Você está na página 1de 28

ATTY.

MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


1. Alvarez vs. IAC
G.R. No. L-68053. May 7, 1990
Aguila
ISSUE:
W/N the liability of Rosendo Alvarez arising from the sale of Lots
Nos. 773-A and 773-B could be legally passed or transmitted by
operation of law to the petitioners without violation of law and
due process.
RULING: The doctrine obtaining in this jurisdiction is on the
general transmissibility of the rights and obligations of the
deceased to his legitimate children and heirs.
The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased
party is not altered by the provision of our Rules of Court that
money debts of a deceased must be liquidated and paid from his
estate before the residue is distributed among said heirs. The
reason is that whatever payment is thus made from the estate is
ultimately a payment by the heirs or distributees, since the
amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares
that the heirs would have been entitled to receive.
Under our law, therefore, the general rule is that a partys
contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the
successors. The rule is a consequence of the progressive
depersonalization of patrimonial rights and duties.
Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez, they
cannot escape the legal consequences of their fathers
transaction, which gave rise to the present claim for damages.
2. GEVERO vs. IAC

G.R. No. 77029. August 30, 1990


Alconaba

ISSUE: Whether or not the share of interest of Teodorica


in one of the litigated lots is included in the deed of sale.
RULING:
YES. The hereditary share in a decedents' estate is
transmitted or vested immediately from the moment of the death
of the "causante" or predecessor in interest (Civil Code of the
Philippines, Art. 777), and there is no legal bar to a successor
(with requisite contracting capacity) disposing of his hereditary
share immediately after such death, even if the actual extent of
such share is not determined until the subsequent liquidation of
the estate (De Borja v. Vda. de Borja, 46 SCRA 577
[1972]).Teodorica Babangha died long before World War II,
hence, the rights to the succession were transmitted from the
moment of her death. It is therefore incorrect to state that it was
only in 1966, the date of extrajudicial partition, when Ricardo
received his share in the lot as inheritance from his mother
Teodorica. Thus, when Ricardo sold his share over lot 2476 that
share which he inherited from Teodorica was also included
unless expressly excluded in the deed of sale.
3. Locsin vs CA
GR No. 89783 February 19, 1992
Apostol
ISSUE: WON the nephews and neices are entitled to inherit the
properties which Dona Catalina already disposed of more than
10 years before her death.
HELD: NO, for those properties did not form part of her
hereditary estate, i.e., "the property and transmissible rights and
obligations existing at the time of (the decedent's) death and
1

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the
succession." The rights to a person's succession are transmitted
from the moment of his death, and do not vest in his heirs until
such time. Property which Doa Catalina had transferred or
conveyed to other persons during her lifetime no longer formed
part of her estate at the time of her death to which her heirs may
lay claim.

4.Opulencia vs. Court of Appeals


GR No. 125385 July 30, 1998
Ayo
ISSUE: Whether or not a contract to sell executed after the
death of the decedent is valid even withouth probate court
approval?
HELD: We emphasize that hereditary rights are vested in the
heir or heirs from the moment of the decedents death.[14]
Petitioner, therefore, became the owner of her hereditary share
the moment her father died. Thus, the lack of judicial approval
does not invalidate the Contract to Sell, because the petitioner
has the substantive right to sell the whole or a part of her share
in the estate of her late father.
5.Emnace vs. CA
G.R. No. 126334
Balicas
ISSUE: Whether or not the heirs of Vicente Tabanao has the
capacity to sue Emnace HELD: Yes. The surviving spouse does

not need to be appointed as executrix or administratrix of the


estate before she can file the action. She and her children are
complainants in their own right as successors of Vicente
Tabanao. From the very moment of Vicente Tabanao's death, his
rights insofar as the partnership was concerned were transmitted
to his heirs, for rights to the succession are transmitted from the
moment of death of the decedent. Whatever claims and rights
Vicente Tabanao had against the partnership and petitioner were
transmitted to respondents by operation of law, more particularly
by succession, which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which
the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of
the inheritance of a person are transmitted. Moreover,
respondents became owners of their respective hereditary
shares from the moment Vicente Tabanao died
6. Rabadilla vs. CA

ISSUE: WON there is substitution in the given case


HELD: Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person
or persons to take the place of the heir or heirs first instituted.
Under substitutions in general, the testator may either (1) provide
for the designation of another heir to whom the property shall
pass in case the original heir should die before him/her,
renounce the inheritance or be incapacitated to inherit, as in a
simple substitution, or (2) leave his/her property to one person
with the express charge that it be transmitted subsequently to
another or others, as in a fideicommissary substitution. The
Codicil sued upon contemplates neither of the two. In simple
substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance in
default of the first heir by reason of incapacity, predecease
or renunciation. In the case under consideration, the
provisions of subject Codicil do not provide that should Dr.
2

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


Jorge Rabadilla default due to predecease, incapacity or
renunciation, the testatrixs near descendantswould
substitute him. What the Codicil provides is that, should Dr.
Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the conditions
imposed in the Codicil, the property referred to shall be
seized and turned over to the testatrixs near descendants.
7. Tanedo vs ca

G.R. No. 104482. January 22, 1996


Basco

Issue: whether or not there is a valid sale to respondents.


Held: the supreme court ruled that a sale of future inheritance is
void. However, These two documents of sale were executed
after the death of Matias(faher of lazaro) (and his spouse) and
after a deed of extra-judicial settlement of his (Matias') estate
was executed, thus vesting in Lazaro actual title over said
property. In other words, these dispositions, though conflicting,
were no longer infected with the infirmities.
-SC ruled in favour od respondents because they were the first
to register land

HELD: It is noteworthy that at the time of the execution of the


documents denominated as "Bilihan ng Lupa," the entire
property owned by Maria, the mother of Rita, was not yet divided
among her and her co-heirs and so the description of the entire
estate is the only description that can be placed in the "Bilihan ng
Lupa, dated 17 August 1979 and 9 January 1981" because the
exact metes and bounds of the subject property sold to
respondents Spouses Lumbao could not be possibly determined
at that time. Nevertheless, that does not make the contract of
sale between Rita and respondents Spouses Lumbao invalid
because both the law and jurisprudence have categorically held
that even while an estate remains undivided, co-owners have
each full ownership of their respective aliquots or undivided
shares and may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage them.
The co-owner, however, has no right to sell or alienate a specific
or determinate part of the thing owned in common, because such
right over the thing is represented by an aliquot or ideal portion
without any physical division. In any case, the mere fact that the
deed purports to transfer a concrete portion does not per se
render the sale void. The sale is valid, but only with respect to
the aliquot share of the selling co-owner. Furthermore, the sale is
subject to the results of the partition upon the termination of the
co-ownership.
9. NHA vs. Almeida

8. Santos vs Lumbao
GR No. 169129; March 28, 2007
Baylon
ISSUE: WON a co-owner can alienate, mortgage, or assign his
aliquot or undivided share in the property

G.R. No. 162784


Beltran
Issue: Whether or not the award of the subject lots by the NHA
is arbitrary.
Held: We are not impressed. When the petitioner received the
"Sinumpaang Salaysay," it should have noted that the effectivity
3

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


of the said document commences at the time of death of the
author of the instrument; in her words "sakaling ako'y bawian na
ng Dios ng aking buhay" Hence, in such period, all the
interests of the person should cease to be hers and shall be in
the possession of her estate until they are transferred to her
heirs by virtue of Article 774 of the Civil Code. When the original
buyer died (Margarita), the NHA should have considered the
estate of the decedent as the next "person" likely to stand in to
fulfill the obligation to pay the rest of the purchase price. The
opposition of other heirs to the repurchase by Francisca Herrera
should have put the NHA on guard as to the award of the lots.
Further, the Decision in the said Civil Case No. B-1263
(questioning the Deed of Self-Adjudication) which rendered the
deed therein null and void should have alerted the NHA that
there are other heirs to the interests and properties of the
decedent who may claim the property after a testate or intestate
proceeding is concluded. The NHA therefore acted arbitrarily in
the award of the lots.

