Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Sebastian
O Occupation
L Law
D Donation
T Tradition
I Intellectual property
P Prescription
S Succession
In the old code such was a virtual subrogation, there was no limit as to Property,
Transmissible Right and Obligations (PRO); but under the NCC the obligations
will be to the extent of the hereditary share.
Pacio v. Billon;
Properties not validly conveyed by a person during his lifetime will form part of
his estate upon his demise. Pacio holds that a parcel of land which was not
validly donated (propter nuptias) by the husband to the wife did not leave his
patrimony, and therefore formed part of his inheritance upon his demise.
(it must be remembered in this case the mistake here was the application of the
codes)
Bonilla v. Barcena;
The transmission of the hereditary estate from the decedent to the heirs takes
place from the moment of the death of the decedent. A prior judicial declaration
of heirship is not necessary to perfect the transmission. Bonilla holds that claims
to or rights over property which were initiated by the decedent during his
lifetime by appropriate court proceedings are not extinguished by his death.
These claims or rights over property are transmitted to his heirs upon his death,
thus may substitute the decedent in the said case.
Butte v. Manuel Uy & Sons Inc. (Yung small portion that ended up
getting the whole- mayaman toh)
The right of legal redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code is property.
Thus, where a decedent dies without having exercised a right of redemption (and
provided it has not expired), the said right shall be transmitted to his heirs upon
his death. In this event, the right of redemption is part of the inheritance.
However, where the right of redemption was acquired after the death of the
decedent, the same pertains to the heirs directly in their individual capacities,
and not derivatively from the decedent. Butte makes a clear distinction as to
when the right of redemption is part of the hereditary estate, and when it is not.
Accordingly, Butte clarifies the issue as to who may exercise the right of
redemption.
2
De Borja v. De Borja;
The right to the inheritance is transferred to the heirs precisely at the moment of
the death of the decedent. From such time, the heirs are deemed to be the
owners of the same. De Borja confirms that from the moment of death of the
decedent, the heirs begin to enjoy all the attributes of ownership, including the
right to dispose (jus disponendi). De Borja holds that the pendency of the
probate proceeding is no bar to the exercise of such proprietary rights, since
ownership over the hereditary estate has vested in the heirs from the time of the
death of the testator.
De Borja must be distinguished from the prohibition against disposicion
captatoria in Article 875 of the Civil Code. Likewise, it must be reconciled with
the provision of Article 784 which states that the making of a will is a strictly
personal act of the testator.
Branch I
1) Action for reconveyance
(21 people as substitutes)
2) went to the CA, who had the
decision of the
and they have valid title
The problem here 9 people in the will where not substituted and the decision
was final & executor.
SC said 21, your rights are derived from the owner or better yet his estate;
subs lang kayo, thus no ownership
* As per sir: Tanga ang CA, they should have it ordered it back to the estate
and not o the 21 substitutes
ART 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment
of death of the decedent.
Blas v. Santos (Future Inheritance) read the case before exams (pg.55
ng scra?)
When the 1st wife died, the property was not divided thus when he remarried
the PR of wife 1 was infused with the PR of wife 2. To make sure there would be
no quarrel in the family of the testator between his kids from his 1st marriage
and wife 2, a compromise agreement was made. The wife gets half and then her
half will go back to the kids upon her death. Wife 2 agreed to such. The relatives
of wife 2 questioned such as an agreement to future inheritance which by law is
void.
SC Held: that what wife 2 compromised where her own shares that she
rightfully received.
793
When it takes
place
After
the
Succession
Testatrix
Dead
As
application
to
opening
of
Alive
Bellis v Bellis (Law in play making of the will vs. when the testatrix
died)
The formal validity of a will depends upon the observance of the law in force
at the time of execution of the will. On the other hand the substantive validity
of the dispositions therein are governed by the laws in force at the time of
death of the testator.
Azuela v. Ca (Stupidity/bayaran)
There are 3 defects in the case at bar that the court overlooked.
1st the AC did not state the no. of pages As per SC, cannot apply Taboada
since in Taboada the number of pages is stated elsewhere in the will, in this
case it is not.
13
De Ramos v. CA (credibility)
Main issue is if the testimony of the 2 witnesses who opposes to what they
have attested to, will be good enough to deny probate of the will.
Decision of the SC; Since the attestation clause is placed there to ensure that
all formalities be complied with and beyond such the lawyer was involved in
every stage before passing it to another lawyer who notarized such, both
lawyers gain nothing, nor is there any showing of mischief on their part.
Relate to function of notary.
As per Atty. Sebastian, there was 2 problems:
(1st) is the credibility of the 2 witnesses; and
(2nd) Parole Evidence Rule when the terms of an agreement (includes
wills) have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all
terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their
successor in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of a written agreement. (Rule 130 sec. 19 of the rules of
court there are exemption also).
