. That
Di pwede.
becomes a vacant share that goes by accretion to the co-heirs (1018).
Who are the co-heirs in intestacy, C and W. they share alike.
Check whether legitimes have been impaired. LC = 240/2 = 120. Hindi
pwede itong distribution, 80 lang nakuha niya. 120 kasi C acquired in
Cannot go accretion, but in their own right. DApat alisin na yung
own right the legitime that was supposed to go to B.
legitime ni B. Testamentarydisposition is considered as given to
stranger, i.e. chargeable against FP. Napunta sa kanya yung legitime in
So babaan ba natin si Misis? She’s supposed to receive 80. San natin
his own right and not by accretion.
kukunin yung discrepancy na 40 ni C. It shall come from the FP. Wala
na nga FP. Kukunin natin ngayon sa illegitimate child. Matatangal ang
Coheirs sila kasi entire estate. Kung hindi coheirs, no accretion but
20 FP ni Misis.
instestacy.
1. Since intestacy, divide the estate to shares according to
SUPPOSE wala sa will yung “entire estate,” wala ring accretion.
provision of intestacy.
To whom 40 goes? It goes to intestacy.
E = 240/6 (number of shares)
2. Check for legitime. Isang anak nalang si C kasi nagrepudiate si
HEIRS Will Legitimes, considering Intestacy Total
B’s repudiation B. Had B not repudiated, C will only get 60. Tumaas kasi na-
C 1/3 = 80 120 20 140 acquire niya yung additional legitime in his own right.
W 1/3 = 80 60 legit, 20 fp 20 100 Nabawasan ng CH. We did not give it to him by accretion but
 Page 65 of 72

by operation of law i.e. in his own right. In compliance with

2nd par of 1021.
29 September 2010
3. Para mabayaran ng 120 legitime ni C, we need additional 40.
CONCEPCION SOLUTION to previous diagram.
Where to source it? From the FP. If the FP is not enough,
then reduce from the illegitimate children. NB legitime of ss
HEIRS Legitimes Will FINAL
is preferred over that of the illegit child. ISSUE: From 80, B 60 60
nabawasan ang kanyang inheritance by 20. W 30 60 30
C 30 30
BUT since D predeceased, to whom will his share go? To his Z 10
representative, F.
Suppose D has two children, one legit and another illegit. Kanino
mapupunta ang 30 ni D? Paghatian ni G and F, 2:1.  Hindi ba pareho Estate in the amount of 120M
sila illegit as far as A is concerned, but they are entitled to get what D is Nothing is left of the free portion to complete the 60 to bring the
supposed to inherit. Right to represent is not equal. All authors agreed inheritance of W to 60 as specified in the will.
on this point. Kailangan half-half rin sila. Kung may natira sana, z will be the first to be paid. If wala na natira,
wala na ring maibibigay arising from institution in favor of the wife.
Inheritance of B goes to D only because E is barred.
Another problem.

A - W Illustration again.
|illegit |
C B X - W
| |
Dlegit Eillegit A B

A left a will Will

W=½ W = ½ estate
Z nephew = 10M Z = legacy of 10M
B predeceased. So survived by Dlegit and Eillegit. Estate = 240M
Estate = 240M
Distribute the estate. HEIRS Legitimes Will Actual Final
A 60 60
Go to intestacy. May hindi nadispose na kalahati. It goes to the LH. BUT B 60 60
Should we include wife in the intestate wife when she’s been given W 60 60 50 110
Z - 10 10 10
with the ½ estate already? Following Manresa, kasama sha, ½ given to
180
her applies only to the FP and not the legitime. Pag binigay pa yung
legitime na ¼. Ang natira na lang ay…
Free portion = 240 – 180 = 60
Will provision: To complete W's ½, we need 60 more. That 60 more
MANRESA SOLUTION
comes from the FP. Since the FP is only 60, wala na natira sa 10 ni Z.
HEIRS Legitimes Legacy Institution Intestacy Total
but between insitution and legacy, legacy is preferred, so therefore,
B 120 - you only have to pay the 10, there is a balance of 50, marereduce ang
W 60 0 - institution in favor of W.
C 60 -
Z 0 - X - W
240 |
Aillegit
CAUTION this part.
1. Give legitimes first. Will
2. Remaining FP is 30M (240-210). Charge two institutions and W = ½ estate
legacy. Legacy is preferred over instituted heirs (they only get Z = legacy of 10M
the legacy). Donation intervivos DMC is preferred. 10M is Estate = 240M
preferred over the ½ institution.
3. According to Manresa. ½ of remaining free portion after HEIRS Legitimes Will If this Intestate
legacy deducted goes to wife. (30M – 10M = 20M) were shares w/
4. Remaining portion for intestacy. 10M intestacy legacy
W 80 40 120 115
A 80 120 115
Z 10 10
160

