Wills and Succession (Cases and Doctrines)

By Atty. Avelino Sebastian Jr

HEIRS O SA!DEJAS SR. v "I!A
351 SCRA 183
Eliodoro Sandejas signed a contract reads as follows:
Received today from MR A!E" A !#$A% t&e s'm of (ne )'ndred *&o'sand +,&,1--%-----. ,esos%
,&ili//ine C'rrency% /er Metro/olitan 0an1 2 *r'st Com/any C&ec1 $o 313313 dated today for
,&,1--%----- 4 4 4 as additional earnest money for t&e following:
4 4 4
all registered wit& t&e Registry of 5eeds of t&e ,rovince of Ri6al +Ma1ati 0ranc& (ffice. in t&e name of
SE!!ER E!#(5(R( SA$5E7AS% 8ili/ino citi6en% of legal age% married to Remedios Reyes de Sandejas%
and w&ic& 'ndersigned% as SE!!ER% 9inds forever and a9sol'tely in t&eir entirety +all of t&e fo'r +:. /arcels of
land a9ove descri9ed% w&ic& are contig'o's to eac& ot&er as to form one 9ig lot. to said Mr Ale4 A !ina% w&o
&as agreed to 9'y all of t&em% also 9inding on &is &eirs% administrators and assigns% for t&e consideration of
(ne Million +,&,1%---%-----. ,esos% ,&ili//ine C'rrency% '/on s'c& reasona9le terms of /ayment as may
9e agreed '/on 9y t&em *&e /arties &ave &owever% agreed on t&e following terms and conditions:
4 4 4
3 Considering t&at Mrs Remedios Reyes de Sandejas is already deceased and as t&ere is a /ending
intestate /roceedings for t&e settlement of &er estate 4 4 4% w&erein Seller was a//ointed as
administrator of said Estate% &as informed 0'yer t&at &e +Seller. already filed a Motion wit& t&e Co'rt for
a't&ority to sell t&e a9ove /arcels of land to &erein 0'yer% 9't w&ic& &as 9een delayed d'e to t&e 9'rning of
t&e records of said S/ec ,ro $o 138338% w&ic& records are /resently 'nder reconstit'tion% t&e /arties s&all
&ave at least ninety +3-. days from recei/t of t&e order a't&ori6ing Seller% in &is ca/acity as administrator% to
sell all t&e a9ove descri9ed /arcels of land to &erein 0'yer +9't e4tendi9le for anot&er /eriod of ninety +3-.
days '/on t&e re;'est of eit&er of t&e /arties '/on t&e ot&er.% wit&in w&ic& to e4ec'te t&e deed of a9sol'te
sale covering all a9ove /arcels of land<
4 4 4
5 =&et&er indicated or not% all of t&e a9ove terms and conditions s&all 9e 9inding on t&e &eirs% administrators
and assigns of 9ot& Seller +'ndersigned Mr Eliodoro , Sandejas Sr. and 0'yer +Mr Ale4 A !ina.>
W#at is t#e nature o$ t#is contract%
*&e agreement 9etween Eliodoro Sr and res/ondent is s'9ject to a s's/ensive condition ? t&e /roc'rement of a
lower co'rt a//roval% not f'll /ayment *&ere was no reservation of owners&i/ in t&e agreement #n accordance
wit& /aragra/& 1 of t&e Recei/t% /etitioners were s'//osed to deed t&e dis/'ted lots over to res/ondent *&is t&ey
co'ld do '/on t&e co'rt@s a//roval% even 9efore f'll /ayment )ence% t&eir contract was a conditional sale% rat&er
t&an a contract to sell
=&en a contract is s'9ject to a s's/ensive condition% its 9irt& or effectivity can ta1e /lace only if and w&en t&e
condition &a//ens or is f'lfilled *&'s% t&e intestate co'rt@s grant of t&e Motion for A//roval of t&e sale filed 9y
res/ondent res'lted in /etitioners@ o9ligation to e4ec'te t&e 5eed of Sale of t&e dis/'ted lots in &is favor *&e
condition &aving 9een satisfied% t&e contract was /erfected )encefort&% t&e /arties were 9o'nd to f'lfill w&at t&ey
&ad e4/ressly agreed '/on
Co'rt a//roval is re;'ired in any dis/osition of t&e decedent@s estate Reference to j'dicial a//roval% &owever%
cannot adversely affect t&e s'9stantive rig&ts of &eirs to dis/ose of t&eir own pro indiviso s&ares in t&e coA&eirs&i/
or coAowners&i/ #n ot&er words% t&ey can sell t&eir rig&ts% interest or /artici/ation in t&e /ro/erty 'nder
administration A sti/'lation re;'iring co'rt a//roval does not affect t&e validity and t&e effectivity of t&e sale as
regards t&e selling &eirs #t merely im/lies t&at t&e /ro/erty may 9e ta1en o't of custodia legis% 9't only wit& t&e
co'rt@s /ermission #t wo'ld seem t&at t&e s's/ensive condition in t&e /resent conditional sale was im/osed only
for t&is reason
RA&IRE' v BA"(A'AR
B: SCRA 318
Cictoriana Eg'aras e4ec'ted a real estate mortgage over a /arcel of land owned 9y &er as sec'rity for a loan of
,&,B%1D--- in favor of t&e s/o'ses Artemio 0alta6ar and S'sana 8lores E/on t&e demise of t&e mortgagor% t&e
mortgagees filed a /etition for t&e intestate /roceedings of &er estate w&erein 8ilemon Ramire6 and Monica
Ramire6 were named &eirs of t&e deceased *&e co'rt a//ointed Artemio 5iawan% t&en de/'ty cler1 of co'rt%
LPU BarOps 2013
administrator of t&e estate *&e mortgagees filed a com/laint for foreclos're of t&e aforesaid mortgage against
Artemio 5iawan in &is ca/acity as administrator of t&e estate *&e administrator was d'ly served wit& s'mmons
9't &e failed to answer% w&ere'/on% on /etition of t&e /laintiffs said defendant was declared in defa'lt *&e case
was referred to a commissioner to receive t&e evidence for t&e /laintiffs% and same administrator% as de/'ty cler1
of co'rt% acted as s'c& &earing commissioner A decision was rendered decreeing t&e foreclos're of t&e
mortgaged /ro/erty and t&e sale t&ereof% if wit&in 3- days from finality of t&e decision% t&e o9ligation was not f'lly
/aid *&e j'dgment not &aving 9een satisfied% a writ of e4ec'tion was iss'ed *&e s&eriff sold t&e /ro/erty at
/'9lic a'ction to t&e &ig&est 9idder% w&o &a//ened to 9e t&e /laintiffs t&emselves
8ilemon Ramire6% Monica Ramire6 and 7ose Eg'aras% t&e first two 9eing t&e &eirs named in t&e /etition for
intestate /roceedings% filed a com/laint "For the Annulment of all Proceedings for the Foreclosure of the
Mortgage"% against t&e mortgagees and Artemio 5iawan% in &is ca/acity as administrator
5iawan was acc'sed of acting in coll'sion wit& t&e mortgagees in allowing t&e reglementary /eriod wit&in w&ic& to
file an answer to la/se wit&o't notifying andFor informing t&e said /laintiffs of t&e com/laint for foreclos're% as a
res'lt of w&ic& &e was declared in defa'lt to t&e /rej'dice of t&e estate w&ic& &e re/resents< and in /residing as
&earing officer in t&e ex parte &earing to receive evidence for /laintiffs t&erein% as a res'lt of w&ic& an anomalo's
sit'ation was created w&ere9y &e was a defendant and at t&e same time a commissioner receiving evidence
against &imself as administrator
Mortgagees filed a motion to dismiss t&e com/laint on t&e gro'nd t&at t&e /laintiffs &ave no legal ca/acity to s'e<
defendant 5iawan li1ewise moved to dismiss on two gro'nds: t&at /laintiffs &ave no legal ca/acity to s'e and t&at
t&e com/laint states no ca'se of action
#n Pascual v Pascual% it was r'led t&at alt&o'g& &eirs &ave no legal standing in co'rt '/on t&e commencement of
testate or intestate /roceedings% t&is r'le admits of an e4ce/tion as Gw&en t&e administrator fails or ref'ses to act%
in w&ic& event t&e &eirs may act in &is /laceG
A similar sit'ation o9tains in t&e case at 9ar *&e administrator is 9eing c&arged to &ave 9een in coll'sion and
connivance wit& t&e mortgagees of a /ro/erty of t&e deceased% allowing its foreclos're wit&o't notifying t&e &eirs%
to t&e /rej'dice of t&e latter Since t&e gro'nd for t&e /resent action to ann'l t&e aforesaid foreclos're
/roceedings is t&e fra'd res'lting from s'c& insidio's mac&inations and coll'sion in w&ic& t&e administrator &as
allegedly /artici/ated% it wo'ld 9e farfetc&ed to e4/ect t&e said administrator &imself to file t&e action in 9e&alf of
t&e estate And w&o else 9't t&e &eirs% w&o &ave an interest to assert and to /rotect% wo'ld 9ring t&e actionH
#nevita9ly% t&is case s&o'ld fall 'nder t&e e4ce/tion% rat&er t&an t&e general r'le t&at /ending /roceedings for t&e
settlement of t&e estate% t&e &eirs &ave no rig&t to commence an action arising o't of t&e rig&ts 9elonging to t&e
deceased
)*!O v )*!O E!(ER)RISES+ I!C.