10. CONDE v. ABAYA

GR No.L-4275, March 23, 1909


13 PHIL 249
Buenaventura
ISSUE: May the mother of a natural child now deceased, bring
an action for the acknowledgment of the natural filiation in favor
of such child in order to appear in his behalf to receive the
inheritance from the deceased natural father.
HELD: The right of action that devolves upon the child to claim
his legitimacy lasts during his whole life, while the right to claim

the acknowledgment of a natural child lasts only during the life of


his presumed parents. An action for the acknowledgment of a
natural child may, as an exception, be exercised against the
heirs of the presumed parents in two cases: first, in the event of
the death of the latter during the minority of the child, and
second, upon the discovery of some instrument of express
acknowledgment of the child, executed by the father or mother,
the existence of which was unknown during the life of the latter.
But such action for the acknowledgment of a natural child can
only be exercised by him. It cannot be transmitted to his
descendants, or his ascendants.
11. Pamplona vs Moreto
GR no L-33187
Buhay
Issue:
Whether or not the spouses Pamplona are entitled to the full
ownership of property or only to the one-half of the same.
Ruling:
The spouses Pamplona are entitled to the full ownership of the
property. Equity commands that the private respondents, the
successors of both the deceased spouses, Flaviano Moreto and
Monica Maniega be not allowed to impugn the sale executed by
Flaviano Moreto who indisputably received the consideration of
P900.00 and which he, including his children, benefitted from the
same. Under Article 776, New Civil Code, the inheritance which
private respondents received from their deceased parents and/or
predecessors-in-interest included all the property rights and
obligations which were not extinguished by their parents' death.
And under Art. 1311, paragraph 1, New Civil Code, the contract
of sale executed by the deceased Flaviano Moreto took effect
between the parties, their assigns and heirs, who are the private
4

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


respondents herein. Accordingly, to the private respondents is
transmitted the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole
area of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners (which was the original
obligation of their predecessor Flaviano Moreto) and not only
one-half thereof.
12.PEOPLE vs. UMALI
[G.R. No. 84450. February 4, 1991.]
Cadugo
ISSUE: Whether or not Francisco Manalo can be used as a
witness in the criminal case against Gloria Umali?
HELD:
However, the plaintiff-appellee through the Solicitor General said
that even if Francisco Manalo was then facing several criminal
charges when he testified, such fact did not in any way disqualify
him as a witness. "His testimony is not only reasonable and
probable but more so, it was also corroborated in its material
respect by the other prosecution witnesses, especially the police
officers." Rule 130, Section 20 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides that:
"Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons
who can perceive, and perceiving can make known their
perception to others may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case,
or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall
not be a ground for disqualification."
The phrase "conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by
law" takes into account Article 821 of the Civil Code which states
that persons "convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or
false testimony" are disqualified from being witnesses to a will."
Since the witness Francisco Manalo is not convicted of any of

the above-mentioned crimes to disqualify him as a witness and


this case does not involve the probate of a will, We rule that the
fact that said witness is facing several criminal charges when he
testified did not in any way disqualify him as a witness.
13. Dolar v. Diancin
G.R. No. L-33365 December 20, 1930
Calugay

Issue: Whether the thumbmark placed on the will by the testator


sufficiently complies with the formalities required by law
Held: Yes. The requirement of the statute that the will shall be
"signed" is satisfied not only the customary written signature but
also by the testator's or testatrix' thumbmark. Expert testimony
as to the identity of thumbmarks or fingerprints is of course
admissible. The method of identification of fingerprints is a
science requiring close study .Where thumb impressions are
blurred and many of the characteristic marks far from clear, thus
rendering it difficult to trace the features enumerated by experts
as showing the identity or lack of identity of the impressions, the
court is justified in refusing to accept the opinions of alleged
experts and in substituting its own opinion that a distinct
similarity in some respects between the admittedly genuine
thumbmark and the questioned thumbmarks, is evident.
14. YAP TUA vs.YAP CA KUAN and YAP CA KUAN G.R. No. 6845
Calugtong
ISSUE: Whether or not the testator and witnesses sign the will
in the spresence of each other.
5

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


HELD: While the rule is absolute that one who makes a will must
sign the same in the presence of the witnesses and that the
witnesses must sign in the presence of each other, as well as in
the presence of the one making the will, yet, nevertheless, the
actual seeing of the signatures made is not necessary. It is
sufficient if the signatures are made where it is possible for each
of the necessary parties, if they desire to see, may see the
signatures placed upon the will.
15. AVERA vs GARCIA

G.R. No. 15566 September 14, 1921


Canasa
Issues:
a) Whether the proof of a single attesting witness without
accounting for the proof of the other two witnesses and where
opposition to the will was made would render the will invalid;
b) Whether signature of the testator and of the three attesting
witnesses written on the right margin of each page of the will
instead of the left margin would render the will invalid.
Held:
a) The will is valid. In Cabang vs. Delfinado, it was held that
when a contest is instituted, all of the attesting witnesses must
be examined, if alive and within reach of the process of the court.
However, in the instant case, such question cannot be raised
any more for the first time in this court unless the case is
remanded for a new trial. The question should have been made
at the lower court, either during the hearing or upon a motion for
a new trial.
b) The will is valid. So far as it concerns the authentication of the
will, and of every part thereof, it can make no possible
difference whether the names appear on the left or on the
right margin, provided they are on one or the other. The object

of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close


the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of
wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and
authenticity. Therefore laws should be interpreted in such a
way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on the other hand,
it is not the object of the law to restrain the exercise of the
right to make a will. So when an interpretation already given
assures such ends, interpretation that adds nothing but
demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and
frustrative of the testator's last will, must be disregarded.
16. Nayve vs Mojal

G.R. No. L-21755


Claudio
ISSUE: Whether or not the will is valid, hence, will allow the Will
to probate.
HELD: YES. As to the signatures on the margin, it is true, as
above stated, that the third page actually used was signed by the
testator, not on the left margin, as it was by the witnesses, but
about the middle of the page and the end of the will; and that the
fourth page was signed by the witnesses, not on the left margin,
as it was by the testator, but about the middle of the page and at
the end of the attestation clause. In this respect the holding of
this court in the case of Avera vs. Garcia and Rodriguez (42
Phil., 145), is applicable, wherein the will in question was signed
by the testator and the witnesses, not on the left, but right,
margin. The rule laid down in that case is that the document
contained the necessary signatures on each page, whereby
each page of the will was authenticated and safeguarded against
any possible alteration. Therefore, as in the instant case the fact
that the testator and the witnesses signed each and every page
6

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


of the will is proven by the mere examination of the signatures in
the will, the omission to expressly state such evident fact does
not invalidate the will nor prevent its probate.

(3) Whether the will must expressly state that it is written in a


language or dialect known to the testator;
(4) Whether the will of Abada has an attestation clause, and if

17. Testate estate of Pilapil vs CA

so,

G.R. No. 111904. October 5, 2000


Topic: nature of donation
Cruz

requirements of the applicable laws;

Issue: what is the nature of the donation executed in favor of


Mercedes.

whether

the

attestation

clause

complies

with

the

HELD:
(1) Abada executed his will on 4 June 1932. The laws in force at
that time are the Civil Code of 1889 or the Old Civil Code, and
Act No. 190 or the Code of Civil Procedure which governed the

Held:
TO DETERMINE WHETHER DONATION IS INTER VIVOS OR
MORTIS CAUSA, INTENT OF DONOR MUST BE
ASCERTAINED. In ascertaining the intention of the donor, all of
the deed's provisions must be read together. In this case, it is a
donation inter vivos as shown by the acceptance clause of the
deed w/c the donee in this case accepted. In a donation Mortis
cause, acceptance is not required.

execution of wills before the enactment of the New Civil Code.

