fourth list - wills.docx
TRANSCRIPT
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 1/16
FOURTH LIST
SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS
Perez v. Garchitorena
54 Phil. 431
FACTS: The amount of P21,428.58 is on deposit in the
plaintiff's name with the association known as La
Urbana in Manila, as the final payment of the liuidated
c!edit of "na Ma!ia "lcanta!a, deceased, whose hei!ess is
said plaintiff, a#ainst "nd!es $a!chito!ena, also
deceased, !ep!esented %y his son, the defendant Ma!iano
$a!chito!ena.
"nd as said Ma!iano $a!chito!ena held a &ud#ment fo!
P,82.23 a#ainst (oauin Pe!e) "lcanta!a, hus%and of
the plaintiff, *a!men $. de Pe!e), the she!iff pu!suant to
the w!it of e+ecution issued in said &ud#ment, leied an
attachment on said amount deposited withLa Urbana.
The plaintiff, alle#in# that said deposit %elon#s to the
fideicommissa!y hei!s of the decedent "na Ma!ia
"lcanta!a, secu!ed a p!elimina!y in&unction !est!ainin# the
e+ecution of said &ud#ment on the sum so attached. The
defendants contend that the plaintiff is the decedent's
unie!sal hei!ess, and p!ay fo! the dissolution of the
in&unction.
ISSUE: -hethe! the amount deposited is the p!ope!ty of
the child!en of the late "na Ma!ia "lcanta!a as
fideicommissa!y.
HELD: ideicommissa!y su%stitution !eui!es th!ee
thin#s/
1. " fi!st hei! called p!ima!ily to the en&oyment of the
estate.
2. "n o%li#ation clea!ly imposed upon him to p!ese!e
and t!ansmit to a thi!d pe!son the whole o! a pa!t of the
estate.
3. " second hei!.
The fideicommissa!ius o! second hei! should %e entitledto the estate f!om the time of the testato!'s death, which in
the instant case, is, !athe! than a !euisite, a necessa!y
conseuence de!ied f!om the natu!e of the
fideicommissa!y su%stitution, in which the second hei!
does not inhe!it f!om the hei! fi!st instituted, %ut f!om the
testato!.
0y i!tue of this conseuence, the inhe!itance in uestion
does not %elon# to the hei!ess instituted, the plaintiff
he!ein, as he! a%solute p!ope!ty, %ut to he! child!en, f!om
the moment of the death of the testat!i+, "na Ma!ia
"lcanta!a.
The!efo!e, said inhe!itance, of which the amount !efe!!ed
to at the %e#innin#, which is on deposit with the
association known as La Urbana in the plaintiff's name, is
a pa!t, does not %elon# to he! no! can it %e su%&ect to the
e+ecution of the &ud#ment a#ainst (oauin Pe!e), who is
not one of the fideicommissa!y hei!s.
Phii!!ine Co""ercia an# In#$%tria Ban& v. E%coin
$.. os. 286 7 28
9no fideicommissa!y su%stitution:
FACTS: innie (ane ;od#es died in <loilo leain# a wil
whe!ein she %eueathed all of he! p!ope!tied to he
hus%and, *ha!les ewton ;od#es =*.. ;od#es>. The
will contained a disposition sayin# ?at the death of my
said hus%and, < #ie, deise and %eueath all of the !est
!esidue and !emainde! of my estate, %oth !eal andpe!sonal, whe!ee! situated, to %e eually diided amon#
my %!othe!s and siste!s, sha!e and sha!e alike.
*.. ;od#es was appointed e+ecuto! and when
he died, (oe ;od#es and e!nando Mi!asol !eplaced him
which in tu!n was !eplaced %y P*<0 pu!suant to an
a#!eement of all the hei!s of ;od#es.
@n the othe! hand, the ;i#dons, composed of
%!othe!s and siste!s of innie (ane ;od#es now claims
thei! sha!e to he! estate.
P*<0, howee!, contends that the!e was no
su%stitution in this case and that the testamenta!y
disposition in fao! of the %!othe!s and siste!s a!e
inope!atie and inalid.
ISSUES:
1. -A the!e is a alid simple su%stitution
2. -A the!e is a fideicommissa!y su%stitution
HELD:
1. @B. The!e is no ul#a! o! simple su%stitution. <no!de! that a ul#a! o! simple su%stitution can %e alid
th!ee alte!natie conditions must %e p!esent, namely, tha
the fi!st desi#nated hei! =1> should die %efo!e the testato!
o! =2> should not wish to accept the inhe!itanceC o! =3>
should %e incapacitated to do so. one of these
conditions apply to *. . ;od#es, and, the!efo!e, the
su%stitution p!oided fo! %y the a%oeuoted p!oision of
the -ill is not autho!i)ed %y the *ode, and, the!efo!e, it is
oid.
1
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 2/16
2. @B. The!e is neithe! a fideicommissa!y su%stitution
%ecause no o%li#ation is imposed the!e%y upon *ha!les
to p!ese!e the estate o! any pa!t the!eof fo! anyone else.
<f no o%li#ation is imposed upon the fi!st hei! to p!ese!e
the p!ope!ty and to t!ansmit it to the second hei!, then
the!e is no fideicomisa!ia.
The %!othe!s and siste!s of M!s. ;od#es a!e not
su%stitutes fo! *ha!les %ecause, unde! he! will, they a!e
not to inhe!it what ;od#es cannot, would no o! may not
inhe!it, %ut would inhe!it what he would not dispose of
f!om his inhe!itance.
CONDITIONS' (ODES' AND TER(S
(iciano v. Bri"o
56 Phil. 8 =124>
9oid condition:
FACTS: (uan Miciano, the &udicial administ!ato! of theestate of deceased (oseph 0!imo, filed the scheme of
pa!tition of the said estate. The cou!t app!oed the
scheme despite of the opposition of "nd!e 0!imo, %!othe!
of the deceased. (oseph 0!imo is a Tu!kish citi)en.
<n the will left %y (oseph 0!imo, he said that
althou#h he is a Tu!kish citi)en, he wished that the
dist!i%ution of his p!ope!ty and ee!ythin# in connection
with his will %e made and disposed in acco!dance with the
laws in fo!ce in the Philippines. ;e also !euested all his
!elaties to !espect said wish, othe!wise he annuls and
cancels %efo!ehand whatee! disposition found in the will
fao!a%le to the pe!son o! pe!sons who fail to comply with
said !euest.
"nd!e 0!imo contends that the scheme of
pa!tition puts into effect the p!oisions of (oseph 0!imoDs
will which a!e not in acco!dance with the laws of his
Tu!kish nationality, fo! which !eason they a!e oid as
%ein# in iolation of "!ticle 16 of the *iil *ode.
ISSUE: -hethe! "nd!e 0!imoDs e+clusion as a le#atee is
alid.
HELD: o, "nd!e 0!imoDs e+clusion as a le#atee is not
alid.
The institution of le#atees in this will is
conditional, and the condition is that the instituted
le#atees must !espect the testato!'s will to dist!i%ute his
p!ope!ty, not in acco!dance with the laws of his
nationality, %ut in acco!dance with the laws of the
Philippines.
<f this condition as it is e+p!essed we!e le#al and
alid, any le#atee who fails to comply with it, as the
he!ein opposito! who, %y his attitude in these p!oceedin#s
has not !espected the will of the testato!, as e+p!essed, is
p!eented f!om !eceiin# his le#acy.
;owee!, said condition is oid, %ein# cont!a!y to
law. "!ticle 2 of the *iil *ode p!oides ?<mpossi%le
conditions and those cont!a!y to law o! #ood mo!als shal
%e conside!ed as not imposed and shall not p!e&udice the
hei! o! le#atee in any manne! whatsoee!, een should
the testato! othe!wise p!oide.
"nd said condition is cont!a!y to law %ecause i
e+p!essly i#no!es the testato!'s national law when
acco!din# to "!ticle 16 of the *iil *ode such national law
of the testato! is the one to #oe!n his testamenta!y
dispositions.
Eaid condition then is conside!ed unw!itten, and
the institution of le#atees in said will is unconditional and
conseuently alid and effectie een as to the he!ein
opposito!.The second clause of the will !e#a!din# the law
which shall #oe!n it, and to the condition imposed upon
the le#atees, is null and oid, %ein# cont!a!y to law. "ll of
the !emainin# clauses of said will with all thei
dispositions and !euests a!e pe!fectly alid and effectie
it not appea!in# that said clauses a!e cont!a!y to the
testato!'s national law.
Ra)a#ia v. Co$rt o* A!!ea%
$ o. 11325, (une 2, 2666
9condition, effectC mode:
FACTS: <n a codicil to the last will and testament of
testat!i+ "le&a 0ellesa, F!. (o!de a%adilla was instituted
as a deisee of a pa!cel of land su%&ect to the o%li#ation
of delie!in# to Ma!ia Ma!tena *oscuella y 0elle)a 166
piculs of su#a! ee!y yea! until Ma!ia Ma!tena dies and
should F!. a%adilla die, the o%li#ation shall %e passed to
his hei!s. The!e was also an o%li#ation to any t!ansfe!ee
to delie! to Ma!ia Ma!tena to sei)e the p!ope!ty and tu!n
it oe! to "le&a 0elle)aDs descendants.
F!. a%adilla died and was su!ied %y his wifeand fou! child!en, one of which was the petitione! (ohnny
a%adilla. Ma!ia filed a complain to comply wit the
o%li#ation. " comp!omise a#!eement was !eached %u
due to noncompliance, Ma!ia filed anothe! complaint %ut
was also dismissed fo! lack of cause of action.