533 SCRA 585
Carlos ! ,'no% w&o died in 13I3% was an incor/orator of ,'no Enter/rises% #nc (n Marc& 1:% B--3% /etitioner
7oselito M'sni ,'no% claiming to 9e an &eir of Carlos ! ,'no% initiated a com/laint for s/ecific /erformance
against res/ondent ,etitioner averred t&at &e is t&e son of t&e deceased wit& t&e latter@s commonAlaw wife%
Amelia ,'no As s'rviving &eir% &e claimed entitlement to t&e rig&ts and /rivileges of &is late fat&er as stoc1&older
of res/ondent *&e com/laint t&'s /rayed t&at res/ondent allow /etitioner to ins/ect its cor/orate 9oo1s% render
an acco'nting of all t&e transactions it entered into from 13IB% and give /etitioner all t&e /rofits% earnings%
dividends or income /ertaining to t&e s&ares of Carlos ! ,'no
E/on t&e deat& of a s&are&older% t&e &eirs do not a'tomatically 9ecome stoc1&olders of t&e cor/oration and
ac;'ire t&e rig&ts and /rivileges of t&e deceased as s&are&older of t&e cor/oration *&e stoc1s m'st 9e distri9'ted
first to t&e &eirs in estate /roceedings% and t&e transfer of t&e stoc1s m'st 9e recorded in t&e 9oo1s of t&e
cor/oration Section I3 of t&e Cor/oration Code /rovides t&at no transfer s&all 9e valid% e4ce/t as 9etween t&e
/arties% 'ntil t&e transfer is recorded in t&e 9oo1s of t&e cor/oration 5'ring s'c& interim /eriod% t&e &eir stands as
t&e e;'ita9le owner of t&e stoc1s% t&e e4ec'tor or administrator d'ly a//ointed 9y t&e co'rt 9eing vested wit& t&e
legal title to t&e stoc1 Entil a settlement and division of t&e estate is effected% t&e stoc1s of t&e decedent are &eld
9y t&e administrator or e4ec'tor Conse;'ently% d'ring s'c& time% it is t&e administrator or e4ec'tor w&o is entitled
to e4ercise t&e rig&ts of t&e deceased as stoc1&older
*&'s% even if /etitioner /resents s'fficient evidence in &is case to esta9lis& t&at &e is t&e son of Carlos ! ,'no% &e
wo'ld still not 9e allowed to ins/ect res/ondent@s 9oo1s and 9e entitled to receive dividends from res/ondent%
a9sent any s&owing in its transfer 9oo1 t&at some of t&e s&ares owned 9y Carlos ! ,'no were transferred to &im
*&is wo'ld only 9e /ossi9le if /etitioner &as 9een recogni6ed as an &eir and &as /artici/ated in t&e settlement of
t&e estate of t&e deceased
Page 2 of 12
LPU BarOps 2013
RE,ES v RE-IO!A" (RIA" CO*R( O &A.A(I BR. /01
5I1 SCRA 533 +0rion% 7.
Article DDD of t&e Civil Code declares t&at t&e s'ccessional rig&ts are transmitted from t&e moment of deat& of t&e
decedent Accordingly% '/on Anastacia@s deat&% &er c&ildren ac;'ired legal title to &er estate +w&ic& title incl'des
&er s&are&oldings in Jenit&.% and t&ey are% /rior to t&e estate@s /artition% deemed coAowners t&ereof *&is stat's as
coAowners% &owever% does not immediately and necessarily ma1e t&em stoc1&olders of t&e cor/oration Enless
and 'ntil t&ere is com/liance wit& Section I3 of t&e Cor/oration Code on t&e manner of transferring s&ares% t&e
&eirs do not 9ecome registered stoc1&olders of t&e cor/oration
Sim/ly stated% t&e transfer of title 9y means of s'ccession% t&o'g& effective and valid 9etween t&e /arties involved
+ie% 9etween t&e decedent@s estate and &er &eirs.% does not 9ind t&e cor/oration and t&ird /arties *&e transfer
m'st 9e registered in t&e 9oo1s of t&e cor/oration to ma1e t&e transfereeA&eir a stoc1&older entitled to recognition
as s'c& 9ot& 9y t&e cor/oration and 9y t&ird /arties
=e note% in relation wit& t&e a9ove statement% t&at in Abejo v de la Cruz% and TCL ales Corporation v Court of
Appeals we did not re;'ire t&e registration of t&e transfer 9efore considering t&e transferee a stoc1&older of t&e
cor/oration +in effect '/&olding t&e e4istence of an intraAcor/orate relation 9etween t&e /arties and 9ringing t&e
case wit&in t&e j'risdiction of t&e SEC as an intraAcor/orate controversy. A mar1ed difference% &owever% e4ists
9etween t&ese cases and t&e /resent one
#n Abejo and TCL ales% t&e transferees &eld definite and 'ncontested titles to a s/ecific n'm9er of s&ares of t&e
cor/oration< after t&e transferee &ad esta9lis&ed prima facie owners&i/ over t&e s&ares of stoc1 in ;'estion%
registration 9ecame a mere formality in confirming t&eir stat's as stoc1&olders #n t&e /resent case% eac& of
Anastacia@s &eirs &olds only an 'ndivided interest in t&e s&ares *&is interest% at t&is /oint% is still inc&oate and
s'9ject to t&e o'tcome of a settlement /roceedings< t&e rig&t of t&e &eirs to s/ecific% distri9'tive s&ares of
in&eritance will not 9e determined 'ntil all t&e de9ts of t&e estate of t&e decedent are /aid #n s&ort% t&e &eirs are
only entitled to w&at remains after /ayment of t&e decedent@s de9ts< w&et&er t&ere will 9e resid'e remains to 9e
seen
Rodrigo m'st% t&erefore% &'rdle two o9stacles 9efore &e can 9e considered a stoc1&older of Jenit& wit& res/ect to
t&e s&are&oldings originally 9elonging to Anastacia 8irst% &e m'st /rove t&at t&ere are s&are&oldings t&at will 9e
left to &im and &is coA&eirs% and t&is can 9e determined only in a settlement of t&e decedent@s estate $o s'c&
/roceeding &as 9een commenced to date Second% &e m'st register t&e transfer of t&e s&ares allotted to &im to
ma1e it 9inding against t&e cor/oration )e cannot demand t&at t&is 9e done 'nless and 'ntil &e &as esta9lis&ed
&is s/ecific allotment +and prima facie owners&i/. of t&e s&ares =it&o't t&e settlement of Anastacia@s estate%
t&ere can 9e no definite /artition and distri9'tion of t&e estate to t&e &eirs =it&o't t&e /artition and distri9'tion%
t&ere can 9e no registration of t&e transfer And wit&o't t&e registration% we cannot consider t&e transfereeA&eir a
stoc1&older w&o may invo1e t&e e4istence of an intraAcor/orate relations&i/ as /remise for an intraAcor/orate
controversy wit&in t&e j'risdiction of a s/ecial commercial co'rt
#n s'm% we find t&at ? insofar as t&e s'9ject s&ares of stoc1 +ie% Anastacia@s s&ares. are concerned ? Rodrigo
cannot 9e considered a stoc1&older of Jenit& Conse;'ently% we cannot declare t&at an intraAcor/orate
relations&i/ e4ists t&at wo'ld serve as 9asis to 9ring t&is case wit&in t&e s/ecial commercial co'rt@s j'risdiction
'nder Section 5+9. of ,5 3-BAA% as amended Rodrigo@s com/laint% t&erefore% fails t&e relations&i/ test
SA!(OS v "*&BAO
513 SCRA :-8
Cirgilio% Cictorio% Ernesto and *adeo Santos are t&e legitimate and s'rviving &eirs of t&e late Rita Catoc Santos
Es/eran6a !ati and !agrimas Santos are t&e da'g&terAinAlaw of Rita S/o'ses 7ose and ,roserfina !'m9ao are
t&e alleged owners of t&e 1-DAs;'are meter lot w&ic& t&ey /'r/ortedly 9o'g&t from Rita d'ring &er lifetime *&e
s'9ject /ro/erty is of t&e estate of Maria Catoc t&e s'9ject /ro/erty w&ic& is a /art of &er s&are in t&e estate of
&er deceased mot&er% Maria Catoc
After ac;'iring t&e s'9ject /ro/erty% S/o'ses !'m9ao too1 /ossession t&ereof and erected t&ereon a &o'se w&ic&
t&ey &ave 9een occ'/ying as e4cl'sive owners '/ to t&e /resent So'ses !'m9ao made several ver9al demands