18. Testate Estate of Abada vs. Abaja

(3) The SC stated that There is no statutory requirement to state

G.R. No. 147145. January 31, 2005


Topic: Forms of Wills (Attestation Clause)
De Guzman

in the will itself that the testator knew the language or dialect

ISSUES:

proof aliunde. Caponong-Noble further argues that Alipio, in his

(2) The SC stated that the Code of Civil Procedure repealed


Article 685 of the Old Civil Code. Under the Code of Civil
Procedure, the intervention of a notary is not necessary in the
execution of any will. Therefore, Abada's will does not require
acknowledgment before a notary public.

used in the will. This is a matter that a party may establish by


testimony, has failed, among others, to show that Abada knew or

(1) What laws apply to the probate of the last will of Abada;

understood the contents of the will and the Spanish language

(2) Whether the will of Abada requires acknowledgment before a

used in the will. However, Alipio testified that Abada used to

notary public;

gather Spanish-speaking people in their place. In these


7

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


gatherings, Abada and his companions would talk in the Spanish

strict construction and the other on liberal construction. In

language. This sufficiently proves that Abada speaks the

Dichoso, the Court noted that Abangan v. Abangan, the basic

Spanish language.

case on the liberal construction, is cited with approval in later

(4) Caponong-Noble alleges that the attestation clause fails to

decisions of the Court.

state the number of pages on which the will is written.


The allegation has no merit. The phrase "en el margen izquierdo
de todas y cada una de las dos hojas de que esta compuesto el
mismo" which means "in the left margin of each and every one of
the two pages consisting of the same" shows that the will
consists of two pages. The pages are numbered correlatively
with the letters "ONE" and "TWO" as can be gleaned from the
phrase "las cuales estan paginadas correlativamente con las
letras "UNO" y "DOS."
However, Caponong-Noble is correct in saying that the
attestation clause does not indicate the number of witnesses. On
this point, the Court agrees with the appellate court in applying
the rule on substantial compliance in determining the number of
witnesses. While the attestation clause does not state the
number of witnesses, a close inspection of the will shows that
three witnesses signed it.
This Court has applied the rule on substantial compliance even
before the effectivity of the New Civil Code. In Dichoso de Ticson
v. De Gorostiza, the Court recognized that there are two
divergent tendencies in the law on wills, one being based on

19. CANEDA, et al. v. CA

G.R. No. 103554 May 28, 1993


De Mesa
ISSUE:
Whether or not the attestation clause contained in the last will
and testament of the late Mateo Caballero complies with the
requirements of Article 805 of the Civil Code.
HELD:
The Supreme Court (SC) held in the negative. What is fairly
apparent upon a careful reading of the attestation clause is the
fact that while it recites that the testator indeed signed the will
and all its pages in the presence of the three attesting witnesses
and states as well the number of pages that were used, the
same does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said
witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the
presence of the testator and of each other. The phrase "and he
has signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces
provided for his signature and on the left hand margin," obviously
refers to the testator and not the instrumental witnesses as it is
immediately preceded by the words "as his Last Will and
Testament." On the other hand, although the words "in the
presence of the testator and in the presence of each and all of
us" may, at first blush, appear to likewise signify and refer to the
8

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


witnesses, it must, however, be interpreted as referring only to
the testator signing in the presence of the witnesses since said
phrase immediately follows the words "he has signed the same
and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature
and on the left hand margin." What is then clearly lacking, in the
final logical analysis , is the statement that the witnesses signed
the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator
and of one another. It is our considered view that the absence of
that statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection
which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that
is here sought to be admitted to probate.
20. Codoy vs. Calugay

G.R. 123486
De Veyra
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Article 811 of the Civil Code is permissive or
mandatory
2. Whether or not the witnesses presented sufficiently
establish the authenticity and due execution of the
deceaseds holographic will
HELD:
1. Article 811 of the Civil Code is mandatory. The word
"shall" connotes a mandatory order. The court cannot eliminate
the possibility of a false document being adjudged as the will of
the testator, which is why if the holographic will is contested, that
law requires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the
handwriting of the deceased.

Proceedings No. 427 before said court and did not declare
explicitly that the signature appearing in the holographic was that
of the deceased. The election registrar was presented to identify
the signature of the deceased in the voter's affidavit, which was
not even produced as it was no longer available. What the
deceaseds niece saw were pre-prepared receipts and letters of
the deceased, which she either mailed or gave to her tenants,
and she did not even declare that she saw the deceased sign a
document or write a note. As for respondent Evangeline
Calugay, the only reason that she can give as to why she was
familiar with the handwriting of the deceased was because she
lived with her since birth. She never declared that she saw the
deceased write a note or sign a document. Also, there was no
opportunity for an expert to compare the signature and the
handwriting of the deceased with other documents signed and
executed by her during her lifetime. Even the former lawyer of
the deceased expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the
signature in the holographic will. A visual examination of the
holographic will convince us that the strokes are different when
compared with other documents written by the testator.
Comparing the signature in the holographic will and the
signatures in several documents such as the application letter for
pasture permit and a letter dated June 16, 1978, the strokes are
different. The Court, therefore, cannot be certain that ruling
holographic will was in the handwriting by the deceased.
21. Ajero vs. CA

2. NO. Not all the witnesses presented by the respondents


testified explicitly that they were familiar with the handwriting of
testator. The clerk of court merely identified the record of Special

G.R. No. 106720; September 15, 1994


Topic: Forms of Wills (Art. 813-814)
Dechavez
9

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


Issue: Whether or not the non compliance with Articles 813 &
814 shall render the entire will invalid.

Held: We agree with the appellant that since the authenticity of


the will was not contested, he was not required to produce more
than one witness; but even if the genuineness of the holographic

Held:
No. The requirements of authentication of changes and signing
and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Articles 813 and
814) separate from that which provides for the necessary
conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810). The
distinction can be traced to Articles 678 and 688 of the Spanish
Civil Code, from which the present provisions covering
holographic wills are taken. This separation and distinction adds
support to the interpretation that only the requirements of Article
810 of the New Civil Code and not those found in Articles 813
and 814 of the same Code are essential to the probate of a
holographic will. A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code
shows that its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions
contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the
testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result
is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. Such failure,
however, does not render the whole testament void. Thus,
unless the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or
insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on
testator's signature, their presence does not invalidate the will
itself. The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of
such changes.

will were contested, we are of the opinion that Article 811 of our

22. Azaola vs Singson

2)Whether it was the intention of Maximino,Sr. to give the subject


lots to Natividad

G.R. No. L-14003 August 5, 1960


Diamzon
Issue: Is the 3 witnesses under Art. 811 mandatory? No.

present Civil Code can not be interpreted as to require the


compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the
handwriting of the testator, under penalty of having the probate
denied. Since no witness may have been present at the
execution of a holographic will, none being required by law (Art.
810, new Civil Code), it becomes obvious that the existence of
witness possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter
beyond the control of the proponent. That is evidently the reason
why the second paragraph of Article 811 prescribes that
in the absence of any competent witness referred to in the
preceding paragraph, and if the court deems it necessary, expert
testimony may be resorted to.
23. Nazareno vs CA

Dulce
Issue:
1)Whether the restoration of the titles to the lots in question to
the estate of Maximino Sr.was proper

Held:
10

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


1)Yes. The Nazareno spouses transferred their properties to
their children by fictitious sales in order to avoid the payment of
inheritance taxes. Facts & circumstances indicate badges of a
simulated sale w/c make the Jan 29, 1970 sale void & of no
effect. Natividad never acquired ownership over the property
because the Deed of Sale in her favor is also void for being w/o
consideration.
2)Yes. It cannot be denied that Maximino, Sr.intended to give the
six Quezon City lots to Natividad. As Romeo testified, their
parents executed the Deed of Sale in favor of Natividad because
the latter was the only "female and the only unmarried member
of the family." She was thus entrusted with the real properties in
behalf of her siblings. Art.1449 of the Civil Code states:
There is also an implied trust when a donation is made to a
person but it appears that although the legal estate is transmitted
to the donee, he nevertheless is either to have no beneficial
interest or only a part thereof.
There being an implied trust, the lots in question are therefore
subject to collation in accordance with Art. 1061 which states:
Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory
heirs, must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right
which he may have received from the decedent, during the
lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous
title, in order that it may be computed in the determination of the
legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition.