The *ou!t of "ppeals !ee!sed the decision of the
lowe! cou!t and o!de!ed the !econeyance f!om the
modal hei!, F!. a%adillaDs hei!s, of the p!ope!ty to Ma!ia.
2
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 3/16
ISSUE: -hethe! the!e was a modal institution of hei!s as
held %y the *ou!t of "ppeals.
HELD: Ges. The contention of the petitione!s a!e
untena%le. <t is not a simple institution. The *ou!t of
"ppeals found that the p!iate !espondents had a cause
of action a#ainst petitione!s. The desi#nation was made
as modal institution. This was p!ecisely to st!ess that the
p!iate !espondents had a le#ally demanda%le !i#ht
a#ainst the petitione!s pu!suant to the su%&ect codicil.
The o%li#ations imposed %y the codicil on F!.
a%adilla we!e t!ansmitted to his compulso!y hei!s upon
his death. Eince the o%li#ation is clea!ly imposed %y the
testat!i+ not only in the instituted hei! %ut also in his
successo!ininte!est, the sanction imposed %y the
testat!i+ in nonfulfillment of said o%li#ation should eually
apply to the instituted hei! and his successo!ininte!est.
The petition is dismissed and the decision of the
*ou!t of "ppeals is affi!med.
Le+iti"e ,In Genera-
Ra"$n#o v. /#a De S$arez
$.. o. 1461, oem%e! 28, 2668
9compulso!y succession defined:
FACTS: Epouses Ma!celo and Teofista Eua!e) had fie
child!en namely Fanilo, Buf!ocina, Ma!celo (!, Belyn and
e##ineo. Epouses acui!ed see!al p!ope!ties includin#
a pa!cel of land in Pasi#, a p!ope!ty in Pina#%uhatan
Pasi# and ots 5, and . -hen Ma!celo E!. died,
Teofista, to#ethe! with the othe! !espondents, and Blpidio
Eua!e) e+ecuted an B+t!a&udicial Eettlement of Bstate.
Fespite the said pa!tition, the p!ope!ties !emained unde!
the name of the spouses. Teofista continued to administe!
and mana#e said p!ope!ties.
<n a case a#ainst Halente aymundo and othe!s,
the cou!t o!de!ed Teofista and i)al ealty *opo!ation to
pay aymundo P6,666.66 fo! dama#es. The su%&ect
p!ope!ties we!e leied to satisfy the &ud#ment. 0efo!e the
e+pi!ation of the !edemption pe!iod, he!ein !espondents
filed a !eindicato!y action a#ainst Halente fof theannulment of the auction sale. Meanwhile, T* o!de!ed
Teofista to acate the p!emises and leae Halente in
peaceful possession the!eof.
espondents filed a Motion fo! econside!ation
which was denied. They then filed a patition fo! ce!tio!a!i
%efo!e the *ou!t of "ppeals which also dismissed the said
petition.
<n anothe! liti#ation, a w!it of p!elimina!y in&uction
was issued %y the T* of Pasi# en&oinin# petitione!
Halente f!om t!ansfe!!in# to thi!d pe!sons the leied
p!ope!ties %ased on its p!elimina!y findin#s that the
auctioned p!ope!ties a!e coowned %y Teofista and the
!espondents.
Halente now contends that the !espondents mus
fi!st %e decla!ed as hei!s %efo!e they can file an action to
annul the &udicial sale.
ISSUE: -hethe! the p!ope!ties in uestion can %e su%&ec
of ley.
HELD: o, the p!ope!ties in uestion cannot %e su%&ect of
ley to satisfy the &ud#ment a#ainst Teofista Eu
a!e).
Petitione! Halente, alon# with Hioleta, Hi!#inia and
Ma!ia *oncepcion, %ecame owne!s of the su%&ec
p!ope!ties only %y i!tue of an e+ecution sale to !ecoe!TeofistaDs &ud#ment o%li#ation. This &ud#ment o%li#ation is
solely TeofistaDs, and payment the!efo! cannot %e made
th!ou#h an e+ecution sale of p!ope!ties not a%solutely
owned %y he!. These p!ope!ties we!e eidently con&u#a
p!ope!ties and we!e, in fact, een titled in the name of
Ma!celo, E!. ma!!ied to Teofista. Thus, upon Ma!celo E!.Ds
death, %y i!tue of compulso!y succession, Ma!celo E!.Ds
sha!e in the con&u#al pa!tne!ship was t!ansmitted %y
ope!ation of law to his compulso!y hei!s.
*ompulso!y succession is a distinct kind o
succession, al%eit not cate#o!i)ed as such in "!ticle 8of the *iil *ode. <t !ese!es a po!tion of the net estate o
the decedent in fao! of ce!tain hei!s, o! #!oup of hei!s, o!
com%ination of hei!s, p!eailin# oe! all kinds o
succession. The po!tion that is so !ese!ed is the
le#itime. "!ticle 88 of the *iil *ode defines le#itime as
?that pa!t of the testato!Ds p!ope!ty which he canno
dispose of %ecause the law has !ese!ed it fo! ce!tain
hei!s who a!e, the!efo!e, called compulso!y hei!s.I ;e!ein
!espondents a!e p!ima!y compulso!y hei!s, e+cludin#
seconda!y compulso!y hei!s, and p!efe!!ed oe
concu!!in# compulso!y hei!s in the dist!i%ution of the
decedentDs estate.
Co"!$%or Heir
La!$z v. E$*e"io
$.. o. 36 (anua!y 31, 12
9when le#al sepa!ation is pendin#:
FACTS: @n "u#ust 153, *a!men apu) Ey filed a
petition fo! le#al sepa!ation a#ainst Bufemio E. Bufemio
on the #!ound that she found out that he! hus%and
3
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 4/16
a%andoned he! and coha%itated with a *hinese woman
$o ;iok. The spouses do not hae a child.
<n his amended answe!, Bufemio alle#ed
affi!matie and special defenses. ;e also filed a counte!
claim fo! the decla!ation of nullity a% initio of his ma!!ia#e
with *a!men on the #!ound of his p!io! and su%sistin#
ma!!ia#e with $o ;iol alias #o ;iok in acco!dance with
*hinese law and cutoms.
0efo!e the t!ial can %e completed, *a!men died in
a ehicula! accident. Bufemio then mo%%ed to dismiss the
petition f!o le#al sepa!ation sayin# that the petition was
filed %eyond the oneyea! pe!iod p!oided in "!ticle 162 of
the *iil *ode and that the death of *a!men a%ated the
action fo! le#al sepa!ation.
*ounsel of *a!men moed to su%stitute the
deceased %y he! fathe! Maca!io apu). Bufemio opposed
the motion. The lowe! cou!t dismissed the case statin#
that the motion to dismiss and the motion fo! su%stitutionhad to %e !esoled on the uestion of whethe! the
plaintiffDs cause of action has su!ied which was !uled in
the ne#atie.
Petitione!s then filed a !eiew %y ce!tio!a!i %efo!e
the Eup!eme *ou!t. ;ence this appeal.
ISSUE: -hethe! the death of the plaintiff, %efo!e final
dec!ee in an action fo! le#al sepa!ation, a%ate the action
and will it also apply if the action inoled p!ope!ty !i#hts.
HELD: Ges, the death of the plaintiff %efo!e the finaldec!ee in an action fo! le#al sepa!ation a%ate the action.
"n action fo! le#al sepa!ation which inoles
nothin# mo!e than the %edand%oa!d sepa!ation of the
spouses is pu!ely pe!sonal. The *iil *ode of the
Philippines !eco#ni)es this in its "!ticle 166, %y allowin#
only the innocent spouse to claim le#al sepa!ationC and in
its "!ticle 168, %y p!oidin# that the spouses can, %y thei!
!econciliation, stop o! a%ate the p!oceedin#s and een
!escind a dec!ee of le#al sepa!ation al!eady !ende!ed.
0ein# pe!sonal in cha!acte!, it follows that the death of
one pa!ty to the action causes the death of the action
itself J actio personalis moritur cum persona.
This also applied if the action inoled p!ope!ty
!i#hts.
" !eiew of the !esultin# chan#es in p!ope!ty
!elations %etween spouses shows that they a!e solely the
effect of the dec!ee of le#al sepa!ationC hence, they can
not su!ie the death of the plaintiff if it occu!s p!io! to the
dec!ee.
The loss of !i#ht %y the offendin# spouse to any
sha!e of the p!ofits ea!ned %y the pa!tne!ship o
community, o! his disualification to inhe!it %y intestacy
f!om the innocent spouse as well as the !eocation of
testamenta!y p!oisions in fao! of the offendin# spouse
made %y the innocent one, a!e all !i#hts and disa%ilities
that, %y the e!y te!ms of the *iil *ode a!ticle, a!e
ested e+clusiely in the pe!sons of the spousesC and %y
thei! natu!e and intent, such claims and disa%ilities a!e
difficult to conceie as assi#na%le o! t!ansmissi%le
;ence, a claim to said !i#hts is not a claim that Kis not
the!e%y e+tin#uishedK afte! a pa!ty dies, unde! Eection
1, ule 3, of the ules of *ou!t, to wa!!ant continuation
of the action th!ou#h a su%stitute of the deceased pa!ty.
Barit$a v. CA
$.. o. 82233 Ma!ch 22, 16
9est!an#ement L not a le#al #!ound fo! disualification:
FACTS: " t!icycle d!ien %y 0ienenido aca!io collidedwith a (0 0us d!ien %y Bd#a! 0itanco! and owned and
ope!ated %y (ose 0a!itua. "s a !esult of the accident
0ienenido and his passen#e! died.