'/on Rita% d'ring &er lifetime% and t&ereafter '/on &erein /etitioners% for t&em to e4ec'te t&e necessary
doc'ments to effect t&e iss'ance of a se/arate title in favor of !'m9ao insofar as t&e s'9ject /ro/erty is
concerned S/o'ses !'m9ao alleged t&at /rior to &er deat&% Rita informed res/ondent ,roserfina !'m9ao s&e
co'ld not deliver t&e title to t&e s'9ject /ro/erty 9eca'se t&e entire /ro/erty in&erited 9y &er and &er coA&eirs form
Maria &ad not yet 9een /artitioned ,etitioners% acting fra'd'lently and in cons/iracy wit& one anot&er% e4ec'ted a
5eed of E4traj'dicial Settlement% adj'dicating and /artitioning among t&emselves and t&e ot&er &eirs% t&e estate
left 9y Maria% w&ic& incl'ded t&e s'9ject /ro/erty already sold to res/ondent S/o'ses !'m9ao
Page 3 of 12
LPU BarOps 2013
#t is notewort&y t&at at t&e time of t&e e4ec'tion of t&e !"ilihan ng Lupa#$ t&e entire /ro/erty owned 9y Maria% t&e
mot&er or Rita% was not yet divided among &er and &er coA&eirs and so t&e descri/tion of t&e entire estate is t&e
only descri/tion t&at can 9e /laced in t&e !"ilihan ng Lupa# dated %& August %'&' and ' (anuar) %'*%$ 9eca'se
t&e e4act metes and 9o'nds of t&e s'9ject /ro/erty sold to res/ondents S/o'ses !'m9ao co'ld not 9e /ossi9ly
determined at t&e time $evert&eless% t&at does not ma1e t&e contract of sale 9etween Rita and res/ondents
S/o'ses !'m9ao invalid 9eca'se 9ot& t&e law and j'ris/r'dence &ave categorically &eld t&at even w&ile an
estate remains 'ndivided% coAowners &ave eac& f'll owners&i/ of t&eir res/ective ali+uot or 'ndivided s&ares and
may t&erefore alienate% assign or mortgage t&em *&e coAowner% &owever% &as no rig&t to sell or alienate a s/ecific
or determinate /art of t&e t&ing owned in common% 9eca'se s'c& rig&t over t&e t&ing is re/resented 9y an ali+uot
or ideal /ortion wit&o't any /&ysical division #n any case% t&e mere fact t&at t&e deed /'r/orts to transfer a
concrete /ortion does not per se render t&e sale void *&e sale is valid% 9't only wit& res/ect to t&e ali+uot s&are
of t&e selling coAowner 8'rt&ermore% t&e sale is s'9ject to t&e res'lts of t&e /artition '/on t&e termination of t&e
coAowners&i/
8inally% t&e general r'le t&at &eirs are 9o'nd 9y contracts entered into 9y t&eir /redecessorsAinAinterest a//lies in
t&e /resent case Article 1311 of t&e $CC is t&e 9asis of t&is r'le #t is clear from t&e said /rovision t&at w&atever
rig&ts and o9ligations t&e decedent &ave over t&e /ro/erty were transmitted to t&e &eirs 9y way of s'ccession% a
mode of ac;'iring /ro/erty% rig&ts and o9ligations of t&e decedent to t&e e4tent of t&e val'e of t&e in&eritance of
t&e &eirs *&'s% t&e &eirs cannot esca/e t&e legal conse;'ences of a transaction entered into 9y t&eir
/redecessorAinAinterest 9eca'se t&ey &ave in&erited t&e /ro/erty s'9ject to t&e lia9ility affecting t&eir common
ancestor 0eing &eirs% t&ere is /rivity of interest 9etween t&em and t&eir deceased mot&er *&ey only s'cceed to
w&at rig&ts t&eir mot&er &ad and w&at is valid and 9inding against &er is also valid and 9inding as against t&em
*&e deat& of a /arty does not e4c'se non/erformance of a contract w&ic& involves a /ro/erty rig&t and t&e rig&ts
and o9ligations t&ere'nder /ass to t&e /ersonal re/resentatives of t&e deceased Similarly% non/erformance is not
e4c'sed 9y t&e deat& of a /arty w&en t&e ot&er /arty &as a /ro/erty interest in t&e s'9ject matter of t&e contact
"EE v (A&BA-O
5:: SCRA 333
#n a letterAcom/laint% Man'el ! !ee c&arged Atty Regino 0 *am9ago wit& violation of t&e $otarial !aw and t&e
et&ics of t&e legal /rofession for notari6ing a s/'rio's last will and testament
*&e will was /'r/ortedly e4ec'ted and ac1nowledged 9efore res/ondent on 7'ne 3-% 13I5 Com/lainant%
&owever% /ointed o't t&at t&e residence certificate of t&e testator noted in t&e ac1nowledgment of t&e will was
dated 7an'ary 5% 13IB 8'rt&ermore% t&e signat're of t&e testator was not t&e same as &is signat're as donor in a
deed of donation +containing &is /'r/orted gen'ine signat're. Com/lainant averred t&at t&e signat'res of &is
deceased fat&er in t&e will and in t&e deed of donation were in any way +sic. entirely and diametrically o//osed
from +sic. one anot&er in all angleKsL> Com/lainant also ;'estioned t&e a9sence of notation of t&e residence
certificates of t&e /'r/orted witnesses )e alleged t&at t&eir signat'res &ad li1ewise 9een forged and merely
co/ied from t&eir res/ective voter@s affidavits Com/lainant f'rt&er asserted t&at no co/y of s'c& /'r/orted will
was on file in t&e arc&ives division of t&e Records Management and Arc&ives (ffice of t&e $ational Commission
for C'lt're and t&e Arts +$CCA.
#n &is re/ort% t&e investigating commissioner fo'nd res/ondent g'ilty of violation of /ertinent /rovisions of t&e old
$otarial !aw as fo'nd in t&e Revised Administrative Code *&e violation constit'ted an infringement of legal et&ics%
t&'s recommended t&e s's/ension of res/ondent for a /eriod of t&ree mont&s
*&e Civil Code re;'ires t&at a will m'st 9e ac1nowledged 9efore a notary /'9lic 9y t&e testator and t&e witnesses
*&e im/ortance of t&is re;'irement is &ig&lig&ted 9y t&e fact t&at it was segregated from t&e ot&er re;'irements
'nder Article 8-5 and em9odied in a distinct and se/arate /rovision An ac1nowledgment is t&e act of one w&o
&as e4ec'ted a deed in going 9efore some com/etent officer or co'rt and declaring it to 9e &is act or deed #t
involves an e4tra ste/ 'nderta1en w&ere9y t&e signatory act'ally declares to t&e notary /'9lic t&at t&e same is &is
or &er own free act and deed *&'s ac1nowledgment in a notarial will &as twoAfold /'r/ose: +1. to safeg'ard t&e
testator@s wis&es long after &is demise% and +B. to ass're t&at &is estate is administered in t&e manner t&at &e
intends it to 9e done
A c'rsory e4amination of t&e ac1nowledgment of t&e will in ;'estion s&ows t&at t&is /artic'lar re;'irement was
neit&er strictly nor s'9stantially com/lied wit& 8or one% t&ere was t&e cons/ic'o's a9sence of a notation of t&e
residence certificates of t&e notarial witnesses $oynay and Mrajo in t&e ac1nowledgment Similarly% t&e notation of
t&e testator@s old residence certificate in t&e same ac1nowledgment was a clear 9reac& of t&e law *&ese
omissions 9y res/ondent invalidate t&e will As t&e ac1nowledging officer of t&e contested will% res/ondent was
re;'ired to fait&f'lly o9serve t&e formalities of a will and t&ose of notari6ation As we &eld in antiago v ,afanan:
*&e $otarial law is e4/licit on t&e o9ligations and d'ties of notaries /'9lic *&ey are re;'ired to
certify t&at t&e /arty to every doc'ment ac1nowledged 9efore &im &ad /resented t&e /ro/er
Page 4 of 12
LPU BarOps 2013
residence certificate +or e4em/tion from t&e residence ta4.@ and to enter its n'm9er% /lace of iss'e
and date as /art of s'c& certification>