G.R. Nos. 75005-06


Dunuan
Issues:
1. WON the holographic will is valid .
2. WON there is need to present 3 witnesses required under Art.
811 in probating the will.
Ruling:
1. YES, it is valid. The respondent court considered them valid
because it found them to have been written, dated and signed by
the testator himself in accordance with Article 810 of the Civil
Code.
2. NO, there is no need. It also held there was no necessity of
presenting the three witnesses required under Article 811
because the authenticity of the wills had not been questioned.
The existence and therefore also the authenticity of the
holographic wills were questioned by Jose Rivera. In both
proceedings, Jose Rivera opposed the holographic wills
submitted by Adelaido Rivera and claimed that they were
spurious. Consequently, it may be argued, the respondent
court should have applied Article 811 of the Civil Code. The
flaw in this argument is that, as already determined, Jose
Rivera is not the son of the deceased Venancio Rivera whose
estate is in question. Hence, being a mere stranger, he had no
personality to contest the wills and his opposition thereto did
not have the legal effect of requiring the three witnesses. The
testimony of Zenaida and Venancio Rivera, Jr., who
authenticated the wills as having been written and signed by
their father, was sufficient.

24. RIVERA v. IAC


11

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


25. LABRADOR v. CA

Segundos last expression bequeath his estate to all his


compulsory heirs, with the sole exception of Alfredo.

G.R. No. 83843-44; April 5, 1990


Flores

27. Capitle v. Elbambuena

Issue: Whether or not the holographic will is dated, as provided


for in Article 180 of the New Civil Code.

G.R. No. 169193. November 30, 2006


Garcia
Issue: WON respondent has a right to inherit from Olar.

Held: Yes, the will is dated. The law does not specify a particular
location where the date should be placed in the will. The only
requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed
in the hand of the testator. The requirements are present in the
subject will.

Held:Yes, Although estranged from Olar, respondent Fortunata


remained his wife and legal heir, mere estrangement not being a
legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an
heir of the deceased spouse.

26. SEANGIO VS REYES

28. Guerrero v. Bihis

GR NO. 140371-72
Gantuangco
ISSUE:
Whether or not the document executed by Segundo can be
considered as a holographic will.

G.R. No. 174144, April 17, 2007


Gatacelo

RULING:
A holographic will must be written, dated and signed by the
testator himself. An intent to dispose mortis causa can be clearly
deducted from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not
make an affirmative deposition of the latters property, the
disinheritance of Alfredo, is an act of disposition in itself. The
disinheritance results in the disposition of the property in favor of
those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo. With regard
to the issue on preterition, the court believes that the compulsory
heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the will. It was

Issue:
WON the will "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the
instrumental witnesses before a notary public acting outside the
place of his commission satisfy the requirement under Article
806 of the Civil Code.
Held:
No. Acknowledgment can only be made before a competent
officer, that is, a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public. A
notary public's commission is the grant of authority in his favor to
perform notarial acts. A notary public is authorized to perform
notarial acts, including the taking of acknowledgments, within
that territorial jurisdiction only. Outside the place of his
commission, he is bereft of power to perform any notarial act; he
is not a notary public. Any notarial act outside the limits of his
12

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


jurisdiction has no force and effect. Thus, the last will and
testament was, in effect, not acknowledged as required by Article
806.

requirements (See Article 805 of the Civil Code) in the execution


of a will have been substantially complied with in the subject
notarial will.

29. Paz Samaniego-Celada vs. Lucia D. Abena

30. RODELAS vs.ARANZA

G.R. No. 145545. June 30, 2008


TOPIC: Art. 809 (Substantial Compliance)
Gomez
ISSUE:
WON the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring the will invalid
for failure to comply with the formalities required by law
HELD:
Petitioner posits that the will is fatally defective for the reason
that its attestation clause states that the will is composed of three
(3) pages while in truth and in fact, the will consists of two (2)
pages only because the attestation is not a part of the notarial
will, the same is not accurate. While it is true that the attestation
clause is not a part of the will, the court, after examining the
totality of the will, is of the considered opinion that error in the
number of pages of the will as stated in the attestation clause is
not material to invalidate the subject will. It must be noted that
the subject instrument is consecutively lettered with pages A, B,
and C which is a sufficient safeguard from the possibility of an
omission of some of the pages. The error must have been
brought about by the honest belief that the will is the whole
instrument consisting of three (3) pages inclusive of the
attestation clause and the acknowledgement. The position of the
court is in consonance with the "doctrine of liberal interpretation"
enunciated in Article 809 of the Civil Code. In fine, the court finds
that the testator was mentally capable of making the will at the
time of its execution, that the notarial will presented to the court
is the same notarial will that was executed and that all the formal

G.R.NO. L-58509 DECEMBER 7, 1982


Gregorio
Issue: Whether or not a holographic will can be proved by
means of a photograph.
Ruling: Yes.If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed
and no
other copy is available, the will cannot be probated because the
best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said
will. It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample
handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will.
However, A photocopy of the lost or destroyed holographic will
maybe admitted because the authenticity of the handwriting of
the deceased can be determined by the probate court with the
standard writings of the testator.
31. Spouses Ajero vs. CA

Topic: Formalities of Holographic Will; Articles 813 and 814


NCC
Hernandez
ISSUE:
WON the CA was correct in disallowing the probate of the will
based on the provisions of Articles 813 and 814.
RULING:
13

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the CA is incorrect to disallow
the will of Annie Sand. The Court cited
Section 9, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court and Article 839 of the
New Civil Code. These lists are exclusive; no other grounds can
serve to disallow a will. Thus, in a petition to admit a holographic
will to probate, the only issues to be resolved are: (1) whether
the instrument submitted is, indeed, the decedent's last will and
testament; (2) whether said will was executed in accordance with
the formalities prescribed by law; (3) whether the decedent had
the necessary testamentary capacity at the time the will was
executed; and, (4) whether the execution of the will and its
signing were the voluntary acts of the decedent. In the case of
holographic wills what assures authenticity is the requirement
that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator
himself, as provided under Article 810 of the New Civil Code,
thus: A person may execute a holographic will which must be
entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator
himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out
of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed. Failure to strictly
observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a
holographic will that is unquestionably handwritten by the
testator. A reading of Article 813 of the New Civil Code shows
that its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions
contained in the holographic will, but not its probate. If the
testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the result
is that these disposition cannot be effectuated. Such failure,
however, does not render the whole testament void. Likewise, a
holographic will can still be admitted to probate, notwithstanding
non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814. Thus, unless
the unauthenticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were
made on the date of the holographic will or on testator's
signature, their presence does not invalidate the will itself. The

lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such


changes.

32. Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. L-62952. October 9, 1985


Hussin
Issue: W/N the court can decide on the intrinsic validity of a will
RULING: Yes. As a general rule, the court can only decide on
the extrinsic validity of the will. This general rule is however not
inflexible and absolute. Given exceptional circumstances, the
probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains
it to do and may pass upon certain provisions of the wills since
the same admitted on its face the relationship between the
testator and the petitioner.The will was validly executed in
accordance with law but the court didn't find it to serve a practical
purpose to remand the nullified provision in a separate action for
that purpose only since in the probate of a will, the court does
not ordinarily look into the intrinsic validity of its provisions.
The devisee is invalid by virtue of Art. 739 which voids a
donation made between persons guilty of adultery/concubinage
at the time of the donations.
33. Cayetano vs. Leonidas
G.R. No. L-54919, May 30, 1984
Jandusay
14

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


Issue:
Whether or not the reprobation of the will is valid.
Held:
YES. Although on its face, the will appeared to have preterited
the petitioner and thus, the respondent judge should have denied
its reprobate outright, the private respondents have sufficiently
established that Adoracion was, at the time of her death, an
American citizen and a permanent resident of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, U.S.A. The order of succession and to the amount
of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration. It is therefore evident
that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in
our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the
same to the succession of foreign nationals.
34. Vda. De Molo vs. Molo
G.R. Nos. L-2538; September 21, 1951
Lacsina
Issue:

Yes. The earlier will can still be admitted to probate under the
principle of "dependent relative revocation. This doctrine is
usually applied where the testator cancels or destroys a will or
executes an instrument intended to revoke a will with a present
intention to make a new testamentary disposition as a substitute
for the old, and the new disposition is not made or, if made, fails
of effect for same reason. The doctrine is n limited to the
existence of some other document, however, and has been
applied where a will was destroyed as a consequence of a
mistake of law. . . . (68 C.J.P. 799). The court held that even in
the supposition that the destruction of the original will by the
testator could be presumed from the failure of the petitioner to
produce it in court, such destruction cannot have the effect of
defeating the prior will of 1918 because of the fact that it is
founded on the mistaken belief that the will of 1939 has been
validly executed and would be given due effect. The theory on
which this principle is predicated is that the testator did not
intend to die intestate. And this intention is clearly manifest when
he executed two wills on two different occasion and instituted his
wife as his universal heir. There can therefore be no mistake as
to his intention of dying testate.

Can an earlier will be admitted to probate if it was revoked by a


subsequent will made not in accordance with the formalities
required by law?

35. HEIRS OF FRAN vs. SALAS


G.R. No. 53546. June 25, 1992
TOPIC: ALLOWANCE AND DISALLOWANCE
Lazaro
ISSUE:
WON the final judgment allowing the probate of the will may be
declared null and void on the ground of fraud.

Held:

HELD:
15

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


No. Granting for the sake of argument that the non-fulfillment of
promise to show the will constitutes fraud, such fraud is not of
the kind which provides sufficient justification for a motion for
reconsideration or a petition for relief from judgment under Rule
37 and Rule 38, respectively, of the Rules of Court, or even a
separate action for annulment of judgment. It is settled that for
fraud to be invested with such sufficiency, it must be extrinsic or
collateral to the matters involved in the issues raised during the
trial which resulted in such judgment. ||

Project of Partition, to which they voluntarily expressed their


conformity through their respective certifications, and closing the
testate proceedings.

(1)Petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court which


must be filed within sixty (60) days after learning of the decision,
but not more than six (6) months after such decision is entered;

The probate judgment of 13 November 1972, long final and


undistributed by any attempt to unsettle it, had inevitably passed
beyond the reach of the court below to annul or set the same
aside, by mere motion, on the ground that the will is a forgery.
Settled in the rule that the decree of probate is conclusive with
respect to the due execution of the will and it cannot be
impugned on any of the grounds authorized by law, except that
of fraud, in any separate or independent action or proceeding.
Reasons of public policy, judicial orderliness, economy and
judicial time and the interests of litigants, as well as the peace
and order of society, all require that stability be accorded the
solemn and final judgments of the courts or tribunals of
competent jurisdiction.

(2)By direct action, via a special civil action for certiorari, or by


collateral attack, assuming that the decision is void for want of
jurisdiction;

36. Caneda vs. CA

In Our jurisdiction, the following courses of action are open to an


aggrieved party to set aside or attack the validity of a final
judgment:

(3)By an independent civil action under Article 1114 of the Civil


Code, assuming that the decision was obtained through fraud
and Rule 38 cannot be applied.
It is not difficult to see that private respondents had lost their
right to file a petition for relief from judgment, it appearing that
their omnibus motion for reconsideration was filed exactly six (6)
years, ten (10) months and twenty-two (22) days after the
rendition of the decision, and six (6) years, one (1) month and
thirteen (13) days after the court issued the order approving the

G.R. No. 103554. May 28, 1993


Lim
Issue: WON substantial compliance is applicable to defects in
an attestation clause
Held: No. The rule on substantial compliance in Article 809
cannot be invoked or relied on by respondents since it
presupposes that the defects in the attestation clause can be
cured or supplied by the text of the will or a consideration of
matters apparent therefrom which would provide the data not
expressed in the attestation clause or from which it may
necessarily be gleaned or clearly inferred that the acts not stated
16

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


in the omitted textual requirements were actually complied with
in the execution of the will. In other words, the defects must be
remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself. In the
case at bar, contrarily, proof of the acts required to have been
performed by the attesting witnesses can be supplied only by
extrinsic evidence thereof, since an overall appreciation of the
contents of the will yields no basis whatsoever from which such
facts may be plausibly deduced. What private respondent insists
on are the testimonies of his witnesses alleging that they saw the
compliance with such requirements by the instrumental
witnesses, oblivious of the fact that he is thereby resorting to
extrinsic evidence to prove the same and would accordingly be
doing by indirection what in law he cannot do directly. It may thus
be stated that the rule, as it now stands, is that omissions which
can be supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the
need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and,
correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of
the will being assailed. However, those omissions which cannot
be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the
invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately, of the will
itself.
37. Agapay vs Palang

G.R. No. 116668


Lozano
ISSUE: WON Erlinda is the rightful owner of the said property?
HELD: NO, the court held that there was no evidence that she
could have bought the property herself and a testimony of the
Notary Public stated that when the deed was executed, Miguel
was the one who paid the property but with a condition that
Erlinda will be named as sole vendee. Assuming that the case is

falls under donation, the said donation is void due to the fact that
the law prohibits such donation because it was made between
persons guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the
donation, under Article 739 of the Civil Code. Moreover, Article
87 of the Family Code expressly provides that the prohibition
against donations between spouses now applies to donations
between persons living together as husband and wife without a
valid marriage.
38. Reyes vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 124099. October 30, 1997


Mariano
Issue:
Whether or not the court can rule on the intrinsic validity of the
disposition made by Torcuato Reyes in his will in favor of Oning
Ruling:
No. As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited
to pass only upon the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be
probated. Thus, the court merely inquires on its due execution,
whether or not it complies with the formalities prescribed by law,
and the testamentary capacity of the testator. It does not
determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or
efficacy of the wills provisions. The intrinsic validity is not
considered since the consideration thereof usually comes only
after the will has been proved and allowed. There are, however,
notable circumstances wherein the intrinsic validity was first
determined as when the defect of the will is apparent on its face
and the probate of the will may become a useless ceremony if it
is intrinsically invalid The intrinsic validity of a will may be passed
upon because practical considerations demanded it as when
there is preterition of heirs or the testamentary provisions are
doubtful legality. Where the parties agree that the intrinsic
17

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


validity be first determined, the probate court may also do so.
Parenthetically, the rule on probate is not inflexible and
absolute. Under exceptional circumstances, the probate court is
not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and
pass upon certain provisions of the will.

39. Sanchez vs. CA

G.R. No. 108947. September 29, 1997


Mariano
Issue
Whether or not the trial court can rule on the question of
ownership of the properties listed in the the will.
Ruling
No. It is hornbook doctrine that in a special proceeding for the
probate of a will, the question of ownership is an extraneous
matter which the probate court cannot resolve with finality. This
pronouncement no doubt applies with equal force to an intestate
proceeding as in the case at bar. In the instant case, the trial
court rendered a decision declaring as simulated and fictitious all
the deeds of absolute sale which, on July 26, 1963 and June 26,
1967, Juan C. Sanchez and Maria Villafranca executed in favor
of their daughter, Rosalia Sanchez Lugod; and grandchildren,
namely, Arturo S. Lugod, Evelyn S. Lugod and Roberto S.
Lugod. The trial court ruled further that the properties covered
by the said sales must be subject to collation. Citing Article 1409
(2) of the Civil Code, the lower court nullified said deeds of sale
and determined with finality the ownership of the properties
subject thereof. In doing so, it clearly overstepped its jurisdiction
as a probate court. Jurisprudence teaches: [A] probate court or
one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot

adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of


the estate and which are claimed to belong to outside
parties. All that the said court could do as regards said
properties is to determine whether they should or should not be
included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered
by the administrator. If there is not dispute, well and good, but if
there is, then the parties, the administrator, and the opposing
parties have to resort to an ordinary action for a final
determination of the conflicting claims of title because the
probate court cannot do so.