"n e+t!a&udicial settlement was e+ecuted %y
he!ein petitione!s and Philippine i!st <nsu!ance
*ompany, <nc. and "licia aca!io, 0ienenidoDs widow. <n
conside!ation of the amount she !eceied, "licia e+ecuted
a ?!elease of claimI in fao! of petitione!s and P<*<. Ehe
also e+ecuted an affidait of desistance.
"%out a yea! afte! the accident, the pa!ents o
0ienenido filed a complaint fo! dama#es a#ainst the
petitione!s. They alle#ed that in acco!dance with the
e+t!a&udicial settlement that they e+ecuted, the
petitione!s p!omised to indemnify them fo! the death of
the!e son, fo! the fune!al e+penses they incu!!ed and fo!
the dama#e of the t!icycle, the pu!chase p!ice of which
was loaned %y them in fao! of thei! son. ;owee!
instead of indemnifyin# them, the petitione!s ne#otiated
with the lon#est!an#ed wife of thei! late son.
The lowe! cou!t dismissed the complaint sayin#that the payment %y the petitione!s to the widow and he
child, who a!e the p!efe!!ed hei!s and successo!sin
inte!est of the deceased e+tin#uished any claims a#ains
the petitione!s. The *ou!t of "ppeals !ee!sed the
&ud#ment of the t!ial cou!t. <t said that the !elease
e+ecuted %y "licia did not discha!#e the lia%ility of the
petitione!s %ecause the case was instituted %y the
!espondents in thei! own capacity as ?hei!s
!ep!esentaties, successo!s and assi#ns of "licia and tha
"licia could not hae alidly waied the dama#es p!ayed
4
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 5/16
fo! since she was not the one who suffe!ed these
dama#es.
ISSUE: -hethe! the !elease e+ecuted %y "licia
discha!#ed the lia%ility of the petitione!s.
HELD: Ges, the petitione!s a!e discha!#ed f!om the
lia%ility %y i!tue of the !elease e+ecuted %y "licia.
@%li#ations a!e e+tin#uished %y a!ious modes
amon# them %ein# %y payment. The!e is no denyin# that
the petitione!s had paid thei! o%li#ation petition a!isin#
f!om the accident. The only uestion now is whethe! o!
not "licia, the spouse and the one who !eceied the
petitione!s' payment, is entitled to it.
The!e can %e no uestion that "licia and he! son
with the deceased a!e the successo!s in inte!est !efe!!ed
to in law as the pe!sons autho!i)ed to !eceie payment.
<t is patently clea! that the pa!ents of thedeceased succeed only when the latte! dies without a
le#itimate descendant. @n the othe! hand, the su!iin#
spouse concu!s with all classes of hei!s. "s it has %een
esta%lished that 0ienenido was ma!!ied to "licia and that
they %e#ot a child, the p!iate !espondents a!e not
successo!sininte!est of 0ienenidoC they a!e not
compulso!y hei!s. The petitione!s the!efo!e acted
co!!ectly in settlin# thei! o%li#ation with "licia as the
widow of 0ienenido and as the natu!al #ua!dian of thei!
lone child. This is so een if "licia had %een est!an#ed
f!om 0ienenido. Me!e est!an#ement is not a le#al
#!ound fo! the disualification of a su!iin# spouse as an
hei! of the deceased spouse.
Ra"$n#o v. /#a De S$arez'
$.. o. 1461, oem%e! 28, 2668
9p!ima!y compulso!y hei!s and seconda!y compulso!y
hei!s:
FACTS: Epouses Ma!celo and Teofista Eua!e) had fie
child!en namely Fanilo, Buf!ocina, Ma!celo (!, Belyn and
e##ineo. Epouses acui!ed see!al p!ope!ties includin#
a pa!cel of land in Pasi#, a p!ope!ty in Pina#%uhatanPasi# and ots 5, and . -hen Ma!celo E!. died,
Teofista, to#ethe! with the othe! !espondents, and Blpidio
Eua!e) e+ecuted an B+t!a&udicial Eettlement of Bstate.
Fespite the said pa!tition, the p!ope!ties !emained unde!
the name of the spouses. Teofista continued to administe!
and mana#e said p!ope!ties.
<n a case a#ainst Halente aymundo and othe!s,
the cou!t o!de!ed Teofista and i)al ealty *opo!ation to
pay aymundo P6,666.66 fo! dama#es. The su%&ec
p!ope!ties we!e leied to satisfy the &ud#ment. 0efo!e the
e+pi!ation of the !edemption pe!iod, he!ein !espondents
filed a !eindicato!y action a#ainst Halente fof the
annulment of the auction sale. Meanwhile, T* o!de!ed
Teofista to acate the p!emises and leae Halente in
peaceful possession the!eof.
espondents filed a Motion fo! econside!ation
which was denied. They then filed a patition fo! ce!tio!a!
%efo!e the *ou!t of "ppeals which also dismissed the said
petition.
<n anothe! liti#ation, a w!it of p!elimina!y in&uction
was issued %y the T* of Pasi# en&oinin# petitione!
Halente f!om t!ansfe!!in# to thi!d pe!sons the leied
p!ope!ties %ased on its p!elimina!y findin#s that the
auctioned p!ope!ties a!e coowned %y Teofista and the
!espondents.
Halente now contends that the !espondents mus
fi!st %e decla!ed as hei!s %efo!e they can file an action to
annul the &udicial sale.
ISSUE: -hat a!e the !i#hts of a p!ima!y compulso!y hei!
and a seconda!y compulso!y hei!
HELD: *ompulso!y succession is a distinct kind o
succession, al%eit not cate#o!i)ed as such in "!ticle 8
of the *iil *ode. <t !ese!es a po!tion of the net estate o
the decedent in fao! of ce!tain hei!s, o! #!oup of hei!s, o!
com%ination of hei!s, p!eailin# oe! all kinds osuccession. The po!tion that is so !ese!ed is the
le#itime. "!ticle 88 of the *iil *ode defines le#itime as
?that pa!t of the testato!Ds p!ope!ty which he canno
dispose of %ecause the law has !ese!ed it fo! ce!tain
hei!s who a!e, the!efo!e, called compulso!y hei!s.I ;e!ein
!espondents a!e p!ima!y compulso!y hei!s, e+cludin#
seconda!y compulso!y hei!s, and p!efe!!ed oe
concu!!in# compulso!y hei!s in the dist!i%ution of the
decedentDs estate.
Ben without delin# into the B+t!a&udicia
Eettlement of Ma!celo E!.Ds estate in 15, it must %e
st!essed that he!ein !espondentsD !i#hts to the succession
ested f!om the moment of thei! fathe!Ds death. ;e!ein
!espondentsD owne!ship of the su%&ect p!ope!ties is no
lon#e! inchoateC it %ecame a%solute upon Ma!celoDs
death, althou#h thei! !espectie sha!es the!ein !emained
pro indiviso. <nelucta%ly, at the time the su%&ect p!ope!ties
we!e sold on e+ecution sale to answe! fo! TeofistaDs
&ud#ment o%li#ation, the inclusion of he!ein !espondents
sha!e the!ein was null and oid.
5
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 6/16
<n fine, TeofistaDs owne!ship oe! the su%&ect
p!ope!ties is not a%solute. Ei#nificantly, petitione! Halente
does not een attempt to dispute the con&u#al natu!e of
the su%&ect p!ope!ties. Eince Teofista owns only a po!tion
of the su%&ect p!ope!ties, only that po!tion could hae
%een, and was actually, leied upon and sold on auction
%y the p!oincial she!iff of i)al. Thus, a sepa!ate
decla!ation of hei!ship %y he!ein !espondents is not
necessa!y to annul the &udicial sale of thei! sha!e in the
su%&ect p!ope!ties.
Ree% v. CA
$.. o. 353, Ma!ch 1, 185
9natu!al and spu!ious child!en:
FACTS: Placida Fel#ado, to#ethe! with the othe! p!iate
!espondents, filed a complaint %efo!e the *< of 0atan#as
p!ayin# that <!ene Fel#ado =alias <!ene eyes and <!ene
ame!o> %e o!de!ed to e+ecute a deed of !econeyancein fao! of Placido, Fomin#o and Paula, all su!named
Fel#ado !espondents oe! fie pa!cels of land in Nue)on
and anothe! deed of !econeyance in fao! of Ma+imo
Fel#ado oe! th!ee pa!cels of land in 0atan#as.
;e!ein !espondents alle#ed that <!ene was a%le
to !e#iste! the lands unde! he! name %y lyin# that she
was the sole child of !ancisco Fel#ado and thus entitled
to inhe!it the pa!cels of land.
<!ene filed an answe! sayin# that she is the
ille#itimate dau#hte! of $enoea ame!o and deceased
!ancisco Fel#ado. "fte! he! mothe! and (ustino eyes
sepa!ated, he! mothe! coha%itated with !ancisco
Fel#ado. <!ene also filed a counte!claim ae!!in# that as
the ille#itimate dau#hte! of !ancisco, she has the !i#ht to
!ep!esent he! fathe! to the inhe!itance left %y he!
#!andmothe!, 0eni#na *astillo.
The *< of 0atan#as dismissed the action fo!
!econeyance and decla!ed <!ene Fel#ado as the lawful
owne! of the pa!cels of land. ;owee!, the counte!claim
of <!ene was dismissed fo! insufficiency of eidence. 0othpa!ties appealed to the *ou!t of "ppeals.