*&ese formalities are mandatory and cannot 9e disregarded% considering t&e degree of im/ortance and
evidentiary weig&t attac&ed to notari6ed doc'ments A notary /'9lic% es/ecially a lawyer% is 9o'nd to strictly
o9serve t&ese elementary re;'irements
#n t&e iss'ance of a residence certificate% t&e law see1s to esta9lis& t&e tr'e and correct identity of t&e /erson to
w&om it is iss'ed% as well as t&e /ayment of residence ta4es for t&e c'rrent year 0y &aving allowed decedent to
e4&i9it an e4/ired residence certificate% res/ondent failed to com/ly wit& t&e re;'irements of t&e old $otarial !aw
and t&e Residence *a4 Act As m'c& co'ld 9e said of &is fail're to demand t&e e4&i9ition of t&e residence
certificates of $oynay and Mrajo
SA&A!IE-O2CE"ADA v ABE!A
55I SCRA 5I3
Anent t&e contestant@s s'9mission t&at t&e will is fatally defective for t&e reason t&at its attestation cla'se
states t&at t&e will is com/osed of t&ree +3. /ages w&ile in tr't& and in fact% t&e will consists of two +B. /ages
only 9eca'se t&e attestation cla'se is not a /art of t&e notarial will% t&e same is not acc'rate =&ile it is tr'e
t&at t&e attestation cla'se is not a /art of t&e will% t&e co'rt% after e4amining t&e totality of t&e will% is of t&e
considered o/inion t&at error in t&e n'm9er of /ages of t&e will as stated in t&e attestation cla'se is not
material to invalidate t&e s'9ject will #t m'st 9e noted t&at t&e s'9ject instr'ment is consec'tively lettered
wit& /ages A% 0% and C w&ic& is a s'fficient safeg'ard from t&e /ossi9ility of an omission of some of t&e
/ages *&e error m'st &ave 9een 9ro'g&t a9o't 9y t&e &onest 9elief t&at t&e will is t&e w&ole instr'ment
consisting of t&ree +3. /ages incl'sive of t&e attestation cla'se and t&e ac1nowledgment *&e /osition of t&e
co'rt is in consonance wit& t&e doctrine of li9eral inter/retation> en'nciated in Article 8-3 of t&e Civil Code
w&ic& reads:
#n t&e a9sence of 9ad fait&% forgery or fra'd% or 'nd'e KandL im/ro/er /ress're and
infl'ence% defects and im/erfections in t&e form of attestation or in t&e lang'age 'sed t&erein
s&all not render t&e will invalid if it is /roved t&at t&e will was in fact e4ec'ted and attested in
s'9stantial com/liance wit& all t&e re;'irements of Article 8-5
4 4 4>
*&'s% we find no reason to dist'r9 t&e a9ovementioned findings of t&e R*C Since% /etitioner and &er si9lings are
not com/'lsory &eirs of t&e decedent 'nder Article 88D of t&e Civil Code and as t&e decedent validly dis/osed of
&er /ro/erties in a will d'ly e4ec'ted and /ro9ated% /etitioner &as no legal rig&t to claim any /art of t&e decedent@s
estate
CR*' v 3I""ASOR
5: SCRA 31
*&e only ;'estion /resented for determination% on w&ic& t&e decision of t&e case &inges% is w&et&er t&e s'//osed
last will and testament of Calente J Cr'6 was e4ec'ted in accordance wit& law% /artic'larly Article 8-5 and 8-I of
t&e new Civil Code% t&e first re;'iring at least t&ree credi9le witnesses to attest and s'9scri9e to t&e will% and t&e
second re;'iring t&e testator and t&e witnesses to ac1nowledge t&e will 9efore a notary /'9lic
(f t&e t&ree instr'mental witnesses t&ereto% namely% 5eogracias * 7amoas% 7r% 5r 8rancisco ,anares and Atty
Angel ) *eves% 7r% one of t&em% t&e last named% is at t&e same time t&e notary /'9lic 9efore w&om t&e will was
s'//osed to &ave 9een ac1nowledged Red'ced to sim/ler terms% t&e ;'estion was w&et&er or not t&e will was
attested and s'9scri9ed 9y at least t&ree credi9le witnesses in t&e /resence of t&e testator and of eac& ot&er%
considering t&at t&e t&ree attesting witnesses m'st a//ear 9efore t&e notary /'9lic to ac1nowledge t&e same As
t&e t&ird witness is t&e notary /'9lic &imself% /etitioner arg'es t&at t&e res'lt is t&at only two witnesses a//eared
9efore t&e notary /'9lic to ac1nowledge t&e will (n t&e ot&er &and% /rivate res/ondentAa//ellee% Man'el 0
!'gay% w&o is t&e s'//osed e4ec'tor of t&e will% following t&e reasoning of t&e trial co'rt% maintains t&at t&ere is
s'9stantial com/liance wit& t&e legal re;'irement of &aving at least t&ree attesting witnesses% even if t&e notary
/'9lic acted as one of t&em
After weig&ing t&e merits of t&e conflicting claims of t&e /arties% =e are inclined to s'stain t&at of t&e a//ellant t&at
t&e last will and testament in ;'estion was not e4ec'ted in accordance wit& law *&e notary /'9lic 9efore w&om
t&e will was ac1nowledged cannot 9e considered as t&e t&ird instr'mental witness since &e cannot ac1nowledge
9efore &imself &is &aving signed t&e will *o ac1nowledge 9efore means to avow +(avellana v Ledesma% 3D ,&il
B58% BIB< Castro c Castro% 1-- ,&il B33% B:D.< to own as gen'ine% to assent% to admit< and G9eforeG means in front
or /receding in s/ace or a&ead of +*&e $ew =e9ster Encyclo/edic 5ictionary of t&e englis& !ang'age% / DB<
8'n1 2 =agnalls $ew Standard 5ictionary of t&e Englis& !ang'age% / B5B< =e9sterNs $ew #nternational
Page 5 of 12
LPU BarOps 2013
5ictionary% Bd% / B:5. Conse;'ently% if t&e t&ird witness were t&e notary /'9lic &imself% &e wo'ld &ave to avow%
assent% or admit as &is &aving signed t&e will in front of &imself *&is cannot 9e done 9eca'se &e cannot s/lit &is
/ersonality into two so t&at one will a//ear 9efore t&e ot&er to ac1nowledge &is /artici/ation in t&e ma1ing of t&e
will *o /ermit s'c& a sit'ation wo'ld 9e sanctioning a s&eer a9s'rdity
8'rt&ermore% t&e f'nction of a notary /'9lic is% among ot&ers% to g'ard against any illegal or immoral
arrangements +"alinon v de Leon% 5- (M 583. *&at f'nction wo'ld 9e defeated if t&e notary /'9lic were one of
t&e attesting or instr'mental witnesses 8or t&en &e wo'ld 9e interested in s'staining t&e validity of t&e will as it
directly involves &imself and t&e validity of &is own act #t wo'ld /lace &im in an inconsistent /osition and t&e very
/'r/ose of t&e ac1nowledgment% w&ic& is to minimi6e fra'd +Re/ort of t&e Code Commission% / 1-IA1-D.% wo'ld
9e t&warted
*o allow t&e notary /'9lic to act as t&ird witness% or one of t&e attesting and ac1nowledging witnesses% wo'ld &ave
t&e effect of &aving only two attesting witnesses to t&e will w&ic& wo'ld 9e in contravention of t&e /rovisions of
Article 8-5 re;'iring at least t&ree credi9le witnesses to act as s'c& and of Article 8-I w&ic& re;'ires t&at t&e
testator and t&e re;'ired n'm9er of witnesses m'st a//ear 9efore t&e notary /'9lic to ac1nowledge t&e will *&e
res'lt wo'ld 9e% as &as 9een said% t&at only two witnesses a//eared 9efore t&e notary /'9lic for t&at /'r/ose #n
t&e circ'mstances% t&e law wo'ld not 9e d'ly o9served
-*ERRERO 3 BIHIS
5B1 SCRA 33:
,etitioner admits t&at t&e will was ac1nowledged 9y t&e testatri4 and t&e witnesses at t&e testatri4@s residence in
O'e6on City 9efore Atty 5irecto and t&at% at t&at time% Atty 5irecto was a commissioned notary /'9lic for and in
Caloocan City S&e% &owever% asserts t&at t&e fact t&at t&e notary /'9lic was acting o'tside &is territorial