Free portion of 80 (240 – 160)

 Page 66 of 72

Remaining free portion after giving W’s ½ and Z’s 10 = 30 X had four children, ABCD, with two legitimate childrens each.
30 will be distributed by way of intestacy. In intestacy, do we still give
to W an intestate share when she was already given ½ of the estate. X
|
Ano ang lumalabas dun? Yun lang ang gusto niya ibigay kay W. the rest AP BR CI D
therefore should be given by way o fintestacy and the others given to | | | |
legal heirs. One interpretation ito. EF GH IJ KL

The other interpretation: After W has been paid, she should also be
included in the intestate part.
If we follow first interpretation, ibibigay natin kay W yung 120, because
that was given to her in the will. Hindi na sha kasali sa distribution of
the balance of the estate. Therefore, Z gets his 10…
X died, predeceased by A, B repudiated, C was incapacitated and D was
alive, kicking and qualified to inherit.
Will = instituting ABCD to the entire estate.
Left estate worth 720 M, distribute the estate.
Proceed to distribution. DANICON SOLUTION.

W 120 HEIRS Legitimes Wil Representation Accretion Final

A 110 l
Z 10 A 120 180 E - 90 60 E – 120
240 F - 90 F – 120
C 120 180 I - 90 60 I – 120
PROBLEM: Bakit yung 10 kinuha lang sa share ni A, bat di kumuha kay J - 90 J – 120
D 120 180 180 60 240
W. Justification: Legacy should first be taken from FP which was not
B - 180 - -
yet disposed in the will. Hanggang may FP not yet disposed of, all
those legacies shold be taken from those not yet disposed of. So sila
yung mauunang magbabayad. Papakialaman lang ang FP ni W if the FP
B is also in the table because there’s an institution but since he
not disposed of is not sufficient.
repudiated, it’s considered as given to a stranger.  institution of CH
who repudiate: as if given to stranger, charge to FP (vacant)
2nd solution – Manresa principle: Institutions and legacies are imposed
only on the free portion. After having been paid what was given in the
720/2 = 360
will, the balance should be available for those given dispositions in the
360/3 = 120 (pero kung apat sila) 360/4 = 90 repudiation of B gave
will.
the legitime to other heirs in their own right.
W 120 15 135
PURPOSE of listing the legitimes: only to
A 80 15 95
1. find out the FP
Z 10 10 2. test whether the impositions in the will impair the legitime.
240
FP = 360
3rd solution 720/4 = 180
“Free portion” – the portion in excess of the legitime. Maraming We respect the provision of the will.
charges sa FP e.g. legacies, DIV, institution that exceeds that legitime. B (who repudiated) cannot be represented because there’s no
The shortfall between the “amount given by will” and the “legitime” is representation in testamentary disposition. Hindi sha entitled to be
also a burden on the FP. In such a case, “part of FP given by will” is represented. It’s not as a compulsory heir anymore because he is
already disposed of. Itong 120 na ito ni W, ang legitime jan ay 80 lang. instituted as if a stranger.
40 jan ay from the FP which has been disposed of. Itong kay 120 ni A
(na babawasan natin ng 10 legacy para kay Z) ay 80 from legitime at 40 Accretion na. There is accretion among them because instituted to
from intestacy. same inheritance pro indiviso.  2nd Par of A1021 only for legitime.

Which is the better solution between the two? Will the 60 go to EF? Jurado says, no. PERO BAKIT?! Representative is
DLC’s opinion: When the will contains an institution of CH, unless a entitled to get whatever the person whom he is representing would
different intention can be gathered from the wording of the will, the have gotten.
testator wants to limit or increase the inheritance of the CH
instituted to the amount or aliquot parts specified in the will. Joni says: Since there’s no representation in testamentary succession,
Therefore, number 1 is the better solution. Give ½, no more no less. why were A and C represented by his children? VERY GOOD POINT!!!
The balance of the estate therefore goes to other LH by intestacy and REFORM THE TABLE. (So in effect, Jurado is actually correct and he
the heir who was already given the institution should no longer be must thank Joni for making Sir realize that.)
considered as an intestate heir.
HEIRS Legitimes Will Representation Accretion Final