The *ou!t of "ppeals !ee!sed the !ulin# of the
lowe! cou!t. <t said that the selfad&udication e+ecuted %y
<!ene is null and oid. The t!ansfe! ce!tificates of title
issued in the name of <!ene we!e cancelled and the titles
coe!in# the pa!cels of land we!e !einstated in the name
of !ancisco. The *ou!t of "ppeals said that althou#h
<!ene was the spu!ious dau#hte! of !ancisco, she cannot
inhe!it %ecause she was not !eco#ni)ed withe! olunta!ily
o! %y cou!t action. u!the!mo!e, the titles of the lots
cannot %e e+ecuted in fao! of he!ein !espondents
%ecause in doin# so it will %e in effect a !eco#nition %y
the cou!t that he!ein !espondents a!e the only hei!s of
!ancisco to the p!e&udice of othe! possi%le hei!s o
c!edito!s of the deceased.
ISSUE: -hethe! <!ene Fel#ado could inhe!it the lot.
HELD: The doct!ine that fo! an ille#itimate child othe!
than natu!al to inhe!it must %e fi!st !eco#ni)ed olunta!ily
o! %y cou!t action is well settled in ou! &u!isp!udence
The!e is no !eason to oe!tu!n this doct!ine.
Thou#h the *iil *ode is silent with !espect to
spu!ious child!en as to thei! !eco#nition, this *ou!t, in
applyin# the !ules of !eco#nition, applica%le to natu!a
child!en, to said spu!ious child!en, decla!ed that the
conside!ations of fai!ness and &ustice that unde!lie the
time limit fi+ed in "!ticle 285 of the *iil *ode fo! actionsseekin# compulso!y acknowled#ment of natu!al child!en
a!e fully applica%le, if not mo!e, to actions to inesti#ate
and decla!e the pate!nity of ille#itimate child!en that a!e
not natu!al.
The!e a!e two =2> #ene!al classifications o
ille#itimate child!en o! those who a!e conceied and %o!n
out of wedlock. They may %e eithe! natu!al =actually o! %y
fiction> o! spu!ious =the incestuous, adulte!ous o! illicit>
atu!al child!en a!e defined as those %o!n outside o
wedlock of pa!ents, who at the time of conception of the
fo!me!, we!e not disualified %y any impediment to ma!!yeach othe! ="!ticle 2, ew *iil *ode>. @n the othe
hand, spu!ious child!en a!e those %o!n of pa!ents, who a
the time of thei! conception, a!e disualified to ma!!y
each othe! on account of ce!tain impediment. 0ecause of
this %asic distinction %etween these child!en, it is no
le#ally possi%le to classify un!eco#ni)ed natu!al child!en
unde! the class of spu!ious child!en. 0esides
commentato!s const!ue the ph!ase Kille#itimate child!en
othe! than natu!alK as e+cludin# f!om the #!ants of !i#hts
unde! "!ticle 28 of the ew *iil *ode those child!en
who a!e natu!al child p!ope! %y %i!th and who hae not
secu!ed olunta!y o! compulso!y !eco#nition. They fa#
within the scope of the definition of natu!al child!en
enume!ated in "!ticle 2, ew *iil *ode astly, to
follow petitione!s' contention win not %e in acco!dance
with the consistent p!onouncements of this *ou!t. <t is an
elementa!y and %asic p!inciple unde! the old and new
*iil *ode, that an un!eco#ni)ed natu!al child has no
!i#hts whatsoee! a#ainst his pa!ent o! his estate. ;is
!i#hts sp!in# not f!om the filiation itself, %ut f!om the
child's acknowled#ment %y the natu!al pa!ent.
6
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 7/16
Re%erva Tronca
Pa#$ra v. Ba#ovino
$.. o. 116, Fecem%e! 158
FACTS: "#ustin Padu!a cont!acted two ma!!ia#es du!in#
his lifetime. -ith his fi!st wife $e!acia andi#, he had
one child, Manuel Padu!a. -ith the second wife, 0enita
$a!in#, he had two child!en, o!tunato and *andela!ia
Padu!a. "#ustin died on "p! 2, 168, leain# a last will
and testament, duly p!o%ated, whe!ein he %eueathed his
p!ope!ties amon# his th!ee child!en and his su!iin#
spouse, 0enita $a!in#.
o!tunato was ad&udicated fou! pa!cels of land. ;e died
unma!!ied on May 28, 168, without hain# e+ecuted a
willC and not hain# any issue, the pa!cels of land we!einhe!ited e+clusiely %y his mothe! 0enita. 0enita was
issued a To!!ens *e!tificate of Title in he! name, su%&ect
to the condition that the p!ope!ties we!e !ese!a%le in
fao! of !elaties within the thi!d de#!ee %elon#in# to the
line f!om which said p!ope!ty came.
@n "u# 2, 134, *andela!ia died, leain# as he! hei!s
he! fou! le#itimate child!en/ *!isteta, Melania, "nicia, and
Pa%lo 0aldoino =@pposito!sappellants>. @n @ct , 146,
Manuel also died, su!ied %y his le#itimate child!en
Fionisia, elisa, lo!a, *o!nelio, !ancisco, (uana, and
Eee!ino Padu!a =Petitione!sappellees> Opon the deathof 0enita =the !ese!ista> on @ct 15, 152, the hei!s took
possession of the !ese!a%le p!ope!ties. *< a#una
decla!ed the child!en of Manuel and *andela!ia to %e the
!i#htful !ese!ees, and as such, entitled to the !ese!a%le
p!ope!ties =the o!i#inal !ese!ees, *andela!ia and
Manuel, hain# p!edeceased the !ese!ista>
The 0aldoino hei!s filed a petition seekin# to hae the
p!ope!ties pa!titioned, such that onehalf %e ad&udicated
to them, and the othe! half to the appellees, alle#edly on
the %asis that they inhe!ited %y !i#ht of !ep!esentation
f!om thei! !espectie pa!ents, the o!i#inal !ese!ees.
Padu!a hei!s opposed, maintainin# that they should all %e
deemed as inhe!itin# in thei! own !i#ht, unde! which, they
claim, each should hae an eual sha!e.
=<n essence, the 0aldoino hei!s, who a!e whole %lood
!elaties of the !ese!ista, we!e contendin# that they
should #et mo!e than thei! half%lood !elaties, the
Padu!a hei!s. They ancho! thei! claim on "!ticles 166
and 1668 of the *iil *ode>
RTC RULING
Fecla!ed all the !ese!ees, without distinction, ?co
owne!s, p!oindiiso, in eual sha!es of the pa!cels of
land.I
ISSUE: -@ the !ese!ed p!ope!ties should, as the t!ia
cou!t held, %e appo!tioned amon# the hei!s eually.
HELD: @.The nephews of the whole %lood should take
a sha!e twice as la!#e as that of the nephews of the half
%lood. The !ese!a t!oncal is a special !ule desi#ned
p!ima!ily to assu!e the !etu!n of the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty to
the thi!d de#!ee !elaties %elon#in# to the line f!om which
the p!ope!ty o!i#inally came, and aoid its %ein#
dissipated into and %y the !elaties of the inhe!itin#
ascendant =!ese!ista>. "!ticle 81 of the *ode p!oides/
ART 891. The ascendant who inherits from his
descendant any property which the latter may have
acquired by ratuitous title from another ascendant! or abrother or sister! is oblied to reserve such property as he
may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of
relatives who are within the third deree and who belon
to the line from which said property came.
The pu!pose of the !ese!a t!oncal is accomplished once
the p!ope!ty has deoled to the specified !elaties of the
line of o!i#in. 0ut f!om this time on, the!e is no fu!the
occasion fo! its application. <n the !elations %etween one
!ese!ata!io and anothe! of the same de#!ee, the!e is no
call fo! applyin# "!t 81 any lon#e!C the !espectie sha!e
of each in the !ee!siona!y p!ope!ty should %e #oe!ned%y the o!dina!y !ules of inte!state succession.
lo!entino lo!entino =as !estated in the case>/ upon the
death of the ascendant !ese!ista, the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty
should pass, not to all the !ese!ato!ios as a class, %ut
only to those nea!est in de#!ee to the descendan
=p!epositus>, e+cludin# those !ese!ata!ios of mo!e
!emote de#!ee... "nd within the thi!d de#!ee o
!elationship f!om the descendant =p!epositus>, the !i#ht of
!ep!esentation ope!ates in fao! of nephews.
P!o+imity of de#!ee and !i#ht of !ep!esentation a!e %asic
p!inciples of o!dina!y intestate successionC so is the !ule
that whole %lood %!othe!s and nephews a!e entitled to
sha!e dou%le that of %!othe!s and nephews of half%lood
<f in dete!minin# the !i#hts of the !ese!ata!ios inte! se
p!o+imity of de#!ee and the !i#ht of !ep!esentation o
nephews a!e made to aply, the !ule of dou%le sha!e fo!
immedaite collate!als of the whole %lood should likewise
%e ope!atie.
7
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 8/16
<n othe! wo!ds, !ese!a t!oncal me!ely dete!mines the
#!oup of !elaties =!ese!ata!ios> to whom the p!ope!ty
should %e !etu!nedC %ut within that #!oup, the indiidual
!i#ht to the p!ope!ty should %e decided %y the applica%le
!ules of o!dina!y intestate succession, since "!t 81 does
not specify othe!wise. The !ese!a %ein# an e+ceptional
case, its application should %e limited to what is st!ictly
needed to accomplish the pu!pose of the law.
Ben du!in# the !ese!istaDs lifetime, the !ese!ata!ios,
who a!e the ultimate acui!e!s of the p!ope!ty, can
al!eady asse!t the !i#ht to p!eent the !ese!ista f!om
doin# anythin# that mi#ht f!ust!ate thei! !ee!siona!y !i#ht/
and fo! this pu!pose they can compel the annotation of
thei! !i#ht in the e#ist!y of P!ope!ty een while the
!ese!ista is alie. This !i#ht is incompati%le with the me!e
e+pectancy that co!!esponds to the natu!al hei!s of the
!ese!ista. <t is also clea! that the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty is
not pa!t of the estate of the !ese!ista, who may not
dispose of them %y will, so lon# as the!e a!e !ese!ata!iose+istin#. The latte!, the!efo!e, do not inhe!it f!om the
!ese!ista, %ut f!om the descendant p!epositus, of whom
the !ese!ata!ios a!e the hei!s mo!tis causa, su%&ect to
the condition that they must su!ie the !ese!ista.