j'risdiction did not affect t&e validity of t&e notarial will
5id t&e will ac1nowledged> 9y t&e testatri4 and t&e instr'mental witnesses 9efore a notary /'9lic acting o'tside
t&e /lace of &is commission satisfy t&e re;'irement 'nder Article 8-I of t&e Civil CodeH #t did not
An ac1nowledgment is t&e act of one w&o &as e4ec'ted a deed in going 9efore some com/etent officer and
declaring it to 9e &is act or deed #n t&e case of a notarial will% t&at com/etent officer is t&e notary /'9lic
*&e ac1nowledgment of a notarial will coerces t&e testator and t&e instr'mental witnesses to declare 9efore an
officer of t&e law% t&e notary /'9lic% t&at t&ey e4ec'ted and s'9scri9ed to t&e will as t&eir own free act and deed
S'c& declaration is 'nder oat& and 'nder /ain of /erj'ry% t&'s /aving t&e way for t&e criminal /rosec'tion of
/ersons w&o /artici/ated in t&e e4ec'tion of s/'rio's wills% or t&ose e4ec'ted wit&o't t&e free consent of t&e
testator #t also /rovides a f'rt&er degree of ass'rance t&at t&e testator is of a certain mindset in ma1ing t&e
testamentary dis/ositions to t&e /ersons instit'ted as &eirs or designated as devisees or legatees in t&e will
Ac1nowledgment can only 9e made 9efore a com/etent officer% t&at is% a lawyer d'ly commissioned as a notary
/'9lic #n t&is connection% t&e relevant /rovisions of t&e $otarial !aw /rovides:
SEC*#($ B:- *erritorial 7'risdictionA *&e j'risdiction of a notary /'9lic in a /rovince s&all 9e coAe4tensive
wit& t&e /rovince *&e j'risdiction of a notary /'9lic in t&e City of Manila s&all 9e coAe4tensive wit& said city
$o notary s&all /ossess a't&ority to do any notarial act 9eyond t&e limits of &is j'risdiction>
A notary /'9lic@s commission is t&e grant of a't&ority in &is favor to /erform notarial acts #t is iss'ed >wit&in and
for> a /artic'lar territorial j'risdiction and t&e notary /'9lic@s a't&ority is coAe4tensive wit& it #n ot&er words% a
notary /'9lic is a't&ori6ed to /erform notarial acts% incl'ding t&e ta1ing of ac1nowledgment% wit&in t&at territorial
j'risdiction only ('tside t&e /lace of &is commission% &e is 9ereft of /ower to /erform any notarial act< &e is not a
notary /'9lic Any notarial act o'tside t&e limits of &is j'risdiction &as no force and effect As t&is Co'rt
categorically /rono'nced in Tecson v Tecson:
An ac1nowledgment ta1en o'tside t&e territorial limits of t&e officer@s j'risdiction is void as if t&e /erson
ta1ing it were w&olly wit&o't official c&aracter>
Since Atty 5irecto was not a commissioned notary /'9lic for and in O'e6on City% &e lac1ed t&e a't&ority to ta1e
t&e ac1nowledgment of t&e testatri4 and t&e instr'mental witnesses #n t&e same vein% t&e testatri4 and &er
witnesses co'ld not &ave validly ac1nowledged t&e will 9efore &im *&'s% 8elisa *amio de 0'enavent'ra@s last will
and testament was% in effect% not ac1nowledged as re;'ired 9y law
An ac1nowledgment is t&e act of one w&o &as e4ec'ted a deed in going 9efore some com/etent officer and
declaring it to 9e &is act or deed #n t&e case of a notarial will% t&at com/etent officer is t&e notary /'9lic
Page 6 of 12
LPU BarOps 2013
*&e ac1nowledgment of a notarial will coerces t&e testator and t&e instr'mental witnesses to declare 9efore an
officer of t&e law% t&e notary /'9lic% t&at t&ey e4ec'ted and s'9scri9ed to t&e will as t&eir own free act and deed
S'c& declaration is 'nder oat& and 'nder /ain of /erj'ry% t&'s /aving t&e way for t&e criminal /rosec'tion of
/ersons w&o /artici/ated in t&e e4ec'tion of s/'rio's wills% or t&ose e4ec'ted wit&o't t&e free consent of t&e
testator #t also /rovides a f'rt&er degree of ass'rance t&at t&e testator is of a certain mindset in ma1ing t&e
testamentary dis/ositions to t&e /ersons instit'ted as &eirs or designated as devisees or legatees in t&e will
Ac1nowledgment can only 9e made 9efore a com/etent officer% t&at is% a lawyer d'ly commissioned as a notary
/'9lic #n t&is connection% t&e relevant /rovisions of t&e $otarial !aw /rovides:
SEC*#($ B:- *erritorial 7'risdictionA *&e j'risdiction of a notary /'9lic in a /rovince s&all 9e coAe4tensive
wit& t&e /rovince *&e j'risdiction of a notary /'9lic in t&e City of Manila s&all 9e coAe4tensive wit& said city
$o notary s&all /ossess a't&ority to do any notarial act 9eyond t&e limits of &is j'risdiction>
A notary /'9lic@s commission is t&e grant of a't&ority in &is favor to /erform notarial acts #t is iss'ed >wit&in and
for> a /artic'lar territorial j'risdiction and t&e notary /'9lic@s a't&ority is coAe4tensive wit& it #n ot&er words% a
notary /'9lic is a't&ori6ed to /erform notarial acts% incl'ding t&e ta1ing of ac1nowledgment% wit&in t&at territorial
j'risdiction only ('tside t&e /lace of &is commission% &e is 9ereft of /ower to /erform any notarial act< &e is not a
notary /'9lic Any notarial act o'tside t&e limits of &is j'risdiction &as no force and effect As t&is Co'rt
categorically /rono'nced in Tecson v Tecson:
An ac1nowledgment ta1en o'tside t&e territorial limits of t&e officer@s j'risdiction is void as if t&e /erson
ta1ing it were w&olly wit&o't official c&aracter>
Since Atty 5irecto was not a commissioned notary /'9lic for and in O'e6on City% &e lac1ed t&e a't&ority to ta1e
t&e ac1nowledgment of t&e testatri4 and t&e instr'mental witnesses #n t&e same vein% t&e testatri4 and &er
witnesses co'ld not &ave validly ac1nowledged t&e will 9efore &im *&'s% 8elisa *amio de 0'enavent'ra@s last will
and testament was% in effect% not ac1nowledged as re;'ired 9y law
A"3ARADO v -A3IO"A+ JR.
BBI SCRA 3:D
*&e following /rono'ncement in -arcia v .as+uez /rovides an insig&t into t&e sco/e of t&e term G9lindness: as
'sed in Art 8-8% to wit:
*&e rationale 9e&ind t&e re;'irement of reading t&e will to t&e testator if &e is 9lind or inca/a9le of reading
t&e will &imself +as w&en &e is illiterate.% is to ma1e t&e /rovisions t&ereof 1nown to &im% so t&at &e may 9e
a9le to o9ject if t&ey are not in accordance wit& &is wis&es 4 4 4>
Clear from t&e foregoing is t&at Art 8-8 a//lies not only to 9lind testators 9't also to t&ose w&o% for one reason or
anot&er% are Ginca/a9le of reading t&e+ir. will+s.G Since 0rigido Alvarado was inca/a9le of reading t&e final drafts of
&is will and codicil on t&e se/arate occasions of t&eir e4ec'tion d'e to &is G/oor%G Gdefective%G or G9l'rredG vision%
t&ere can 9e no ot&er co'rse for 's 9't to concl'de t&at 0rigido Alvarado comes wit&in t&e sco/e of t&e term
G9lindG as it is 'sed in Art 8-8 Enless t&e contents were read to &im% &e &ad no way of ascertaining w&et&er or
not t&e lawyer w&o drafted t&e will and codicil did so conforma9ly wit& &is instr'ctions )ence% to consider &is will
as validly e4ec'ted and entitled to /ro9ate% it is essential t&at we ascertain w&et&er Art 8-8 &ad 9een com/lied
wit&
Article 8-8 re;'ires t&at in case of testators li1e 0rigido Alvarado% t&e will s&all 9e read to &im twice< once 9y one