Last Problem A 120 180 E - 60 - E – 60

[but 60 vacant] F - 60 F – 60
Justice Jurado’s problem in his Civil Law reviewer: C 120 180 I - 60 - I – 60
 Page 67 of 72

[but 60 vacant] J - 60 J – 60 Become owners specific only after liabilites have been paid.
D 120 180 300 480
(120 + 60 Basahin niyo na lang yung capacity to succeed, partition and
+ 60) distribution. Read the comments of authors whose work I assigned to
B - 180vacant bec of - - -
B’s repudiation you during start of the course.
360 720

Only the legitime will go to the representatives. Testate part which COLLATION
goes to D (he benefited from the accretion).
Understood in three senses.
What if intestacy? – In keeping with 2nd Par of A1021
In the FIRST SENSE, it refers to ADDING BACK TO THE ESTATE DIV
HEIRS Legitimes Intestate Representation which the decedent may have given during his lifetime. DIV can
shares become inofficious. In fact donation may be reduced if inofficious.
A 120 240 E - 120
F - 120 When will DIV become inofficious? If it exceeds the amount which the
C 120 240 I - 120 testator is allowed to dispose by will. Donations therefore should be
J - 120 considered in the settlement of the estate of the decedent.
D 120 240 240
B - - - Why? Because if we do not consider DIV which the decedent may have
360 720 given during his lifetime, and in the settlement of his estate, he can
easily circumvent provisions of law on legitimes.
 Intestate share is greater than legitime so that has to be
respected. Why? Kasi yung gagawin lang ng decedent to circumvent the legitime,
 A’s 240 will go to EF, C’s 240 to IJ. ipamimigay na lang properties during his lifetime. Sa mga charitable
 B’s part acquired by siblings in their own right, ergo institutions. Sa mga favorite people like DI, or pwede niyang ibigay sa
increasing their legitime. favorite na compulsory heirs. E.g. 4 legit children pero isang lang
 Is A entitled to be represented by EF? Yes, legal sucession paborito nung tatay. So before he died, donated all his properties to
kasi yung buong 720. Acquired by law. the youngest child. May legitime yung 3 anak na mas matanda. How do
we compute their legitimes, the sstate is already 0. ½ of the estate is 0
and dividing it among 4 children is also 0.
ACCEPTANCE AND REPUDIATION
There has to be a check on dispositions given gratuitously during
OF THE INHERITANCE lifetime of the decedent. It is in the form of collation. Donations added
back to the estate.
Heir is not entitled to inherit unless he accepts.
May the testator provide in his donation that what was donated should
Acceptance may be IMPLIED, if heir failed to repudiate the inheritance not be collated to his estate? No, he cannot. Collation in the first sense
he is considered to have accepted it. Unless repudiates, he is deemed is mandatory. Otherwise, it will not serve the prupose for the law
to have accepted it. requiring collation. He can simply provide that all those donations are
not subject to donation. DIV therefore are subject to collation. They
SC decision: Are the legal heirs co-owners of the estate of the will be added back to estate of the decedent.
decedent? YES, they are co-owners.
All DIV subject to collation.
When will the co-ownership start? After they have impliedly/expressly Are there DIV which are not subject to collation in the first sense? Yes.
accepted the inheritance, BUT acceptance retroact to the time of  Reasonable donations given to charity. P5000 sha simbahan.
death of the decedent. Until they accepted, they do not become co-  Moderate gifts given to family members on occasions of
owners. But when they accept, their acceptance retroact to time of family rejoicing or occasion.
decedent.  A1067 and 1068 - Sums of money spent by parent to finish
basic education or training for profession.
Are the co-owners co-owners of specific property of decedent? NO,  A1069 – Sums paid by parents in satisfaction of debts of
2008/2009 decision. The coheirs are inchoate co-owners of specific children, election expenses, fines
properties. They become co-owners of specific property after all the  A1070
liabilities of the estate have been paid. Parang conjugal partnership of
gains, until the conjugal partnership is dissolved, the spouses are not What shall be added back? Property itself or the value of the property?
yet co-owners. Baka mamaya wala namang natira, it’s not even enough Only the value of the property. The property itself is not to be
to pay liabilities of the partnership. returned because DIV transferred absolute ownership over the
properties to the donees. Whatever increase in the value of property
Coheirs cannot be co-owners of specific properties comprised in the was realized in the meantime should benefit the donee, its absolute
estate until all liabilities of estate have been paid. Baka naman kasi owner.
kulang pa estate ng decedent so wala rin silang paghahatian.
 Page 68 of 72