40. Ganuelas vs Cawed.


G.R. No. 123968. April 24, 2003
Medrano
ISSUE: Whether the donation was inter vivos or mortis causa.
RULING: The Court ruled that, it was mortis causa. It noted that
there was nothing in the Donation which indicates that any right,
title or interest in the donated properties was to be transferred to
Ursulina prior to the death of Celestina. The phrase therein "to
become effective upon the death of the DONOR" admits no other
interpretation but that Celestina intended to transfer the
ownership of the properties to Ursulina on her death, not during
her lifetime. It was also provided therein that if the donee should
die before the donor, the donation shall be deemed rescinded
and of no further force and effect. The deed even contains an
attestation clause expressly confirming the donation as mortis
causa. Nevertheless, as there was failure to comply with the
formalities of a will, the Court ruled that the donation was void.
41. Sicad vs Court of Appeals.
18

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


279 SCRA 647

pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and

Medrano

allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court.

ISSUE: Whether the donation was inter vivos or mortis causa.


RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that the donation in
question, though denominated inter vivos, is in truth one mortis
causa; it is void because the essential requisites for its validity
have not been complied with. A donation which purports to be
one inter vivos but withholds from the donee the right to dispose
of the donated property during the donor's lifetime is in truth one
mortis causa. In the case at bar, nothing of any consequence
was transferred by the deed of donation in question to
Montinola's grandchildren, the ostensible donees. They did not
get possession of the property donated. They did not acquire the
right to the fruits thereof, or any other right of dominion over the
property. More importantly, they did not acquire the right to
dispose of the property. They were simply "paper owners" of the
donated property.

43. Cua vs. Vargas


Mendoza
ISSUE: WON PUBLICATION of the extrajudicial partition was
binding on the non-signatory heirs, therefore estopping them
from assailing the partition and sale.
HELD: No. Publication was made AFTER THE PARTITION
WAS MADE, NOT BEFORE WHICH WAS REQUIRED IN Rule
74.1.
The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte
proceeding. The rule plainly states, however, that persons who

42. Caiza vs. CA


Mendoza
ISSUE: (relevant) Do the Estradas have the right to remain in
possession of the lots by virtue of the holographic will, although
such is of no force and effect until probated?

do not participate or had no notice of an extrajudicial settlement


will not be bound. The publication of the settlement does not
constitute constructive notice to the heirs who had no knowledge
or did not take part in it because the same was notice after the
fact of execution. The requirement of publication is geared for
the protection of creditors and was never intended to deprive

HELD: A will is essentially ambulatory; at any time prior to the


testators death, it may be changed or revoked; and until
admitted to probate, it has no effect whatever and no right can
be claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit: No will shall

heirs of their lawful participation in the decedent's estate.


44. RABADILLA vs. CA UNDER ART 882
G.R. No. 113725 June 29, 2000
Millora
19

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


ISSUE: WON the CA erred in ruling that the testamentary
institution of Dr. Rabadilla is a modal institution within the
purview of Article 882 of the NCC.
HELD: The petition is not impressed with merit.
MODAL INSTITUTION DISTINGUISHED FROM CONDITIONAL
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION. The institution of an heir in
the manner prescribed in Article 882 is what is known in the law
of succession as an institucion sub modo or a modal institution.
In a modal institution, the testator states (1) the object of the
institution, (2) the purpose or application of the property left by
the testator, or (3) the charge imposed by the testator upon the
heir. A "mode" imposes an obligation upon the heir or legatee
but it does not affect the efficacy of his rights to the succession.
On the other hand, in a conditional testamentary disposition, the
condition must happen or be fulfilled in order for the heir to be
entitled to succeed the testator. The condition suspends but
does not obligate; and the mode obligates but does not suspend.
To some extend, it is similar to a resolutory condition.
OBLIGATION IMPOSED ON HEIRS SHOULD NOT BE
CONSIDERED A CONDITION UNLESS IT CLEARLY APPEARS
FROM THE WILL ITSELF THAT SUCH WAS THE INTENTION
OF THE TESTATOR. Since testamentary dispositions are
generally acts of liberality, an obligation imposed upon the heir
should not be considered a condition unless it clearly appears
from the Will itself that such was the intention of the testator. In
case of doubt, the institution should be considered as modal and
not conditional.
45. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez
G.R. No. 175720, September 11, 2007

Millora
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in ruling that the Huling Habilin at
Testamento transmitted ownership of the specific apartments
disregarding the fact that the same is not probated yet and that
the testator changed or revoked his will by selling the property to
petitioner prior to his death.
HELD: The petition has merit.
Respondents failed to prove their right of possession, as the
Huling Habilin at Testamento and the Partition Agreement have
no legal effect since the will has not been probated. Before any
will can have force or validity it must be probated. This cannot be
dispensed with and is a matter of public policy. Article 838 of the
Civil Code mandates that "[n]o will shall pass either real or
personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance
with the Rules of Court." As the will was not probated, the
Partition Agreement which was executed pursuant thereto
cannot be given effect. Thus, the fact that petitioner was a party
to said agreement becomes immaterial in the determination of
the issue of possession. Moreover, at the time the deed of sale
was executed in favor of the petitioner, Juanito Rodriguez
remained the owner thereof since ownership would only pass to
his heirs at the time of his death. Thus, as owner of the property,
he had the absolute right to dispose of it during his lifetime.
46. BORDALBA VS. CA
G.R. No. 112443. January 25, 2002.
TOPIC: Art. 840-856 (Institution of Heir)
Munez
ISSUE: WON petitioners claim that private respondents are not
legal heirs of Nicanor Jayme is tenable.
HELD: No. Likewise untenable is the claim of petitioner that
private respondents are not legal heirs of Nicanor Jayme and
20

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


Asuncion Jayme-Baclay. Other than their bare allegations to
dispute their heirship, no hard evidence was presented by them
to substantiate their allegations. Besides, in order that an heir
may assert his right to the property of a deceased, no previous
judicial declaration of heirship is necessary.
47. HEIRS OF CONTI VS. CA
[G.R. No. 118464. December 21, 1998.]
TOPIC: Art. 840-856 (Institution of Heir)
Munez
ISSUE: WON a prior settlement of the estate is essential before
the heirs can commence any action originally pertaining to the
deceased (i.e. complaint for partition).
HELD: No. A prior settlement of the estate is not essential before
the heirs can commence any action originally pertaining to the
deceased. The title of the property owned by a person who dies
intestate passes at once to his heirs. Such transmission is, under
the present law, subject to the claims of administration and the
property may be taken from the heirs for the purpose of paying
debts and expenses, but this does not prevent an immediate
passage of the title, upon the death of the intestate, from himself
to his heirs. In Quison vs. Salud, the Court held - without some
showing that a judicial administrator had been appointed in
proceedings to settle the estate of Claro Quison, the right of the
plaintiffs to maintain this action is established. Conformably with
the foregoing and taken in conjunction with Arts. 777 and 494 of
the Civil Code, from the death of Lourdes Sampayo her rights as
a co-owner, incidental to which is the right to ask for partition at
any time or to terminate the co-ownership, where transmitted to
her rightful heirs. In so demanding partition private respondents

merely exercised the right originally pertaining to the decedent,


their predecessor-in-interest.
48. Gala vs. Ellice Agro Industrial
G.R. No. 156819 December 11, 2003
Topic: Legitime
Natavio
ISSUE: Whether or not the organization of respondent
corporations was illegal for depriving petitioners Rita Benson and
Guia Domingo of their legitime.
RULING: The SC ruled that the reliefs sought by petitioners
should have been raised in a proceeding for settlement of estate,
rather than in the present intra-corporate controversy. If they are
genuinely interested in securing that part of their late fathers
property which has been reserved for them in their capacity as
compulsory heirs, then they should simply exercise their actio ad
supplendam legitimam, or their right of completion of
legitime.Such relief must be sought during the distribution and
partition stage of a case for the settlement of the estate of
Manuel Gala, filed before a court which has taken jurisdiction
over the settlement of said estate.
49. Seangio vs. Reyes
G.R. Nos. 140371-72 November 27, 2006
Topic: Disinheritance
Natavio
ISSUES: (1) Whether the disinheritance of Alfred Seangio is
valid.
(2)Whether the document executed by Segundo Seangio can be
considered as a holographic will.
21