of t&e instr'mental witnesses and% again% 9y t&e notary /'9lic 9efore w&om t&e will was ac1nowledged *&e
/'r/ose is to ma1e 1nown to t&e inca/acitated testator t&e contents of t&e doc'ment 9efore signing and to give
&im an o//ort'nity to o9ject if anyt&ing is contrary to &is instr'ctions
*&at Art 8-8 was not followed strictly is 9eyond cavil #nstead of t&e notary /'9lic and an instr'mental witness% it
was t&e lawyer +/rivate res/ondent. w&o drafted t&e eig&tA/aged will and t&e fiveA/aged codicil w&o read t&e
same alo'd to t&e testator% and read t&em only once% not twice as Art 8-8 re;'ires
,rivate res/ondent &owever insists t&at t&ere was s'9stantial com/liance and t&at t&e single reading s'ffices for
/'r/oses of t&e law (n t&e ot&er &and% /etitioner maintains t&at t&e only valid com/liance is a strict com/liance or
com/liance to t&e letter and since it is admitted t&at neit&er t&e notary nor an instr'mental witness read t&e
contents of t&e will and codicil to 0rigido% /ro9ate of t&e latterNs will and codicil s&o'ld &ave 9een disallowed
=e s'stain /rivate res/ondentNs stand and necessarily t&e /etition m'st 9e denied
*&is Co'rt &as &eld in a n'm9er of occasions t&at s'9stantial com/liance is acce/ta9le w&ere t&e /'r/ose of t&e
law &as 9een satisfied% t&e reason 9eing t&at t&e solemnities s'rro'nding t&e e4ec'tion of wills are intended to
Page 7 of 12
LPU BarOps 2013
/rotect t&e testator from all 1inds of fra'd and tric1ery 9't are never intended to 9e so rigid and infle4i9le as to
destroy t&e testamentary /rivilege
#n t&e case at 9ar% /rivate res/ondent read t&e testatorNs will and codicil alo'd in t&e /resence of t&e testator% &is
t&ree instr'mental witnesses% and t&e notary /'9lic ,rior and s'9se;'ent t&ereto% t&e testator affirmed% '/on
9eing as1ed% t&at t&e contents read corres/onded wit& &is instr'ctions (nly t&en did t&e signing and
ac1nowledgment ta1e /lace *&ere is no evidence% and /etitioner does not so allege% t&at t&e contents of t&e will
and codicil were not s'fficiently made 1nown and comm'nicated to t&e testator (n t&e contrary% wit& res/ect to
t&e G)'ling )a9ilin%G t&e day of t&e e4ec'tion was not t&e first time t&at 0rigido &ad affirmed t&e tr't& and
a't&enticity of t&e contends of t&e draft *&e 'ncontradicted testimony of Atty Rino is t&at 0rigido Alvarado already
ac1nowledged t&at t&e will was drafted in accordance wit& &is e4/ressed wis&es even /rior to 5 $ovem9er 13DD
w&en Atty Rino went to t&e testatorNs residence /recisely for t&e /'r/ose of sec'ring &is conformity to t&e draft
Moreover% it was not only Atty Rino w&o read t&e doc'ments on 5 $ovem9er 13DD and B3 5ecem9er 13DD *&e
notary /'9lic and t&e t&ree instr'mental witnesses li1ewise read t&e will and codicil% al9eit silently Afterwards% Atty
$onia de la ,ePa +t&e notary /'9lic. and 5r Cresente ( Evidente +one of t&e t&ree instr'mental witnesses and
t&e testatorNs /&ysician. as1ed t&e testator w&et&er t&e contents were of &is own free will 0rigido answered in t&e
affirmative =it& fo'r /ersons following t&e reading word for word wit& t&eir own co/ies% it can 9e safely concl'ded
t&at t&e testator was reasona9ly ass'red t&at w&at was read to &im +t&ose w&ic& &e affirmed were in accordance
wit& &is instr'ctions.% were t&e terms act'ally a//earing on t&e ty/ewritten doc'ments *&is is es/ecially tr'e
w&en we consider t&e fact t&at t&e t&ree instr'mental witnesses were /ersons 1nown to t&e testator% one 9eing &is
/&ysician +5r Evidente. and anot&er +,otenciano C Ranieses. 9eing 1nown to &im since c&ild&ood
*&e s/irit 9e&ind t&e law was served t&o'g& t&e letter was not Alt&o'g& t&ere s&o'ld 9e strict com/liance wit& t&e
s'9stantial re;'irements of t&e law in order to ins're t&e a't&enticity of t&e will% t&e formal im/erfections s&o'ld 9e
9r's&ed aside w&en t&ey do not affect its /'r/ose and w&ic&% w&en ta1en into acco'nt% may only defeat t&e
testatorNs will
3DA. DE )ERE' v (O"E(E
B3B SCRA DBB
*&e evidence necessary for t&e re/ro9ate or allowance of wills w&ic& &ave 9een /ro9ated o'tside t&e ,&ili//ines
are as follows: +1. t&e d'e e4ec'tion of t&e will in accordance wit& t&e foreign laws< +B. t&e testator &as &is
domicile in t&e foreign co'ntry and not in t&e ,&ili//ines< +3. t&e will &as 9een admitted to /ro9ate in s'c& co'ntry<
+:. t&e fact t&at t&e foreign tri9'nal is a /ro9ate co'rt< and +5. t&e laws of t&e foreign co'ntry on /roced're and
allowance of wills E4ce/t for t&e first and last re;'irements% t&e /etitioner s'9mitted all of t&e needed evidence
*&e necessity of /resenting evidence on t&e foreign laws '/on w&ic& t&e /ro9ate in t&e foreign co'ntry is 9ased is
im/elled 9y t&e fact t&at o'r co'rts cannot ta1e j'dicial notice of t&em
SEA!-IO v RE,ES
5-8 SCRA 1DD
A will reads as follows:
/asulatan sa pag0aalis ng mana
Tantunin ng sinoman
A1o si egundo eangio# Filipino ma) asa2a naninirahan sa 3450A Flores t6 7rmita# Manila# at nagtatagla)
ng mali2anag na pag0iisip at disposis)on a) tahasan at ha)agan inaalisan 1o ng lahat at anumang mana ang
pangana) 1ong ana1 na si Alfredo eangio dahil si)a a) nagging lapastangan sa a1in at isang beses si)a a)
nagsalita ng masama sa harapan 1o at mga 1apatid ni)a na si .irginia eangio labis 1ong i1inasama ng loob
at sasabe rin ni Alfredo ss a1in a1o nasa ibaba2 nga)on ngunit darating ang ara2 na nasa ilalim sia at si)a
nasa ibaba26
Labis 1ong i1inasama ng loob 1o ang gamit in Alfredo ng a1in pangalan para ma1apagutang na 1uarta si)a
at 1an)a asa2a na si Merna de los ,e)es sa China "an1ing Corporation na million pesos at hindi nag
baba)ad at hindi ng baba)ad ito a) nagdulot sa a1ing ng mala1ing 1ahihi)a sa mga ma)0ari at stoc1holders
ng China "an1ing6
At i1inagalit 1o pa rin ang pag1uha ni Alfredo at ng 1an)ang asa2a na mga customer ng Travel Center of the
Philippines na pinangasi2aan 1o at ng ana1 1o si .irginia6
8ito a1o nagalit din 1a)a ga)on a)o1o na bilangin si Alfredo ng ana1 1o at ha)anan 1ong inaalisan ng lahat
at anomang mana na si Alfredo at si Alfredo eangio a) hindi 1o si)a ana1 at hindi sia ma1oha mana6
Page 8 of 12
LPU BarOps 2013
9ilagdaan 1o nga)on i1a :; ng et)embre %''5 sa longsod ng Manila sa harap ng tatlong sa1si6
<signed=
egundo eangio
8or disin&eritance to 9e valid% Article 31I of t&e Civil Code re;'ires t&at t&e same m'st 9e effected t&ro'g& a will
w&erein t&e legal ca'se t&erefor s&all 9e s/ecified =it& regard to t&e reasons for t&e disin&eritance t&at were
stated 9y Seg'ndo in &is doc'ment% t&e Co'rt 9elieves t&at t&e incidents% ta1en as a w&ole% can 9e considered a
form of maltreatment of Seg'ndo 9y &is son% Alfredo% and t&at t&e matter /resents a s'fficient ca'se for t&e
disin&eritance of a c&ild or descendant 'nder Article 313 of t&e Civil Code
RABADI""A v CO*R( O A))EA"S
33: SCRA 5BB
*&e /ertinent /ortions of a will reads as follows:
8#RS*
# give% leave and 9e;'eat& t&e following /ro/erty owned 9y me to 5r 7orge Ra9adilla resident of 1:1 ,
Cillan'eva% ,asay City:
+a. !ot $o 133B of t&e 0acolod Cadastre covered 9y *ransfer Certificate of title $o R*A:--B +1-3:B. 4 4
4
+9. *&at s&o'ld 7orge Ra9adilla die a&ead of me% t&e aforementioned /ro/erty and t&e rig&ts w&ic& # s&all set
fort& &erein9elow% s&all 9e in&erited and ac1nowledged 9y t&e c&ildren and s/o'se of 7orge Ra9adilla
8(ER*)
+a. #t is also my command% in t&is my addition +Codicil.% t&at s&o'ld # die and 7orge Ra9adilla s&all &ave
already received t&e owners&i/ of t&e said !ot $o 133B 4 4 4 7orge Ra9adilla s&all &ave t&e o9ligation
'ntil &e dies% every year to give to Maria Marlina Coscoll'ela y 0elle6a% Seventy +D5. +sic. /ic'ls of E4/ort
s'gar and *wentyAfive +B5. /ic'ls of 5omestic s'gar% 'ntil t&e said Maria Marlina Coscoll'ela y 0elle6a dies
8#8*)
+a. S&o'ld 7orge Ra9adilla die% &is &eirs to w&om &e s&all give !ot $o 133B 4 4 4 s&all &ave t&e
o9ligation to still give yearly% t&e s'gar s/ecified in t&e 8o'rt& ,aragra/& of t&is testament% to Maria Marlina
Coscoll'ela y 0elle6a on t&e mont& of 5ecem9er of eac& year
S#"*)
# command 4 4 4 t&at t&e !ot $o 133B% in t&e event t&at t&e one to w&om # &ave left and 9e;'eat&ed%
and &is &eirs s&all later sell% lease% mortgage t&is !ot% t&e 9'yer% lessee% mortgagee% s&all &ave also t&e
o9ligation to res/ect and deliver yearly ($E )E$5RE5 +1--. /ic'ls of s'gar to Maria Marlina Coscoll'ela y
0elle6a% on eac& mont& of 5ecem9er% SECE$*Q 8#CE +D5. /ic'ls of E4/ort and *=E$*Q 8#CE +B5. /ic'ls of
5omestic s'gar% 'ntil Maria Marlina s&all die% lastly s&o'ld t&e 9'yer% lessee or t&e mortgagee of t&is lot% not
&ave res/ected my command in t&is my addition +Codicil.% Maria Marlina Coscoll'ela y 0elle6a% s&all
immediately sei6e t&is !ot $o 133B from my &eir and t&e latter@s &eirs% and s&all t'rn it over to my near
descendants% +sic. and t&e latter s&all t&en &ave t&e o9ligation to give t&e ($E )E$5RE5 +1--. /ic'ls of
s'gar 'ntil Maria Marlina s&all die # f'rt&er command in t&is my addition +Codicil. t&at my &eir and &is &eirs of
t&is !ot $o 133B% t&at t&ey will o9ey and follow t&at s&o'ld t&ey decide to sell% lease% mortgage% t&ey cannot
negotiate wit& ot&ers t&an my near descendants and my sister
#s t&e testamentary dis/osition in favor of 5r Ra9adilla conditional or modalH
*&e instit'tion of an &eir in t&e manner /rescri9ed in Article 88B is w&at is 1nown in t&e law of s'ccession as an
institucion sub modo or a modal instit'tion #n a modal instit'tion% t&e testator states +1. t&e o9ject of t&e instit'tion%
+B. t&e /'r/ose or a//lication of t&e /ro/erty left 9y t&e testator% or +3. t&e c&arge im/osed 9y t&e testator '/on
t&e &eir A mode> im/oses an o9ligation '/on t&e &eir or legatee 9't it does not affect t&e efficacy of &is rig&t to
s'ccession (n t&e ot&er &and% in a conditional testamentary dis/osition% t&e condition m'st &a//en or 9e f'lfilled
in order for t&e &eir to 9e entitled to s'cceed t&e testator *&e condition s's/ends 9't does not o9ligate< and t&e
mode o9ligates 9't does not s's/end *o some e4tent% it is similar to a resol'tory condition
8rom t&e /rovisions of t&e Codicil litigated '/on% it can 9e gleaned 'nerringly t&at t&e testatri4 intended t&at
s'9ject /ro/erty 9e in&erited 9y 5r 7orge Ra9adilla #t is li1ewise clearly worded t&at t&e testatri4 im/osed an
o9ligation on t&e said instit'ted &eir and &is s'ccessorsAinAinterest to deliver one &'ndred /ic'ls of s'gar to t&e
Page 9 of 12
LPU BarOps 2013
&erein /rivate res/ondent% Marlena Coscoll'ela 0elle6a% d'ring t&e lifetime of t&e latter )owever% t&e testatri4 did
not ma1e 5r 7orge Ra9adilla@s in&eritance and t&e effectivity of &is instit'tion as a devisee% de/endent on t&e
/erformance of t&e said o9ligation #t is clear% t&o'g&% t&at s&o'ld t&e o9ligation 9e not com/lied wit&% t&e /ro/erty
s&all 9e t'rned over to t&e testatri4@s near descendants *&e manner of instit'tion of 5r 7orge Ra9adilla 'nder
s'9ject Codicil is evidently modal in nat're 9eca'se it im/oses a c&arge '/on t&e instit'ted &eir wit&o't% &owever%
affecting t&e efficacy of s'c& instit'tion
*&en too% since testamentary dis/ositions are generally acts of li9erality% an o9ligation im/osed '/on t&e &eir
s&o'ld not 9e considered a condition 'nless it clearly a//ears from t&e =ill itself t&at s'c& was t&e intention of t&e
testator #n case of do'9t% t&e instit'tion s&o'ld 9e considered as modal and not conditional
S'9ject Codicil /rovides t&at t&e instit'ted &eir is 'nder o9ligation to delivery (ne )'ndred +1--. /ic'ls of s'gar
yearly to Marlena 0elle6a Cosc'ella +sic. S'c& o9ligation is im/osed on t&e instit'ted &eir% 5r 7orge Ra9adilla% &is
&eirs% and t&eir 9'yer% lessee% or mortgagee s&o'ld t&ey sell% lease% mortgage ot&er ot&erwise negotiate t&e
/ro/erty involved *&e Codicil f'rt&er /rovides t&at in t&e event t&at t&e o9ligation to deliver t&e s'gar is not
res/ected% Marlena 0elle6a Cosc'ella +sic. s&all sei6e t&e /ro/erty and t'rn it over to t&e testatri4@s near
descendants *&e nonA/erformance of t&e said o9ligation is t&'s wit& t&e sanction of sei6're of t&e /ro/erty and
reversion t&ereof to t&e testatri4@s near descendants Since t&e said o9ligation is clearly im/osed on &is
s'ccessorAinAinterest% t&e sanction im/osed 9y t&e testatri4 in case of nonAf'lfillment of said o9ligation s&o'ld
e;'ally a//ly to t&e instit'ted &eir and &is s'ccessorsAinAinterest
)AD*RA v BA"DO3I!O
1-: ,&il 1-I5
,ad'ra r'led as follows:
1 *&e division of t&e reserva9le /ro/erty among t&e reservatarios follows t&e /rinci/le of delayed intestacy> *&e
co'rt rejected t&e t&eory of reserva integral es/o'sed 9y some S/anis& commentators s'c& as Scaevola
B 8ollowing Article 1--I of t&e Civil Code% reservatatrios w&o are f'llA9lood ne/&ews and nieces of t&e /re/osit's
are entitled to twice as m'c& as reservatarios w&o are &alfA9lood ne/&ews and nieces of t&e /re/osit's ,eserva
troncal merely determines t&e gro'/ of relatives +reservatarios. to w&om t&e /ro/erty s&o'ld 9e ret'rned< 9't
wit&in t&at gro'/% t&e individ'al rig&t to t&e /ro/erty is determined 9y t&e r'les of intestate s'ccession
3 5'ring t&e reservista>s lifetime% t&e reservatarios can assert t&e rig&t to /revent t&e reservista from doing
anyt&ing t&at mig&t fr'strate t&e reversionary rig&t< and for t&is /'r/ose% t&ey can com/el t&e annotation of t&eir
rig&t in t&e Registry of ,ro/erty even w&ile t&e reservista is alive
: *&e reserva9le /ro/erty is not a /art of t&e estate of t&e reservista% w&o may not dis/ose of t&em 9y will% so
long as t&ere are reservatarios e4isting *&e latter do not in&erit from t&e reservista% 9't from t&e prepositus% of
w&om t&e reservatarios are &eirs mortis causa% s'9ject to t&e condition t&at t&ey m'st s'rvive t&e reservista
EDROSO v SAB"A!