What value should be added back? At the time donation given or value HEREDITARY ESTATE or simply, ESTATE
at the time of death of the donor? A1071 is very clear, it is the value of
the property at the time donation was given. Whatever increase in PRACTICAL APPLICATION.
the value of property was realized shall be for the benefit of donee Suppose Annabel Rama died leaving behind a box of jewelry with a
who was absolute owner of the property. total market value of P20M. Ipinambato na niya mga brilyante niya
kaya marami na nabawas. May mga utang sha worth P30M.
Collation may also be understood in the SECOND SENSE, i.e.
IMPUTATION. Assets – 20 M
- Donations in favor of CH shall be considered as advances on their Debts – 30 M
legitimes/inheritance. _____
- Donations to strangers are imputed to the FP. Chargeable against FP, (-10 M)
BUT if FP is not enough to cover the DIV, DIV may be reduced. DIV
W. Galvan – 6M
There’s no problem if testator gave only one donation during his L. Solis – 6M
lifetime. If the value exceeded at the time of testator’s death, the
donation shall be imputed to the FP. If FP is smaller than value of How much is the hereditary estate of Anabelle Rama? 2M
donation, the donation is inofficious to the extent of the shortfall. This is a mechanical application of this process.
What is the implication? Donation will have to be recovered.
Kailangan ibalik ang excess to the estate of the donor. Act of returning Babayaran pa ba dapat natin yun. DIV given before. Iresearch niyo yan.
is called collation in the THIRD SENSE, i.e. REDUCTION AND RETURN Next meeting take the top. Next meeting is the last. Let’s just solve
OF THE EXCESS. four problems in collation. Ito ba ay 2M. Or dapat pa bang iconsider na
0 yan, hindi na babayaran yung utang from DIV. Estate will become
That’s why when you are reading provisions of CC on collation, analyze 12M with DIV. Ibabalit yung donation para bayaran yung legitime ni
which sense collation is used for that particular provision. Anabelle. Isn’t there something bad about it? May mana sila pero may
unpaid na utang pa rin.
E.g.
Bakit kukunin ang DIV para bayaran ang mga utang? Bakit naman natin
A1061 – in the first sense kukunin ang DIV para bayarang ang legitimes of CH when debtors of
estate have not yet been fully paid?
A1062 – in the second sense; imputation
 Maybe exempt from collation in the 2nd sense, not considered as Insofar as the estate is concerned. How do we compute the estate of
advance on the legitime but charged on the FP. Donation in favor of a the decedent?
stranger, chargeable against FP.

A1063 – in the second sense; imputation Take up one problem. Suppose A has two children B and C.
A1064 – in the second sense; imputation
A1065 – in the second sense; imputation A
A1066 – in the second sense; imputation |
B C
So whenever you read CC and encounter the word collation, be careful
in characterizing the term to find out in what sense it was used in that Gave donations to:
article. B = 10 M in 1998 when he ran for mayor in the local elections.
C = 20 M in 2009
ERGO, how do we compute the estate of the decedent? X = 10 M in 2009

SERIES OF STEPS When A died, he left no liabilities. = 0

1. Take an inventory, summation of all assets of the decedents. Estate = 200 M
Gather together rights and properties left behind by the testator. Distribute the intestate estate.

Gross estate =  of the values of all the assets Compute the hereditary estate.
Assets include all properties AND rights. Lahat ng may value. E = GE – L + DIV
Monetary equivalent. = 200 – 0 + 40
= 240
LESS All liabilites =  of the values of all the liabilities
Include due, not yet due, contingent HEIRS Legitime Intestate shares Advances Final distribution
______________ B 60 120 -10 105
(60 leg; 60 fp) - 5 for X (50 leg; 55 fp)
Net estate C 60 120 -20 95
(60 leg; 60 fp) - 5 for X (40 leg; 55 fp)
Total 120 200
ADD All DIV subject to collation.
______________
FP = 240 – 120
FP = 120 – 10M = 110M
 Page 69 of 72