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


RULING: (1)YES.For disinheritance to be valid, Article 916 of the
Civil Code requires that the same must be effected through a will
wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. With regard
to the reasons for the disinheritance that were stated by
Segundo in his document, the Court believes that the incidents,
taken as a whole, can be considered a form of maltreatment of
Segundo by his son, Alfredo, and that the matter presents a
sufficient cause for the disinheritance of a child or descendant
under Article 919 of the Civil Code.
(2) YES.A holographic will, as provided under Article 810 of the
Civil Code, must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the
hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and
may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be
witnessed.
Segundos document, although it may initially come across as a
mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of a
holographic will prescribed by law. It is written, dated and signed
by the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to dispose mortis
causa can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument,
and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the
latters property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an
act of disposition in itself. In other words, the disinheritance
results in the disposition of the property of the testator Segundo
in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.

50. Bagunu v. Piedad


G.R. No. 140975
Neri

ISSUE: The issue here is the applicability of the rule on proximity


among collateral relatives. Thus, the question is, Can petitioner
inherit alongside respondent?
RULING: The rule on proximity is a concept that favors the
relatives nearest in degree to the decedent and excludes the
more distant ones except when and to the extent that the right of
representation can apply. In the collateral line, the right of
representation may only take place in favor of the children of
brothers or sisters of the decedent when such children survive
with their uncles or aunts. The right of representation does not
apply to "other collateral relatives within the fifth civil degree" (to
which group both petitioner and respondent belong) who are
sixth in the order of preference. Applying now the rule on
proximity, respondent relative within the third civil degree
excludes petitioner relative within the fifth civil degree from
succeeding ab intestato to the estate of the decedent.
51. Delgado Vda. De Dela Rosa vs. Heirs of Marciana Rustia
Vda. de Damian
G.R. No. 155733
Neri
ISSUE: Who the legal heirs of the decedents Guillermo Rustia
and Josefa Delgado are (Their estates were to be disposed of
separately since their marriage was not governed by absolute
community of property)
RULING: The lawful heirs of Delgado are her siblings related to
her by full-blood, except Luis Delgado, her half-brother.
Nonetheless, since they were all illegitimate, they may inherit
from each other. Accordingly, all of them are entitled to inherit
from Josefa Delgado. However,the petitioners during the latter
22

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


stage of the case were already the nephews, nieces,
grandnephews and grandnieces of Josefa Delgado. Under
Article 972 of the new Civil Code, the right of representation in
the collateral line takes place only in favor of the children of
brothers and sisters (nephews and nieces). Consequently, it
cannot be exercised by grandnephews and grandnieces.
Therefore, the only collateral relatives of Josefa Delgado who
are entitled to partake of her intestate estate are her brothers
and sisters, or their children who were still alive at the time of her
death on September 8, 1972.
As for the estate of Rustia, his illegitimate child and his "ampunampunan" failed to produce documentary evidence of their
father's acknowledgment, therefore, not lawful heirs of the
decedent. Under Article 1002 of the new Civil Code, if there are
no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or surviving
spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate
of the deceased. Therefore, the lawful heirs of Guillermo Rustia
are the remaining claimants, consisting of his sisters, nieces and
nephews.
52. Pascual vs Pascual-Bautista
G.R. No. 84240
March 25,1992
Palileo
Issues: 1. Does the term "illegitimate" children as provided in
Article 992 strictly construed to refer only to spurious children?
2. Can they inherit from their uncle?

1. NO, Clearly the term "illegitimate" refers to both natural and


spurious. under Article 176 of the Family Code, all illegitimate
children are generally placed under one category, which
undoubtedly settles the issue as to whether or not acknowledged
natural children should be treated differently, in the negative.
2. No, Article 992 of the Civil Code provides a barrier or iron
curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato
between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and
relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. They
may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by
law for the purposes of Article 992. Between the legitimate
family and illegitimate family there is presumed to be an
intervening antagonism and incompatibility. The illegitimate
child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate
family; the family is in turn hated by the illegitimate child; the
latter considers the privileged condition of the former, and the
resources of which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn,
sees in the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin,
palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life; the law does no
more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further grounds of
resentment.
53. Manuel vs Ferrer
G.R. No. 117246
August 21, 1995
Pamplona
Issue: whether the illegitimate siblings are the legal heirs over
one-half of Juan's intestate estate

Held:

23

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


Held :The rule in Article 992 has consistently been applied by
the Court in several other cases. Thus, it has ruled that where
the illegitimate child had
half-brothers who were legitimate, the latter had no right to the
former's inheritance; that the legitimate collateral relatives of the
mother cannot succeed from her illegitimate child; that a natural
child cannot represent his natural father in the succession to the
estate of the legitimate grandparent; that the natural daughter
cannot succeed to the estate of her deceased uncle who is a
legitimate brother of her natural father; and that an illegitimate
child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father. Indeed, the law on
succession is animated by a uniform general intent, and thus no
part should be rendered inoperative by, but must always be
construed in relation to, any other part as to produce a
harmonious whole.

wife produces; and he should decide whether to conceal that


infidelity or expose it, in view of the moral and economic interest
involved. It is only in exceptional cases that his heir are allowed
to contest such legitimacy. Outside of these cases, none even
his heirs can impugn legitimacy; that would amount to an
insult to his memory.

54. Tison v. CA

Held:
According to Article 962 of the Civil Code, In every inheritance,
the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones,
saving the right of representation when it properly takes place.
Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal shares,
subject to the provisions of Article 1006 with respect to relatives
of the full and half blood, and of Article 987, paragraph 2,
concerning division between paternal and maternal lines.
The manner of determining the proximity of relationship are
provided by Articles 963 - 966 of the Civil Code. Petitioners
misappreciate the relationship between Justa and private
respondent. As already stated, private respondent is the son of
Justas half-sister Agatonica. He is therefore Justas nephew. A
nephew is considered a collateral relative who may inherit if no
descendant, ascendant, or spouse survive the decedent. That
private respondent is only a half-blood relative is immaterial.

(G.R. No. 121027, July 31, 1997)


Pelayo
ISSUE: Whether or not a third person, not the father nor an heir,
may attack the legitimacy of Hermogenes?
HELD: NO. the private respondent is not the proper party to
impugn the legitimacy of herein petitioners. There is no
presumption of the law more firmly established and founded on
sounder morality and more convincing reason than the
presumption that children born in wedlock are legitimate. And
well settled is the rule that the issue of legitimacy cannot be
attacked collaterally. Only the husband can contest the
legitimacy of a child born to his wife. He is the one directly
confronted with the scandal and ridicule which the infidelity of his

55. Heirs of Uriate versus Court of Appeals


G.R. No. 116775
Topic: Legal of Intestate Succession - General Provisions
and Right of Representation
Perfecto
Issue:
The issue in this case is who among the petitioners and the
private respondent is entitled to Justas estate as her nearest
relatives within the meaning of Art. 962 of the Civil Code.

24

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


This alone does not disqualify him from being his aunts heir. As
the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, The determination of
whether the relationship is of the full or half blood is important
only to determine the extent of the share of the survivors.