Gil v. Murciano
Art. 809 enunciates the doctrine of liberal interpretation; Absence of bad
faith, forgery, fraud or undue influence or other defects, such will not render
the attestation clause invalid and if the will is in fact proven to be executed
and attested, substantial compliance will do.
In the case at bar, it was not stated in the attestation clause if the testator
signed in the presence of the witness but was stated that such happened in
the body of which, thus the SC allowed such under substantial compliance.
Caneda v. Ca
Affirmed the ruling in Gil v. Murciano but denied probate; the circumstances
of the case play a vital part.
The involves a reconstituted will that was obtained from the records of appeal
(from the CA), since the original was lost due to the war. SC did not allow
such due to the lack of the original copy of the will.
17
Azola v. Singson (contested Art. 811 of the 3 witness rule making such
DIRECTORY only)
Art. 811 is clear, if the holographic will is contested 3 witnesses must be
presented but if uncontested only one is required. The issue in the case is
whether the 3 witness rule directory or mandatory in nature.
Atty. Sebastian: The great JBL Reyes took pains to properly explain why the
rule is DIRECTORY, pointing out that is not as to the quantity of witnesses but
rather the quality of the witness that is important. What makes or breaks
such is the credibility of the witness. Thus if all but one of the witnesses died,
it would still be enough provided that the remaining witness is credible.
Codoy v. Calugay (contested Art. 811 of the 3 witness rule making such
MANDATORY only)
In this case there 6 witnesses that were presented, all of which were not
credible at all, thus the SC correctly ruled that it should be denied.
Atty. Sebastian: The Justice who decided the case, Justice Pardo whose
background in law comes from the fact he served in COMMELEC (kaya
mahina sa civil law), made an error in the manner of how the case was
decided. Pardo basically made the 3 witness rule mandatory based on the
word shall. His reasoning as compared to JBL Reyes in the Azola is out
classed (mahina talaga yan).
Further comment: The rule or doctrine of law on how the SC is to overturn a
previous decision, is that it must be En Banc, which in the case at bar did not
happen, division lang siya, bobo talaga ba!
Part 1 Probate Proper (this and only this happens in a probate court
proceeding)
Must satisfy the following
I.
Capacity which checks if the testator was 1 st of proper Age and 2nd of
sound mind.
II.
Formalities As to Notarial Wills Art 804-806
As to Holographic Wills Art. 810
III.
Credibility as to witnesses and documents
IV.
Free Will
18
Part 2 Partition
Refers to the Substantive Portion of the will.
Ajero v. Ca
Ajero upholds the proposition that article 813 & 814 do not form part of the
requisites for formal or extrinsic validity of the holographic will, thus failure
on the part of the teatator to observe the requirements of Art. 813 & 814 will
not justify the disallowance of the will, but relevant provisions may be
disallowed
Proof is not appropriate in Part 1 (Probate proper), where only the 4 are
looked into.
Joint Will
A joint will is where 2 or more people make a will in a single instrument.
19
Property Lex Situs law of the place where the thing is found.
Exception for testamentary and/or intestate sucession
Order of succession
Amount of Successional Rights
National laws of the
decendent; in
Intrinsic Validity of testamentary provisions
re to this lex
celebrasionis shall yield.
Relate such to the 3 credible witness (Art. 805) and Competent Witness
(Art. 820 and 821)
Article 823. What happens when the witness is a beneficiary in the will
as well?
When the witness is also a beneficiary, he will remain a valid witness but the
provision on the beneficiary is void.
Void as to the witness himself, his spouse, ascendants and
descendants, and anyone claiming under such person and ss, asc
&dsc.
Why? The law considers it as an attempt to bribe the witness, the witness
may be tempted to do whatever to get the will to pass probate.
Exception: when there are 3 other witnesses not including him in the 3. (4 or
more duh!)
Article 824.
When the creditor is a beneficiary also, it is allowed for him to be a witness to
the will
Atty. Sebastian: The reason for such is that the interest is not due, the fact
the debt is secured through the debtors estate, thus no interest. (He will get
what is his no matter what, yun lang);
21
Revocation
Testamentary capacity is required and it must be ambulatory
Why must it be ambulatory? Making a will is an act of liberality and cannot be
given effect until death, thus he should get to choose to keep or remove
some from the will.
22
What are the overt acts mentioned by the codal? (only 4) 1) Burning, 2)
tearing, 3) cancelling, or 4) obliterating the will with the intention of
revoking it.
Atty. Sebastian: Is scissoring allowed? In a 1950s case the tribunal
supremo or the Spanish supreme court said yes but no case yet in the
RP
Is pouring acid the same as burning, since the subjective phase is
complied with? NO, it should only be the four stated acts, but lucky for
you there is no authority on it yet.
Subjective phase depends on the state of mind of the testator.
Art 832.
2001 --- A is the universal heir
2011--- I revoke will 1, all to B
But B repudiates.
What Article 832 says, A cannot get such on the count of Bs repudiation or
incapacity, will stays in effect.
Exception: If A is also an intestate heir, get from there.
24
25