May pambayad tayo, saktong sakto lang! P200M While T left a will, it only contained one provision, i.e. LEGACY in favor
Next meeting, may donation na lalampas sa FP. of the wife. It’s not considered as part of the legitime of the wife BUT
considered as given to a stranger, chargeable against the FP, under
A1063.
4 October 2010
The rest will be given by intestacy. We’ll only check if the legacy in
A1063 (i.e. property left by will exempt, unless provided) is NOT
favor of wife is inofficious.
deemed subject to collation. Therefore if a testamentary disposition is
given to CH, the testamentary disposition should not be considered as
HEIRS Legitimes Advances Will Intestate Share Total
an advanced part of his legitime. B 60 (10) 3 1/3 53 1/3
Leg rem: 50 =(50 + 3 1/3)
Let’s go back to institution: Suppose T instituted a CH to an aliquot part C 60 (20) 3 1/3 43 1/3
of an estate. Is the legitime included part of the institution? DLC Leg rem: 40 =(40 + 3 1/3)
opinion: A1063 applies only to legacies and devises, not institution. W 60 - because 40 3 1/3 103 1/3
legacy is not 2nd =(60 + 40 +
How about if a donation was given to a son of the heir? The heir is a an advance 3 1/3)
CH, the donation in favor of grandchild will that be subject to collation A1063
Z - - 10
in the first sense? Of course, because that’s a donation.
1st
Is it an advance on the legitime of father? No, unless the children
Total 180 (30) 50 10 200
inherit by right of representation. But if they won’t, donation in their
favor is considered donation to a stranger, therefore chargeable
Check:
against FP. But when father died ahead of T and children inherit by
FP = 240 – 180
right of representation, donation in favor of grandchildren is
= 60
considered as an advance on the inheritance of the father whom they
are representing in the inheritance. That’s A1064.
What are chargeable against the FP?
In this order:
Yung A1067 (expenses for support, education, medical attendance,
1. DIV
even in extraordinary illness, apprenticeship, ordinary equipment,
2. Legacies and devisees
customary gifts): Not subject to collation in the first and second sense.
3. Institution
Hindi iaadd to the estate, nor will we impute to legitime of the CH.

Ganun din ang A1068. In what sense? 2nd sense; imputation. Hindi  Kapag naubos ng DIV ang FP, nothing will be paid to the
naman maiimpute pero isama natin sa computation. But suppose it legatees and devisees.
does not impair the legitime? Isasama sa first sense, hindi lang iimpute.  Among DIV, the first to be made is the first to charge. The
Therefore chargeable to FP. last to be made, should be the last to charge.
 Therefore, if FP is not enough to cover all, then only those
A1069 alam niyo na yan. last to be made shall suffer a reduction.
The rest are all self-explanatory.  Are the donations to B and C chargeable against the FP? No,
but chargeable against his legitime. It’s an advance.
So let’s now illustrate principles through concrete problems.
Z’s donation = 60 (FP) – 10M
A - W = 50
| Wife’s 40M legacy = 50 – 40M
B C Remaining FP = 10
Distribute 10 via intestacy. May 200 tayo! So pasok!
Will
W = 40M legacy
DIV during lifetime Another problem: Intestate naman.
B – 10M, 1990
C – 20M, 1998 A - W
Z – 10M, 1999 (nephew) |
___________ B C
40M
Gross estate = 200M, Liability = 0. Distribute the estate. Estate:
A died, survived by his wife and 2 legitimate children. Gross estate = 80M; Liability = 0
DIV
E = GE – L + DIV B – 70M, 1990
= 200 – 0 + 40 C – 10M, 1992
= 240 M X – 80M, 1998 (nephew)
____________
LC = ½ (240M)
= 120M 160M
LC1 = 60M
 Page 70 of 72