Gonzae% v. CFI (ania
$.. o. 3435, May 1, 181
9pu!pose:
FACTS: 0enito F. e#a!da =<<> p!edeceased his fathe!
0enito T. e#a!da =<>. 0enito =<<> was su!ied %y his
widow, ilomena aces Hda. de e#a!da =<>, and thei!
seen child!en namely 0eat!i), osa!io, Te!esa, ilomena
=<<>, 0enito =<<<>, "le&and!o and (ose.
-hen 0enito T. e#a!da =<> died, his !eal
p!ope!ties we!e diided in th!ee eual po!tions %y his
dau#hte!s, *onsuelo and ita and the hei!s of his
deceased son 0enito =<<> who we!e !ep!esented %y 0enito
. e#a!da =<<<>.
ilomena . e#a!da =<<>, died intestate and
without issue. ;e! sole hei! was he! mothe!, ilomenaaces Hda. de e#a!da. M!s. e#a!da e+ecuted an
affidait ad&udicatin# e+t!a&udicially to he!self the
p!ope!ties which she inhe!ited f!om he! deceased
dau#hte!, ilomena e#a!da =<<>. "s a !esult of the
affidait of ad&udication, ilomena aces =<> succeeded
he! deceased dau#hte! ilomena e#a!da =<<> as co
owne! of the p!ope!ties held proindiviso %y he! othe! si+
child!en.
<n 153, M!s. e#a!da e+ecuted two handw!itten
identical documents whe!ein she disposed of the
p!ope!ties which she inhe!ited f!om he! dau#hte! in fao!
of he! si+teen #!andchild!en, the child!en of he! th!ee
sons, 0enito =<<<>, "le&and!o and (ose. !om (uly 158 to
e%!ua!y 15, M!s. e#a!da and he! si+ su!iin#
child!en pa!titioned the p!ope!ties consistin# of the 1A3
sha!e in the estate of 0enito T. e#a!da =<> which the
child!en inhe!ited in !ep!esentation of thei! fathe!, 0enito
F. e#a!da =<<>.
M!s. e#a!da died in 1 and left a holo#!aphic
will. The said will was admitted to p!o%ate. <n the testate
p!oceedin#, 0eat!i) e#a!da $on)ales, a dau#hte! o
M!s. e#a!da filed a motion to e+clude f!om the inento!y
of he! mothe!Ds estate the p!ope!ties which she inhe!ited
f!om he! deceased dau#hte!, ilomena =<<>, on the #!ound
that said p!ope!ties a!e !ese!a%le p!ope!ties which
should %e inhe!ited %y ilomenaDs =<<> th!ee siste!s and
th!ee %!othe! and not %y the child!en of 0enito, "le&and!oand (ose. The motion was opposed %y the administ!ato!
0enito . e#a!da =<<<>.
0efo!e the cou!t could issue a !esolution, 0eat!i)
$on)ales filed an o!dina!y ciil action a#ainst he
%!othe!s, siste!s, nephews and nieces and he! mothe!Ds
estate fo! the pu!pose of secu!in# a decla!ation that the
said p!ope!ties a!e !ese!a%le p!ope!ties.
The lowe! cou!t dismissed the action of 0eat!i)
$on)ales. ;ence this appeal.
ISSUE: -hat is the pu!pose of reverva troncal
HELD: The !ationale of reserve troncal is to aoid Kthe
!isk that assets possessed %y a family pass fo! centu!ies
suddenly #!atuitously to fo!ei#n hands %y !andom links
and p!ematu!e deaths o! impede! that fo! a !andom
st!an#e people ide a family to acui!e p!ope!ty without
that would hae %een the!ein.I
<n reserve troncal =1> a descendant inhe!ited o
acui!ed %y #!atuitous title p!ope!ty f!om an ascendant o!
f!om a %!othe! o! siste!C =2> the same p!ope!ty is inhe!ited
%y anothe! ascendant o! is acui!ed %y him %y ope!ation
of law f!om the said descendant, and =3> the said
ascendant should !ese!e the said p!ope!ty fo! the %enefi
of !elaties who a!e within the thi!d de#!ee f!om the
deceased descendant = prepositus> and who %elon# to the
line f!om which the said p!ope!ty came.
Eo, th!ee t!ansmissions a!e inoled/ =<> a fi!st
t!ansmission %y luc!atie title =inhe!itance o! donation
8
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 9/16
f!om an ascendant o! %!othe! o! siste! to the deceased
descendantC =2> a poste!io! t!ansmission, %y ope!ation of
law =intestate succession o! le#itime> f!om the deceased
descendant =causante de la reserve> in fao! of anothe!
ascendant, the !ese!o! o! reservista, which two
t!ansmissions p!ecede the !ese!ation, and =3> a thi!d
t!ansmissions of the same p!ope!ty =in conseuence of
the !ese!ation> f!om the !ese!o! to the !ese!ees
=reservatarios> o! the !elaties within the thi!d de#!ee
f!om the deceased descendant %elon#in# to the line of
the fi!st ascendant, %!othe! o! siste! of the deceased
descendant.
<n the instant case, the p!ope!ties in uestion
we!e indu%ita%ly !ese!a%le p!ope!ties in the hands of
M!s. e#a!da. Ondou%tedly, she was a !ese!o!. The
!ese!ation %ecame a ce!tainty when at the time of he!
death the !ese!ees o! !elaties within the thi!d de#!ee of
the prepositus ilomena e#a!da we!e liin# o! they
su!ied M!s. e#a!da.
Eo, the ultimate issue in this case is whethe! M!s.
e#a!da, as !ese!o!, could coney the !ese!a%le
p!ope!ties %y will o! mortis causa to the !ese!ees within
the third deree =he! si+teen #!andchild!en> to the
e+clusion of the !ese!ees in the second deree, he!
th!ee dau#hte!s and th!ee sons.
-e hold that M!s. e#a!da could not coney in
he! holo#!aphic will to he! si+teen #!andchild!en the
!ese!a%le p!ope!ties which she had inhe!ited f!om he!
dau#hte! ilomena %ecause the !ese!a%le p!ope!ties didnot fo!m pa!t of he! estate. The !ese!o! cannot make a
disposition mortis causa of the !ese!a%le p!ope!ties as
lon# as the !ese!ees su!ied the !ese!o!.
"!ticle 81 clea!ly indicates that the !ese!a%le
p!ope!ties should %e inhe!ited %y all the nea!est !elaties
within the thi!d de#!ee f!om the prepositus who in this
case a!e the si+ child!en of M!s. e#a!da. Ehe could not
select the !ese!ees to whom the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty
should %e #ien and dep!ie the othe! !ese!ees of thei!
sha!e the!ein.
To allow the !ese!o! in this case to make a
testamenta!y disposition of the !ese!a%le p!ope!ties in
fao! of the !ese!ees in the third deree and,
conseuently, to i#no!e the !ese!ees in the second
deree would %e a #la!in# iolation of a!ticle 81. That
testamenta!y disposition cannot %e allowed.
E#ro%o v. Sa)an
$ o. 88, Eeptem%e! 13, 113
9Pu!pose ese!a T!oncal:
FACTS: Hicto!iano Ea%lan and Ma!celina Bd!oso we!e
ma!!ied and had a son, Ped!o Ea%lan. Opon the death of
his fathe!, Ped!o inhe!ited two pa!cels of land in a#una.
These pa!cels of land we!e acui!ed %y Hicto!iano %y
inhe!itance f!om his ascendants, Ma!iano Ea%lan and
Ma!ia ita e!nande), they hain# %een ad&udicated to
him in the pa!tition of he!edita!y p!ope!ty %etween him
and his %!othe!s. @n (uly 162, Ped!o died unma!!ied
and without any child. The two pa!cels of land passed
th!ou#h inhe!itance to his mothe!, Ma!celina Bd!oso
Ma!celina then applied fo! the !e#ist!ation and issuance
of title of the two lots.
Pa%lo and 0asilio Ea%lan, the le#itimate %!othe!
of Hicto!iano, opposed the !e#ist!ation of the lots. They
claimed that withe! the !e#ist!ation %e denied o! if #!anted
to Ma!celina, the !i#ht !ese!ed %y law to them %e
!eco!ded in the !e#ist!ation of each pa!cel.
The *ou!t of and e#ist!ation denied the
!e#ist!ation holdin# that the land in uestion pa!take of
the natu!e of p!ope!ty !eui!ed %y law to %e !ese!ed and
that in such a case application could only %e p!esented
&ointly in the names of Ma!celina Bd!oso and Pa%lo and
0asilio Ea%lan. ;ence this appeal.
ISSUE: -hethe! the two pa!cels of land is in the natu!e of
a !ese!a%le p!ope!ty.
HELD: Ges, the pa!cels of land a!e !ese!a%le p!ope!ties. " e!y definite conclusions of law is that the he!edita!y
title is one without a alua%le conside!ation =#!atuitous
tile>, and it is so cha!acte!i)ed in "!ticle 8 of the *iil
*ode, fo! he who acui!es %y inhe!itance #ies nothin# in
!etu!n fo! what he !eceiesC and a e!y definite conclusion
of law also is that the uncles a!e within the thi!d de#!ee of
%lood !elationship.