B5 ,&il B35
7droso &olds as follows:
1 *&e reservor is not merely a 's'fr'ct'ary *&e reservor% &aving in&erited t&e reserva9le /ro/erty from t&e
prepositus% ac;'ired owners&i/ of t&e reserva9le /ro/erty% al9eit s'9ject to a resol'tory condition *&'s% a reservor
&as a registra9le title to t&e /ro/erty% and may instit'te land registration /roceedings in t&e a//ro/riate case
B *&e reservor &as t&e rig&t to dis/ose t&e reserva9le /ro/erty alt&o'g& s'9ject to a resol'tory condition )e can
do anyt&ing t&at a gen'ine owner can do% e4ce/t to dis/ose t&e /ro/erty 9y an act mortis causa
3 *&e Co'rt im/licitly ado/ted t&e t&eory of reserve minima w&en it r'led t&at t&ere co'ld &ave 9een a /artial
a9atement of t&e reserva9le c&aracter of t&e /ro/erty if the heiress had demonstrated that an) of these lands
had passed into her possession b) free disposal in her son>s 2ill> *&'s% if Pedro ablan had instituted his mother
in a 2ill as the universal heiress of his propert)# all he left at death 2ould not be re+uired b) la2 to be reserved#
but onl) 2hat he 2ould have perforce left her as the legal portion of a legitimate ascendant>
: *&e rig&t of t&e reservatarios to t&e reserva9le /ro/erty is a mere e4/ectancy and s'c& e4/ectancy is not
transferra9le to t&eir res/ective &eirs% 'nless t&e latter are relatives of t&e /re/osit's wit&in t&e t&ird degree
SIE!ES v ES)ARCIA
Page 10 of 12
LPU BarOps 2013
1 SCRA D5-
ienes &olds as follows:
1 *&e reserva creates do'9le resol'tory conditions: +1. t&e deat& of t&e reservor% and +B. t&e s'rvival of t&e
reservee at t&e time of t&e deat& of t&e reservor
B *&e reservista &as t&e legal title and dominion to t&e reserva9le /ro/erty 9't s'9ject to t&e do'9le resol'tory
conditions< t&at &e is li1e a life 's'fr'ct'ary of t&e reserva9le /ro/erty< t&at &e may alienate t&e same 9't s'9ject
to reservation% said alienation transmitting only t&e revoca9le and conditional owners&i/ of t&e reservista% t&e
rig&ts ac;'ired 9y t&e transferee 9eing revo1ed or resolved 9y t&e s'rvival of reservatarios at t&e time of t&e deat&
of t&e reservista
3 if t&e reservor sells t&e reserva9le /ro/erty% t&e sale is s'9ject to t&e resol'tory conditions of t&e reserva *&e
9'yer will ac;'ire a conditional title to t&e /ro/erty% 9't t&e same s&all 9e e4ting'is&ed '/on t&e deat& of t&e
reservor (n t&e ot&er &and% t&e reservee@s rig&t to t&e reserva9le /ro/erty is a mere e4/ectancy *&erefore t&e
reserve cannot sell t&e reserva9le /ro/erty d'ring t&e lifetime of t&e reservor #n .ela)o v iojo +58 ,&il 83.% t&e
Co'rt r'led t&at t&ere is no j'stification for a reservee to transfer or waive t&e reserva9le /ro/erty d'ring t&e
lifetime of t&e reservor 9eca'se it wo'ld constit'te a contract involving f't're in&eritance
S*!(A, III v COJ*A!-CO2S*!(A,
IB1 SCRA 1:B
(ne final note Co'nsel for /etitioner metic'lo'sly arg'es t&at Article 33B of t&e Civil Code% t&e s'ccessional 9ar
9etween t&e legitimate and illegitimate relatives of t&e decedent% does not a//ly in t&is instance w&ere facts
ind'9ita9ly demonstrate t&e contrary ? Emilio ###% an illegitimate grandc&ild of t&e decedent% was act'ally treated 9y
t&e decedent and &er &'s9and as t&eir own son% reared from infancy% ed'cated and trained in t&eir 9'sinesses%
and event'ally legally ado/ted 9y decedent@s &'s9and% t&e original o//ositor to res/ondent@s /etition for letters of
administration
=e are not 'nmindf'l of t&e criti;'es of civilists of a conflict and a lac'na in t&e law concerning t&e 9one of
contention t&at is Article 33B of t&e Civil Code% 9eginning wit& t&e eminent 7'stice 70! Reyes:
#n t&e S/anis& civil Code of 1883 t&e rig&t of re/resentation was admitted only w&ic& in t&e legitimate family<
so m'c& so t&at Article 3:3 of t&at Code /rescri9ed t&at an illegitimate c&ild can not in&erit ab intestato from
t&e legitimate c&ildren and relatives of &is fat&er and mot&er *&e Civil Code of t&e ,&ili//ines a//arently
ad&ered to t&is /rinci/le since it re/rod'ced Article 3:3 of t&e S/anis& Civil Code in its own Article 33B% 9't
wit& fine inconsistency% in s'9se;'ent articles +33-% 335 and 338. o'r Code allows t&e &ereditary /ortion of
t&e illegitimate c&ild to /ass to &is own descendants% w&et&er legitimate or illegitimate So t&at w&ile Art 33B
/revents t&e illegitimate iss'e of a legitimate c&ild from re/resenting &im in t&e intestate s'ccession of t&e
grand/arent% t&e illegitimates of an illegitimate c&ild can now do so *&is difference 9eing indefensi9le and
'nwarranted% in t&e f't're revision of t&e Civil Code we s&all &ave to ma1e a c&oice and decide eit&er t&at t&e
illegitimate iss'e enjoys in all cases t&e rig&t of re/resentation% in w&ic& case Art 33B m'st 9e s'//ressed< or
contrariwise maintain said article and modify Articles 335 and 338 *&e first sol'tion wo'ld 9e more in accord
wit& an enlig&tened attit'de vis0avis illegitimate c&ildren>
Manresa e4/lains t&e 9asis for t&e r'les on intestate s'ccession:
*&e law Kof intestacyL is fo'nded on t&e /res'med will of t&e deceased !ove% it is said% first descends%
t&en ascends% and finally% s/reads sideways *&'s% t&e law first calls t&e descendants% t&en t&e ascendants%
and finally t&e collaterals% always /referring t&ose closer in degree to t&ose of more remote degrees% on t&e
ass'm/tion t&at t&e deceased world &ave done so &ad &e manifested &is last will !astly% in defa'lt of anyone
called to s'ccession or 9o'nd to t&e decedent 9y ties of 9lood or affection% it is in accordance wit& &is
/res'med will t&at &is /ro/erty 9e given to c&arita9le or ed'cational instit'tions% and t&'s contri9'te to t&e
welfare of &'manity>
#ndeed% t&e fact'al antecedents of t&is case acc'rately reflect t&e 9asis of intestate s'ccession% ie% love first
descends for t&e decedent% Cristina% did not disting'is& 9etween &er legitimate and illegitimate grandc&ildren
$eit&er did &er &'s9and 8ederico% w&o in fact legally raised t&e stat's of Emilio ### from an illegitimate grandc&ild
to t&at of a legitimate c&ild *&e /ec'liar circ'mstances of t&is case% /ainsta1ingly /ointed o't 9y co'nsel for
/etitioner% overt&row t&e legal /res'm/tion in Article 33B of t&e Civil Code t&at t&ere e4ist animosity and
antagonism 9etween legitimate and illegitimate descendants of a deceased
$onet&eless% it m'st 9e /ointed o't t&at j'dicial restraint im/els 's to refrain from ma1ing a final decision of
&eirs&i/ and distri9'ting t&e /res'm/tive s&ares of t&e /arties in t&e estates of Cristina and 8ederico% considering
t&at t&e ;'estion on w&o will administer t&e /ro/erties of t&e long deceased co'/le &as yet to 9e settled
Page 11 of 12
LPU BarOps 2013
3ERDAD v CO*R( O A))EA"S
B5I SCRA 533
.erdad recogni6ed t&e rig&t of t&e widow to redeem a /ro/erty in w&ic& s&e was a coAowner &aving in&erited t&e
same from &er deceased &'s9and.%w&ic& &er 9rot&ers and sistersAinAlaw sold to a t&ird /arty wit&o't giving &er
/rior written notice
"E3IS(E 3 CO*R( O A))EA"S
1I- SCRA 581
Article 1-5B in /art /rovides t&at if an &eir re/'diates t&e in&eritance to t&e /rej'dice of &is creditors% t&e latter
may /etition t&e co'rt to a't&ori6e t&em to acce/t it in t&e name of t&e &eir *&is rig&t /ertains to creditors% and
e4cl'des an attorney w&o may &ave a claim against &is clientA&eir 9ased on a contingent fee arrangement
ARE""A!O 3 )ASC*A"
I38 SCRA 8BI
Collation is relevant only w&en t&ere are s'rviving com/'lsory &eirs w&o are entitled to t&e legitime *&'s% if t&e
decedent is s'rviving only 9y &is si9lings% t&e donations made 9y t&e decedent in &is lifetime are not collationa9le
since no /ortion of t&e estate is reserved to com/'lsory &eirs
&A!-2O, 3 CO*R( O A))EA"S
1:: SCRA 33
Article 1-8- /ermits a /erson to ma1e a /artition of &is estate 9y an act inter vivos% or 9y will S'c& /artition s&all
9e res/ected /rovided t&e legitime of t&e com/'lsory &eirs is not /rej'diced *&e Co'rt &eld t&at t&is /artition is
not in t&e nat're of a donation nor of a will #t is of a s/ecial c&aracter w&ic& does not even re;'ire t&e e4ec'tion of
a /rior will *&e /artition is revoca9le at any time d'ring t&e lifetime of t&e causante% and does not o/erate to
convey owners&i/ of t&e /ro/erties involved 'ntil t&e deat& of t&e latter
CHA3E' 3 I!(ER&EDIA(E A))E""A(E CO*R(
131 SCRA B11
Mang0o) &olds t&at a /artition inter vivos e4ec'ted in accordance wit& Article 1-8- is revoca9le 9y a /erson
ma1ing t&e /artition at any time d'ring &is or &er lifetime% and t&at s'c& /artition will not res'lt in a transfer of
owners&i/ to &is &eirs d'ring &is lifetime Chavez &olds t&at an e4ce/tion may 9e ta1en if t&e /artition &as 9een
im/lemented and t&at one +or some. of t&e &eirs% wit& t&e consent of t&e /erson ma1ing t&e /artition% conveys or
sells &is or &er pro0indiviso s&are to anot&er coA&eir Esto//el 9ars a selling &eir from disavowing t&e sale and
from /roceeding contrary t&ereto
*&e Co'rt f'rt&er r'led t&at t&e several sales among t&e coA&eirs did not constit'te contracts involving f't're
in&eritance 9eca'se eac& of t&e sales was wit& t&e e4/ressed consent of t&e /arent *&is was constr'ed as a sale
of t&e /arent &erself
8inally% t&e co'rt o/ined t&at a /artition inter vivos 'ner Article 1-8- does not re;'ire a s/ecific form and may 9e
made orally or in writing
Page 12 of 12