Hereditary estate = 80 – 0 + 160 DLC says: Nakalagay sa batas, legitime lang eh so excess should be
= 240M chargeable against all those who received in proportion to their
respective shares. Is there any problem with that?
LC = ½ (240)
= 120
LC1 = 120/2 Another example. Intestacy pa rin.
= 60
Estate:
HEIRS Legitime Intestate Share Advances Total Gross estate = 140M
B 60 80 (60 leg; 20 FP) 70 10 Liabilities =0
(60 legitime) DIV
(10 FP) B – 80M, 1990
C 60 80 (60 leg; 20 FP) (10 legitime) 70
C – 20M, 1992
W 60 80 (60 leg; 20 FP) - 80 ___________
180 (80) 160
100M
Since intestate, we give intestate shares first.
Hereditary estate = 240M
FP = 240 – 180
FP = 240 – 180
= 60 – 10(yung sobra sa advance ni B) = 50
= 60
= 50 – 80(donation to X)
Where to deduct shortfall between excess DIV to B and legitime? FP
= -30
Whose FP?
Where do we charge the B’s advance of 70? 60 chargeable against
1st view solution
legitime and the excess 10 is chargeable against the FP.
HEIRS Legitime Intestate Share Advances Total
Who will shoulder the 10? DLC says: It should be divided among the B 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 FP) (60 leg) 0
intestate share kaya hindi ko binawas kagad sa 20 ni B. (20 FP)
C 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 FP) (20) 60
Donation to X is inofficious in the amount of 30M. W 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 FP) 80
180 140
First view: Ibabawas yung 10 kay B. Therefore, ubos na FP!
May pambayad ba tayo? Yes, the gross estate.
HEIRS Legitime Intestate Share Advances Actual legitime to Bakit 0 si B? Kasi lahat nung 20 chinarge na yung excess sa FP na
be paid by E tinanggap niya in excess of his legitime.
B 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 FP) (60 Legitime) 0
(10 FP) 2nd view solution
C 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 FP) (10) 50
W 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 FP) 60 HEIRS Legitime Intestate Share Advances Total
180 110 B 60 80 (60 leg, 20 FP) (60) 2/3 of 20M
- 1/3 (20FP)
Sina B at X ang umubos ng FP (ubos na FP, kaya legitime na lang ang C 60 80 (60 leg, 20 FP) (20) 40leg + 2/3 of
maibibigay). Pero meron ba tayong 110M to pay the share of C and W? - 1/3 (20 FP) 20M
Wala tayong pera! Wala, kasi yung estate natin ay 80 lang. Kulang tayo W 60 80 (60 leg, 20 FP) - 1/3 (20 FP) 60 + 2/3 of 20M
30M. Ibabalik ni X yan, collation in the third sense. Returning back to 180 100 + 20M
estate what is in excess of allowed to be given by will. 140

The CH in whose favor the donation was inofficious is the only one Sobra ng 20 yung nakuha ni B. Everyone shall bear it.
who bears the burden.  B
FP = 240 - 180
Second view: Chargeable against all other co-heirs. = 60M

HEIRS Legitime Intestate Share Advances Total Itotal mo lahat. In my view, it has to be against all who received in the
B 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 FP) (60) 0 FP, not only against the heir who received the inofficious donation.
C 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 FP) (10) 50
W 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 FP) 60 DONATION IS INOFFIOUS.
180
Pero ganon din yung lalabas sa computation. What must the donee return? Must he return the property or just the
value of the property? The law is very clear the donee must return the
Whose FP is it chargeable? Only the CH or all the shares of all those value, NOT the very property.
who received from the FP?
Illustrate: Suppose T during lifetime donated to CH property consisting
of house and lot in Ayala Alabang that time worth 10M but when T
 Page 71 of 72

died 20 years later, property is already worth 40M or increase in value F friend 20M, 1993
from 10-40 by 30M. When estate was computed, what value of _________
property shall be returned to estate? Value at the time donation was 80M
made. What value shall be added back to estate? 10M
GE = 160M, L = 0. Divide the estate.
Suppose in the computation of FP and charges against FP that donation
was inofficious by 5M, he has to return half of the 10. What must he Estate = 160 – 0 – 80
return: Half the property or half the value? That makes difference = 240
because if the former, 20M ang irereturn niya. Monetary value lang of
the property, ergo return only 5M. Pagkabayad niya, it’s settled. LC = 240/2 = 120
Inofficious donation has been returned under the CC. LW = 60
LIC = 60
Suppose the value of the property had been impaired. When the
property was donated to a 3P, it’s value was 40M but with time, value HEIRS Legitime
of donation dwindled. From 40M, it’s value now has been reduced to A 120
10M. Inofficious yung donation. 20M yung excess that the donee had B 60
to return. Will his return of the property discharge his obligation? May W 60
obligation to pay additional 10M? Yes. Whatever increase in the value 240
property will be for his account. But the reverse is true, impairment is
also for his account. So magbabalik sha ng 20M even if the value of FP = 240 – 240
property is only 10M. Not required to return the very property but only =0
the monetary value. He has a choice, sell the property at 10, then
come up with another 10. Heirs may file action for specific All the donations are inofficious. AND they will have to return.
performance. It’s not unfair to him because during 20 years, he Since no more FP, hindi na rin ihohonor ang will (testamentary
enjoyed the property for free. dispositions). Di rin naman uubra yung will kasi impaired legitime ni A.