"!ticle 811. The ascendant who inhe!its f!om his
descendant p!ope!ty which the latte! acui!ed without a
alua%le conside!ation f!om anothe! descendant, o! fo!ma %!othe! o! siste!, is unde! o%li#ation to !ese!e what he
has acui!ed %y ope!ation of law fo! the !elaties who a!e
within the thi!d de#!ee and %elon# to the line whe!e the
p!ope!ty p!oceeded.
Ma!celina Bd!oso, ascendant of Ped!o Ea%lan, inhe!ited
f!om him the two pa!cels of land which he had acui!ed
without a alua%le conside!ation L that is, %y inhe!itance
f!om anothe! ascendant, his fathe! Hicto!iano. ;ain#
acui!e them %y ope!ation of law, she is o%li#ated to
9
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 10/16
!elaties within the thi!d de#!ee and %elon# to the line of
Ma!iano Ea%lan and Ma!ia ita e!nande) =pa!ents of
Hicto!iano>, whe!e the lands p!oceeded. The t!ial cou!tDs
!ulin# that they pa!take of the natu!e p!ope!ty !eui!ed %y
law to %e !ese!ed is the!efo!e in acco!dance with the
law.
The conclusion is that the pe!son !eui!ed %y
"!ticle 811 to !ese!e the !i#ht has, %eyond any dou%t at
all, the !i#hts to use and usuf!uct. ;e has, mo!eoe!, the
le#al title and dominion, althou#h unde! a condition
su%seuent. *lea!ly he has unde! an e+p!ess p!oision of
the law the !i#ht to dispose of the p!ope!ty !ese!ed, and
to dispose of is to alienate, althou#h unde! a condition.
;e has the !i#ht to !ecoe! it, %ecause he is the one who
possesses o! should possess it and hae title to it,
althou#h a limited and !eoca%le one. <n a wo!d, the le#al
title and dominion, een thou#h unde! a condition, !eside
in him while he lies. "fte! the !i#ht !eui!ed %y law to %e
!ese!ed has %een assu!ed, he can do anythin# that a
#enuine owne! can do.
@n the othe! hadnDt, the !elaties within the thi!d
de#!ee in whose fao! of the !i#ht is !ese!ed cannot
dispose of the p!ope!ty, fi!st %ecause it is no way, eithe!
actually o! const!uctiely o! fo!mally, in thei! possessionC
and mo!eoe!, %ecause they hae no title of owne!ship o!
of the fee simple which they can t!ansmit to anothe!, on
the hypothesis that only when the pe!son who must
!ese!e the !i#ht should die %efo!e them will they acui!e
it.
Gonzae% v. CFI (ania
$.. o. 3435, May 181
9pe!sons inoled:
FACTS: 0enito F. e#a!da =<<> p!edeceased his fathe!
0enito T. e#a!da =<>. 0enito =<<> was su!ied %y his
widow, ilomena aces Hda. de e#a!da =<>, and thei!
seen child!en namely 0eat!i), osa!io, Te!esa, ilomena
=<<>, 0enito =<<<>, "le&and!o and (ose.
-hen 0enito T. e#a!da =<> died, his !eal
p!ope!ties we!e diided in th!ee eual po!tions %y hisdau#hte!s, *onsuelo and ita and the hei!s of his
deceased son 0enito =<<> who we!e !ep!esented %y 0enito
. e#a!da =<<<>.
ilomena . e#a!da =<<>, died intestate and
without issue. ;e! sole hei! was he! mothe!, ilomena
aces Hda. de e#a!da. M!s. e#a!da e+ecuted an
affidait ad&udicatin# e+t!a&udicially to he!self the
p!ope!ties which she inhe!ited f!om he! deceased
dau#hte!, ilomena e#a!da =<<>. "s a !esult of the
affidait of ad&udication, ilomena aces =<> succeeded
he! deceased dau#hte! ilomena e#a!da =<<> as co
owne! of the p!ope!ties held proindiviso %y he! othe! si+
child!en.
<n 153, M!s. e#a!da e+ecuted two handw!itten
identical documents whe!ein she disposed of the
p!ope!ties which she inhe!ited f!om he! dau#hte! in fao!
of he! si+teen #!andchild!en, the child!en of he! th!ee
sons, 0enito =<<<>, "le&and!o and (ose. !om (uly 158 to
e%!ua!y 15, M!s. e#a!da and he! si+ su!iin#
child!en pa!titioned the p!ope!ties consistin# of the 1A3
sha!e in the estate of 0enito T. e#a!da =<> which the
child!en inhe!ited in !ep!esentation of thei! fathe!, 0enito
F. e#a!da =<<>.
M!s. e#a!da died in 1 and left a holo#!aphic
will. The said will was admitted to p!o%ate. <n the testate
p!oceedin#, 0eat!i) e#a!da $on)ales, a dau#hte! o
M!s. e#a!da filed a motion to e+clude f!om the inento!yof he! mothe!Ds estate the p!ope!ties which she inhe!ited
f!om he! deceased dau#hte!, ilomena =<<>, on the #!ound
that said p!ope!ties a!e !ese!a%le p!ope!ties which
should %e inhe!ited %y ilomenaDs =<<> th!ee siste!s and
th!ee %!othe! and not %y the child!en of 0enito, "le&and!o
and (ose. The motion was opposed %y the administ!ato!
0enito . e#a!da =<<<>.
0efo!e the cou!t could issue a !esolution, 0eat!i)
$on)ales filed an o!dina!y ciil action a#ainst he
%!othe!s, siste!s, nephews and nieces and he! mothe!Ds
estate fo! the pu!pose of secu!in# a decla!ation that thesaid p!ope!ties a!e !ese!a%le p!ope!ties.
The lowe! cou!t dismissed the action of 0eat!i)
$on)ales. ;ence this appeal.
ISSUE: -ho a!e the pe!sons inoled in reserva troncal
HELD: The pe!sons inoled in reserve troncal a!e =1
the ascendant o! %!othe! o! siste! f!om whom the p!ope!ty
was !eceied %y the descendant %y luc!atie o! #!atuitous
title, =2> the descendant o! prepositus = prepositus> who
!eceied the p!ope!ty, =3> the !ese!o! =reservista> the
othe! ascendant who o%tained the p!ope!ty f!om the
= prepositus> %y ope!ation of law and =4> the !ese!es
=reservatario> who is within the thi!d de#!ee f!om the
prepositus and who %elon#s to the =line o tronco> f!om
which the p!ope!ty came and fo! whom the p!ope!ty
should %e !ese!ed %y the !ese!o!.
The !ese!ees may %e half%!othe!s and siste!s
ou!th de#!ee !elaties a!e not included.
10
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 11/16
The pe!son f!om whom the de#!ee should %e
!eckoned is the descendant, o! the one at the end of the
line f!om which the p!ope!ty came and upon whom the
p!ope!ty last !eoled %y descent. ;e is called the
prepositus.
The reservatario !eceies the p!ope!ty as a
conditional hei! of the descendant = prepositus> said
p!ope!ty me!ely !ee!tin# to the line of o!i#in f!om which it
had tempo!a!ily and accidentally stayed du!in# the
reservista"s lifetime. The autho!ities a!e all a#!eed that
the!e %ein# reservatarios that su!ie the !ese!ists, the
latte! must %e deemed to hae en&oyed no mo!e than a
than inte!est in the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty.
Forentino v. Forentino
46 Phill 486
=4th ciil de#!ee Le+cludedC cannot inhe!it the !ese!ed
p!ope!ty>
FACTS: "polonio <sa%elo lo!etino << ma!!ied "ntonia a)
de eon. They had nine child!en namely (ose, (uan,
Ma!ia, Bnca!nacion, <sa%el, Bspi!ita, $a%!iel, Ped!o and
Ma#dalena. -hen "ntonia died, "polonio ma!!ied
Eee!ina a) de eon. They had two child!en namely
Me!cedes and "polonio <<<. -hen "polonio << died, he was
su!ied %y his second wife Eee!ina and his ten child!en.
;is youn#est son, "polonio <<< was %o!n a month afte! he
died.
"polonioDs child!en, (uan, Ma!ia and <sa%el died
sin#le without any ascendants o! descendants. (ose, one
of "polonioDs child!en had th!ee sons named amon,
Mi#uel and Hicto!ino and a dau#hte! named osa!io.
Bspi!ita ma!!ied Bu#enio Ein#son and was %lessed with
fie child!en namely Bmilia, (esus, ou!des, *a!idad and
Folo!es. Ped!o had two child!en named (ose and
"suncion.
0efo!e "polonio << died, he e+ecuted a will %efo!e
the nota!y pu%lic institutin# as his unie!sal hei!s his ten
child!en, his to %e %o!n son "polinio <<<, and Eee!ina. ;e
also said that his p!ope!ty should %e diided amon# all of
his child!en in %oth ma!!ia#es. "polonio <<< p!edeceased his mothe! Eee!ina.
Eee!ina then succeeded to all his p!ope!ty. -hen
Eee!ina died, he left a will institutin# as he! unie!sal
hei! his only liin# dau#hte! Me!cedes. Me!cedes then
took possession of all the p!ope!ty includin# the p!ope!ty
which Eee!ina inhe!ited f!om he! son "polonio <<<. The
su%&ect p!ope!ty is said to %e a !ese!a%le p!ope!ty held
%y Eee!ina in fao! of he! son "polonio <<<.
Bnca!nacion lo!entino, dau#hte! of "polinio <<
f!om the fi!st ma!!ia#e, to#ethe! with the he!ein
petitione!s, asked Me!cedes to delie! thei
co!!espondin# pa!t of the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty. ;owee!
despite see!al demands, Me!cedes !efuse to delie! the
p!ope!ty o! pay its alue to Bnca!nacion. Thus
Bnca!nacion to#ethe! with the othe! petitione!s filed a
complaint in the *ou!t of i!st <nstance of <locos Eu!