56. Gonzalez vs. CA


G.R. No. L-37453, 25 May 1979
Pernato
Issue:
WON the three instrumental witnesses can be considered as
credible witnesses as required by law.
Ruling:
The SC considered them as credible witness. "Credible
witnesses" mean competent witnesses and not those who testify
to facts from or upon hearsay. In the strict sense, the
competency of a person to be an instrumental witness to a will is
determined by the statute, that is Art. 820 and 821, Civil Code,
whereas his credibility depends on the appreciation of his
testimony and arises from the belief and conclusion of the court
that said witness is telling the truth. It is not necessary to
introduce prior and independent proof of the fact that the
witnesses are "credible witnesses", that is, that they have a good
standing in the community and reputed to be trustworthy and
reliable.
57. Adlawan vs. Adlawan
TOPIC: Suriviving Spouse; Collateral Relatives; The State
Prado
ISSUE: The decisive issue to be resolved is whether or not
petitioner can validly maintain the instant case for ejectment.

HELD: NO. The renowned civilist, Professor Arturo M. Tolentino,


explained A co-owner may bring such an action, without the
necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs,
because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of
all. If the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that
he claims possession for himself and not for the co-ownership,
the action will not prosper. There is no merit in petitioners claim
that he has the legal personality to file the present unlawful
detainer suit because the ejectment of respondents would
benefit not only him but also his alleged co-owners. However,
petitioner forgets that he filed the instant case to acquire
possession of the property and to recover damages. If granted,
he alone will gain possession of the lot and benefit from the
proceeds of the award of damages to the exclusion of the heirs
of Graciana. Hence, petitioner cannot successfully capitalize on
the alleged benefit to his co-owners. Incidentally, it should be
pointed out that in default of the said heirs of Graciana, whom
petitioner labeled as fictitious heirs, the State will inherit her
share and will thus be petitioners co-owner entitled to
possession and enjoyment of the property.

58. Guy vs Court of Appeals,


G.R. No. 163707 September 15, 2006
TOPIC: Acceptance and Repudiation of Inheritance
Reopta
ISSUE: WON the Release and Waiver of Claim precludes
private respondents from claiming their succesional rights.
RULING: Even assuming that Remedios truly waived the
hereditary rights of private respondents, such waiver will not bar
25

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


the latter's claim. Article 1044 of the Civil Code, provides: ART.
1044. Any person having the free disposal of his property may
accept or repudiate an inheritance. Any inheritance left to minors
or incapacitated persons may be accepted by their parents or
guardians. Parents or guardians may repudiate the inheritance
left to their wards only by judicial authorization. The right to
accept an inheritance left to the poor shall belong to the persons
designated by the testator to determine the beneficiaries and
distribute the property, or in their default, to those mentioned in
Article 1030. Parents and guardians may not therefore repudiate
the inheritance of their wards without judicial approval. This is
because repudiation amounts to an alienation of property which
must pass the court's scrutiny in order to protect the interest of
the ward. Not having been judicially authorized, the Release and
Waiver of Claim in the instant case is void and will not bar private
respondents from asserting their rights as heirs of the deceased.
Furthermore, it must be emphasized that waiver is the intentional
relinquishment of a known right. Where one lacks knowledge of
a right, there is no basis upon which waiver of it can rest.
Ignorance of a material fact negates waiver, and waiver cannot
be established by a consent given under a mistake or
misapprehension of fact. In the present case, private
respondents could not have possibly waived their successional
rights because they are yet to prove their status as
acknowledged illegitimate children of the deceased. Petitioner
himself has consistently denied that private respondents are his
co-heirs.

60. Sanchez v. CA
G.R. No. 108947
Rome
Issue:
WON fraud attended the execution of the compromise and/or
collation of the properties rendering the compromise agreement
void.

59. Nazareno vs. CA

61.Heirs of Conti vs. CA


GR No. 118464. Dec 21, 1998
Soriano

Rodriguez

Ruling:
The petition is not meritorious. In opposing the validity and
enforcement of the compromise agreement, petitioners harp on
the minority of Florida Mierly, Alfredo and Myrna.although
denominated a compromise agreement, the document in this
case is essentially a deed of partition.the Civil Code provides
that [e]very act which is intended to put an end to indivision
among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a
partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a
compromise, or any other transaction.
For a valid partition, it must be that 1) the decedent left no will;
(2) the decedent left no debts, or if there were debts left, all had
been paid; (3) the heirs and liquidators are all of age, or if they
are minors, the latter are represented by their judicial guardian or
legal representatives; and (4) the partition was made by means
of a public instrument or affidavit duly filed with the Register of
Deeds.The foregoing requisites are present in this case. It
affirms the validity of the parties partition in this case.

26

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


Issue: WON private respondents could establish co-ownership
by way of succession.
Held: Yes. There are 2 simultaneous issues in an action for
partition. First, whether the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner of the
property sought to be partitioned, and second, the manner of the
division of the property. Thus, in this case, we must determine
whether private respondents, have been able to establish that
they are co-owners by way of succession as collateral heirs of
the late Lourdes Sampayo as they claim to be, a sister, a
nephew or a niece. These, they were able to prove in. The RTC
and CA. Ownership is therefore established by way of
succession.
62. Alejandro vs CA
G.R. No. 114151
Tapia
Issue: Can the TC order partition of an estate in an action for
quieting of title?
Held: No. Under the law, partition of the estate of a deceased
may only be effected by: (1) the heirs themselves extrajudically,
(2) by the court in an ordianry action for partition or in the course
of administration proceeding, (3) by the testator himself, and, (4)
by the 3rd person designated by the testator
63. Lopez vs. CA
Tayo
64. BRAVO GUERRERO VS BRAVO
G.R. No. 152658. July 29, 2005
Tayco

HELD:
YES. The partition of the properties shall be allowed.
Petitioners have consistently claimed that their father is one of
the vendees who bought the Properties. Vendees Elizabeth and
Ofelia both testified that the Roland A. Bravo in the Deed of Sale
is their father, although their brother, Roland Bravo, Jr., made
some of the mortgage payments. As Roland Bravo, Sr. is also
the father of respondent Edward Bravo, Edward is thus a
compulsory heir of Roland Bravo, and entitled to a share, along
with his brothers and sisters, in his fathers portion of the
Properties. In short, Edward and petitioners are co-owners of
the Properties.As such, Edward can rightfully ask for the partition
of the Properties. Any co-owner may demand at any time the
partition of the common property unless a co-owner has
repudiated the co-ownership. This action for partition does not
prescribe and is not subject to laches.
65. Figuracion-Guerilla vs. Vda De Figuracion
GR No. 154322
Topic: Partition
Untalan
ISSUE:
Is there a need for a prior settlement of Leandros intestate
estate before the properties can be partitioned or distributed?
HELD: YES; Petition denied. CA decision affirmed. Suffice it to
say that partition is premature when ownership of the lot is still in
dispute. In a situation where there remains an issue as to the
expenses chargeable to the estate, partition is inappropriate.
Thus, the heirs (petitioner and respondents) have to submit their
fathers estate to settlement because the determination of these
expenses cannot be done in an action for partition.

ISSUE: WON the partition of the properties shall be allowed.


27

ATTY. MARCIANO DELSON -4C CIV REV 3RD SET OF DIGESTS


66. Cua vs. Vargas
Uy
67. Bautista vs. Bautista
Velasco
68. Daclag and Daclag vs. Macahilig, et al.
G.R. No. 159578. February 18, 2009
Vigilia
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners' claims may be recovered thru the
estate of the deceased in the present case.
Held:
Notably, petitioners never raised this issue in their appellants'
brief or in their motion for reconsideration filed before the CA. In
fact, they never raised this matter before the SC when they filed
their petition for review. Thus, petitioners cannot raise the same
in this motion for reconsideration without offending the basic
rules of fair play, justice and due process, specially since
Maxima was not substituted at all by her heirs after the
promulgation of the RTC Decision.

28

Você também pode gostar