Relevance of the years: First to be made is first to charge. Who among

the donees shall suffer the reduction. Suffer a reduction. Last one is Tanggalin natin si B, sha nagpapagulo jan eh.
last ot charge. Kung pangalawa pa lang ubos na, then entire has to be
reduced and return. Don’t take in inflation. Computation of estate: X - W
basis of values at time donations were made. If inofficious, return |
monetary value as computed, not the property. A

Magkabaliktad: Will: A = ½ E; W = ¼ E
 Donations in favor of CH are ALWAYS chargeable
UNLESS donation provides otherwise. DIV:
 When it’s a legacy, it’s not chargeable against legitime, C nephew 20M, 1990
UNLESS the will provided otherwise. D niece 20M, 1991
E friend 20M, 1992
If there are donations in favor of CH, date is immaterial insofar as F friend 20M, 1993
value not exceeding legitime is concerned. Value of donation not _________
exceeding legitime is always considered advance. 80M

What becomes material: dates of donation chargeable against FP. As GE = 160M, L = 0. Divide the estate.
against FP, the first made is first entitled to charge. Last made last
HEIRS Legitime Will Total
entitled to charge.
A 120 120 120
W 60 120 (60 legitime, 60 FP) 60
In CH, immaterial yung dates. 180 180

E = 240
Another problem.
FP = 60
X - W
Who is the first to charge?
|illegitimate |
FP = 240 – 180
B A
= 60
- 20 for C (abswelto na)
Will: A = ¼ E; B = ¼ E; W = ¼ E
- 20 for D (abswelto na)
- 20 for E (abswelto na)
DIV:
-----
C nephew 20M, 1990
0
D niece 20M, 1991
E friend 20M, 1992
 Page 72 of 72

Pero 180 yung legitime. Yung 160M. So si E ang magbabalik ng 20M

para mabayaran yung legitimes ni A and W.

Annabelle Rama problem last meeting: If we deduct the entire

amount of debts which is less than total number of debts. Then the
negative sum will necessarily be deducted from deduction inter vivos.
Issue I want you to research. Should we pay the debts through the DIV?
Hindi naman nakalagay sa batas diba. Hindi legitime ang utang.

If we do not consider the negative balance and simply add the

donations, then those donations will necessarily become the estate.
Heirs will receive something from estate because the donations shall
be reduced. Bakit tatanggap ang heredero pero hindi babayaran yung
mga utang. You will have to have reason for it. I might ask you in the
donation. Go back to donation provision.

CAPACITY
In capacity to succeed, the most important provision is on
unworthiness. Where an heir becomes unworthy, he loses the right to
inherit. He is disqualified. This is A1032.

Grounds which will make an heir incapacitated. This is a matter of law.

But if you look on provisions of code on disinheritance, some causes of
unworthiness are also grounds for disinheritance. Kapag dinisinherit, at
on that same ground but disinheritance was ineffective. Is heir
disqualified under A1032?

Suppose T disinherited the heir on that ground but the disinheritance

was ineffective. Will had a problem. Tama na naging ineffective yung
disinheritance but he’s unworthy under 1032, ano sabi ni Tolentino?
The view of Sen. Tolentino is that when a ground for disinheriting an
heir is also a cause for unworthiness, T has a choice of disinheriting OR
doing nothing and let A1032 apply as a matter of course BUT when the
decedent decides to disinherit the heir on that ground but such
disinheritance was ineffective, the heir can no longer be disqualified
under 1032. Waiver daw yun.

DLC disagrees with Sen. Tolentino. 1032 is a catch-all remedy. Kung

dinisinherit niya at ineffective yung disinheritance, 1032 will apply.
Walang waiver jan kasi matter of law.

Repudiation lang ang walang representation.

There’s representation in incapacity, disinheritance (which is also
incapacity), predeceased.

End of the course.

4 hours exam.
Somebody has to prepare 2 bluebooks.
Questionnaire and piece of paper with name.
Passing. Under university code, 70% of maximum possible score. Therefore, if
lower passing mark, it’s purely an act of grace.
Kay Elsa sa office ni sir sa Law Center.