They p!ayed that the su%&ect p!ope!ty %e decla!ed as a
!ese!a%le p!ope!ty and Me!cedes and he! hus%and %e
o!de!ed to delie! to them thei! sha!e of the p!ope!ty in
uestion.
Me!cedes contended that she inhe!ited the
p!ope!ty inhe!ited %y Eee!ina f!om he! son "polonio <<<
This %ein# the case, the p!ope!ty did not pass into the
hands of st!an#e!s. Ehe also contended that "!ticle 811 o
the *iil *ode is not applica%le in this case %ecause
when she, %y ope!ation of law, ente!ed into and
succeeded to the possession of the p!ope!ty, said
p!ope!ty had, while in the possession of he! mothe!, lost
the cha!acte! of !ese!a%le p!ope!ty L the!e %ein# a
le#itimate dau#hte! of Eee!ina with the !i#ht to succeedhe! in all he! !i#hts, p!ope!ty and actions. Me!cedes
alle#ed that the!e is no p!ope!ty !ese!ed fo! Bnca!nacion
and othe!s since the!e is a fo!ced hei!ess entitled to the
p!ope!ty left %y the death of Eee!ina.
The *< of <locos Eu! dismissed the complaint
and o!de!ed he!ein petitione!s to pay the costs. The
&ud#ment was affi!med on appeal.
ISSUE: -ho has the !i#ht to inhe!it the p!ope!ty
HELD: "ny ascendant who inhe!its f!om his descendan
any p!ope!ty acui!ed %y the latte! #!atuitously f!om someothe! ascendant, o! f!om a %!othe! o! siste!, is o%li#ed to
!ese!e such of the p!ope!ty as he may hae acui!ed %y
ope!ation of law fo! the %enefit of !elaties within the thi!d
de#!ee %elon#in# to the line f!om which such p!ope!ty
came.
ollowin# the o!de! p!esc!i%ed %y law in
le#itimate succession, when the!e a!e !elaties of the
descendant within the thi!d de#!ee, the !i#ht of the
nea!est !elatie, called !ese!ata!io, oe! the p!ope!ty
which the !ese!ista =pe!son holdin# it su%&ect to
!ese!ation> should !etu!n to him, e+cludes that of the one
mo!e !emote. The !i#ht of !ep!esentation cannot %e
alle#ed when the one claimin# same as a !ese!ata!io of
the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty is not amon# the !elaties within
the thi!d de#!ee %elon#in# to the line f!om which such
p!ope!ty came, inasmuch as the !i#ht #!anted %y the *ii
*ode in a!ticle 811 is in the hi#hest de#!ee pe!sonal and
fo! the e+clusie %enefit of desi#nated pe!sons who a!e
the !elaties, within the thi!d de#!ee, of the pe!son f!om
whom the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty came. The!efo!e, !elaties
of the fou!th and the succeedin# de#!ees can nee! %e
11
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 12/16
conside!ed as !ese!ata!ios, since the law does not
!eco#ni)e them as such.
The!e a!e then seen ?!ese!ata!iosI who a!e
entitled to the !ese!a%le p!ope!ty left at the death of
"polonio <<<C the posthumos son of the afo!ementioned
"polonio <sa%elo <<, to wit, his th!ee child!en of his fi!st
ma!!ia#e L Bnca!nacion, $a%!iel, Ma#dalenaC his th!ee
child!en, (ose, Bspi!ita and Ped!o who a!e !ep!esented
%y thei! own twele child!en !espectielyC and Me!cedes
lo!entino, his dau#hte! %y a second ma!!ia#e. "ll of the
plaintiffs a!e the !elaties of the deceased posthumos
son, "polonio lo!entino <<<, within the thi!d de#!ee =fou!
of whom %ein# his half%!othe!s and the !emainin# twele
%ein# his nephews as they a!e the child!en of his th!ee
half%!othe!s>. "s the fi!st fou! a!e his !elaties within the
thi!d de#!ee in thei! own !i#ht and the othe! twele a!e
such %y !ep!esentation, all of them a!e indisputa%ly
entitled as !ese!ata!ios to the p!ope!ty which came f!om
the common ancesto!, "polonio <sa%elo, to "poloniolo!entino <<< %y inhe!itance du!in# his lifetime, and in
tu!n %y inhe!itance to his le#itimate mothe!, Eee!ina a)
de eon, widow of the afo!ementioned "polonio <sa%elo
lo!entino <<.
The p!ope!ty inhe!ited %y Eee!ina f!om he! son
"polonio lo!entino <<<, is !ese!a%le p!ope!ty.
Bnca!nacion, et al. %ein# !elaties of the deceased
"polonio <<< within the thi!d de#!ee, a!e entitled to si+
seenths of said !ese!a%le p!ope!ty. Me!cedes is entitled
to the !emainin# seenth pa!t the!eof.
Nieva v. Acaa
$.. o. 1338 @cto%e! 2, 126
9!ese!a t!oncal applies only to le#itimate family:
FACTS: !ancisco Feocampo ma!!ied (uliana iea.
They had a child named "lfeo Feocampo. (uliana is the
alle#ed natu!al mothe! of Ee#unda Ma!ia iea. <n 188,
(uliana died intestate and "lfeo inhe!ited two pa!cels of
land. <n 186, "lfeo Feocampo also died intestate and
without issue. The two pa!cels of land which "lfeo
inhe!ited f!om his mothe! passed to his fathe! !ancisco
%y intestate succession.
!ancisco late! ma!!ied Manuela "lcala. They had
a child named (ose Feocampo. !ancisco died in 114.
Manuela and (ose Feocampo took possession of the
pa!cels of land in uestion.
" yea! afte!, Ee#unda Ma!ia iea, claimin# to %e
an acknowled#ed natu!al dau#hte! of (uliana iea, filed
an action to !ecoe! the pa!cels of land %efo!e the *ou!t
of i!st <nstance of Taya%as. The *< held that, een
#!antin#, that Ee#unda was an acknowled#ed dau#hte! i
(uliana, she was not entitled to the p!ope!ty %ecause an
ille#itimate !elatie has no !i#ht to the reserva tronca
unde! the p!oisions of "!ticle 811 of the *iil *ode.
ISSUE: -hethe! Ee#unda Ma!ia iea has a !i#ht oe!
the pa!cels of land.
HELD: o, Ee#unda does not hae a !i#ht oe! the
pa!cels of land in uestion. Reserva troncal applies only
to le#itimate family.
"cco!din# to Man!esa, ?pe!sons in whose fao
the !ese!ation is esta%lishedI is one of the most delicate
points in the inte!p!etation of "!ticle 811. "cco!din# to the
said a!ticle, the !ese!ation is esta%lished in fao! o
pa!ents who a!e within the thi!d de#!ee and %elon# to the
line f!om which the p!ope!ties came.
Reserva troncal t!eats of %lood, !elationship. <could not %e othe!wise, %ecause !elationship %y affinity is
esta%lished %etween each spouse and the family of the
othe!, %y ma!!ia#e, and to admit it, would %e to fao! the
t!ansmission of the p!ope!ties of the family of one spouse
to that of the othe!, which is &ust what this a!ticle intends
to p!eent.
Reserva troncal also t!eats of le#itimate
!elationship. The pe!son o%li#ed to !ese!e it a le#itimate
ascendant who inhe!its f!om a descendant p!ope!ty which
p!oceeds f!om the same le#itimate family, and this %ein#
t!ue, the!e can %e no uestion, %ecause the line f!om
which the p!ope!ties p!oceed must %e the line of that
family and only in fao! of that line is the !ese!ation
esta%lished. u!the!mo!e, we hae al!eady said, the
o%&ect is to p!otect the pat!imony of the le#itimate family
followin# the p!ecedents of the fo!al law. "nd it could not
%e othe!wise. "!ticle 43 denies to le#itimate pa!ents the
!i#ht to succeed the natu!al child and icee!sa, f!om
which it must %e deduced that natu!al pa!ents neithe!
hae the !i#ht to inhe!in# f!om le#itimate onesC the law in
the a!ticle cited esta%lished a %a!!ie! %etween the two
familiesC p!ope!ties of the le#itimate family shall nee
pass %y ope!ation of law to the natu!al family.
S$"aa v. IAC
$.. os. 884344, Eeptem%e! 2, 11
9upon the death of the !ese!ista:
FACTS: (ose 0alantak%o E!. ma!!ied *onsuelo (oauin
They we!e %lessed with seen child!en namely "madeo
Eancho, Fonato, uis, B!asto, (ose, (!. and aul.
12
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 13/16
aul 0alantak%o inhe!ited f!om two diffe!ent
ascendants two sets of p!ope!ties. ;e inhe!ited 1A3
inte!est oe! a pa!cel of land in iliw a#una f!om his
fathe!, (ose E!. ;e also inhe!ited a 1A inte!est oe! ten
pa!cels of land f!om his mate!nal #!andmothe!, uisa
0autista.
aul died intestate, sin#le, without any issue. ;e
was su!ied %y his mothe! *onsuelo. *onsuelo
ad&udicated unto he!self the su%&ect p!ope!ties. Ehe then
sold the p!ope!ty which aul inhe!ited f!om his fathe! to
Ma!iuita Eumaya. Eumaya then sold the p!ope!ty to Hilla
;ono!io Feelopment *o!po!ation, <nc. Hilla ;ono!io
Feelopment *o!po!ation t!ansfe!!ed and assi#ned its
!i#hts oe! the p!ope!ty in fao! of "#!o<ndust!ial
*oconut *oope!atie, <nc.
*onsuelo sold the othe! p!ope!ty to Hilla ;ono!io
Feelopment *o!po!ation, <nc. The latte! then t!ansfe!!ed
and assi#ned all its !i#hts to the p!ope!ties to a#una "#!o<ndust!ial *oconut *oope!atie, <nc. 0oth ce!tificate
of titles coe!in# the su%&ect p!ope!ties do not contain any
annotation of its !ese!a%le cha!acte!.
-hen *onsuelo died, "madeo and his %!othe!s
to#ethe! with uisa, (ose and Folo!es, child!en of thei!
deceased %!othe! (ose (!., filed a complaint %efo!e the
*< of a#una to !ecoe! the p!ope!ties claimin# that
such we!e su%&ect to a reserva troncal in thei! fao!.
The *< of a#una o!de!ed a#una "#!o
<ndust!ial *oconut *oope!atie to coney the p!ope!ties
to "madeo et al. The *ou!t of "ppeals affi!med said
decision.
ISSUE: -hethe! the p!ope!ty in uestion should %e
!etu!ned to he!ein !espondents.
HELD: Ges, the p!ope!ty should %e !etu!ned to the
!espondents as it is su%&ect to reserva troncal. Mo!eoe!,
he!ein petitione!s cannot %e conside!ed as innocent
pu!chase!s fo! alue.
Opon the death of the p!opositus, aul
0alantak%o, the reservista, *onsuelo caused the
!e#ist!ation of an affidait of selfad&udication of the estate
of aul, whe!ein it was clea!ly stated that the p!ope!ties
we!e inhe!ited %y aul f!om his fathe! (ose, E!., and f!om
his mate!nal #!andmothe!, uisa 0autista. The said
affidait was, in its fo!m, decla!ation and su%stance, a
!eco!din# with the e#ist!y of Feeds of the !ese!a%le
cha!acte! of the p!ope!ties. <n Epanish lan#ua#e, the
affidait clea!ly stated that the affiant, *onsuelo, was a
loneascendant and hei! to aul 0alantak%o, he! son,
who died leain# p!ope!ties p!eiously inhe!ited f!om
othe! ascendants and which p!ope!ties we!e inento!ied
in the said affidait.
;owee!, the Eup!eme *ou!t did not a#!ee with
the disposition of the appellate cou!t that the!e is no need
to !e#iste! the !ese!a%le cha!acte! of the p!ope!ty, if only
fo! the p!otection of the !ese!ees, a#ainst innocent thi!d
pe!sons. <n one of the cases decided %y the Eup!eme
*ou!t, it !uled that the !ese!a%le cha!acte! of a p!ope!ty
may %e lost to innocent pu!chase!s fo! alue. "dditionally
it was !uled the!ein that the o%li#ation imposed on a
widowed spouse to annotate the !ese!a%le cha!acte! of
a p!ope!ty su%&ect of reserva viudal is applica%le to
reserva troncal .
0ut he!ein petitione!s cannot %e conside!ed as
innocent pu!chase!s fo! alue. This is eidenced %y the
affidait e+ecuted %y *onsuelo and %y othe! p!oofs
showin# that petitione!s knew of the !ese!a%le cha!acte!
of the p!ope!ties.
Cario v. De Paz
$.. o. 2261, @cto%e! 28, 1
9p!esc!iptie pe!iod:
FACTS: Epouses Eee!ino Ealak and Pet!a $a!cia
owned ot o. 221 located in Ta!lac. They mo!t#a#ed the
said p!ope!ty fo! the sum of P 1,266.66 to spouses Ped!o
Ma#at and ilomena Eila. Eaid mo!t#a#e was
!e#iste!ed. ate! on, spouses Ma#at assi#ned thei
mo!t#a#ed !i#hts to ;ona!ia Ealak fo! P 1,32.66 with the
consent of the su!iin# de%to!, Eee!ino.
<n 143, Eee!ino t!ansfe!!ed of his inte!est in
the p!ope!ty to ;ona!ia Ealak fo! P 12.66. This
t!ansaction and assi#nment of the mo!t#a#e c!edit we!e
not !e#iste!ed in the office of the e#iste! of Feeds no!
annotated in the title.
"n intestate p!oceedun# was instituted fo! the
settlement of the estate of Eee!ino Ealak and Pet!a$a!cia. The said p!oceedin# included ot o. 221. Eaid
lot was ad&udicated to B!nesto 0autista, "u!ea Eaha#un
ita Eaha#un and !ancisca Ealak. !ancisca Ealak then
acui!ed the sha!es of the othe! hei!s %y i!tue of which
T*T o. 6 coe!in# ot o. 221 was issued in he!
name. Meanwhile, ;ona!ia Ealak died sin#le liin# as
sole hei! "#ustina de $u)man.
" lease was e+ecuted %y !ancisca in fao! o
$a%ino de eon and "suncion eyes coe!in# ot o.
13
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 14/16
221. " mo!t#a#e was also e+ecuted the!eon %y the
lessees in fao! of the eha%ilitation inance
*o!po!ation.
"#ustina de $u)man then filed an action a#ainst
!ancisca in the *< of Ta!lac seekin# the !econeyance
to "#ustina of po!tion of ot o. 221. The lowe! cou!t
dismissed the complaint sayin# that the cou!t has no
&u!isdiction to ente!tain any collate!al attack in the p!esent
action a#ainst the p!oceedin#s taken in the p!o%ate
p!oceedin#s coe!in# ot o. 221.
ISSUE: -hethe! the action had al!eady p!esc!i%ed.
HELD: o, the action had not yet p!esc!i%ed. The lowe!
cou!t e!!ed in dismissin# the complaint.
-hile the *ou!t admits that the sale made %y
Eee!ino Ealak of his undiided inte!est in the p!ope!ty
to ;ono!ia Ealak, p!edecesso! in inte!est of the plaintiff,has not %een !e#iste!ed in the office of the e#iste! of
Feeds, no! annotated on the To!!ens Title coe!in# it,
such technical deficiency does not !ende! the t!ansaction
ineffectie, no! does it cone!t it into a me!e moneta!y
o%li#ation. 0ut it simply !ende!s the t!ansaction not
%indin# a#ainst a thi!d pe!son %ecause, %ein# a
!e#iste!ed land, the ope!atie act to %ind the land is the
act of !e#ist!ation. Eaid t!ansaction howee! is alid and
%indin# %etween the pa!ties and can se!e as %asis to
compel the !e#iste! of deeds to make the necessa!y
!e#ist!ation. Euch %ein# the case, it is e!!o! to say that
plaintiff should hae filed he! claim in the intestatep!oceedin#s of the late Eee!ino Ealak if she wanted to
p!otect he! inte!est in the land fo!, the t!ansaction %ein#
%indin# %etween the pa!ties, the same can %e inoked
a#ainst them o! thei! p!iies. This means that plaintiff can
still p!ess he! claim a#ainst the hei!s of the deceased
Eee!ino Ealak who we!e made pa!tiesdefendants in this
case. These hei!s cannot escape the le#al conseuence
of this t!ansaction %ecause they hae inhe!ited the
p!ope!ty su%&ect to the lia%ility affectin# thei! common
ancesto!. The fact that !ancisca Ealak %ou#ht the sha!es
of he! cohei!s in said p!ope!ty is of no moment %ecause
in so fa! as the po!tion of the land acui!ed %y ;ono!ia
Ealak is conce!ned, !ancisca Ealak can !ecoup what she
has pa!ted with f!om he! cohei!s when the time fo! !ead
&ud#ment comes. This matte! can %e th!eshed out when
the case is decided on the me!its. o! the p!esent suffice
it to state that the lowe! cou!t e!!ed in dismissin# the
complaint fo! the !easons set fo!th in its o!de! su%&ect of
the p!esent appeal.
Co"!$tation o* Le+iti"e
Pa+&ati!$nan v. IAC
$.. o. 622, (uly 3, 11
9manne! of computation:
FACTS: (ose Helasue), E!. was ma!!ied to Hicto!ina
eal. They had fie child!en. -hen Hicto!ina died, no
dissolution of con&u#al p!ope!ty was made. (ose E!
en&oyed full possession, use, usuf!uct and administ!ation
of the whole con&u#al p!ope!ty. (ose E!. then ma!!ied his
second wife, *anuta Pa#katipunan with whom he had 13
child!en.
(ose E!. died intestate and was su!ied %y his
second wife *anuta Pa#katipunan and thei! 13 child!en
and his two child!en (ose (!. and ou!des f!om his fi!st
ma!!ia#e. ;is othe! th!ee child!en we!e "melia, $uille!mo
and ut#a!da. "melia died without ant issue. $uille!mo
was su!ied %y his fie child!en and ut#a!da was
su!ied %y he! si+ child!en.
;e!ein p!iate !espondents filed a complain
a#ainst the petitione!s fo! accion !einindicato!ia
annulment of deeds of sale, pa!tition and dama#es.
0The t!ial cou!t appointed two sets of commissions J one
fo! the pu!pose of makin# an inento!y of the estate of
(ose Helasue), E!., and the othe!, to dete!mine which o
the pa!cels of land listed in such inento!y su%mitted %y
the fi!st set of commissione!s %elon# to the con&u#a
pa!tne!ship of the fi!st ma!!ia#e o! to the con&u#a
pa!tne!ship of the second ma!!ia#e.
<t was found out that afte! the death of (ose E!.
*anuta Pa#katipunan acui!ed full possession of two
pa!cels of land in 0a#um%ayan, a#una amon# othe
p!ope!ties. The said pa!cels of land we!e sold %y *anuta
to Epouses Moises Eantos and Ma#dalena. The spouses
late! !esold the same p!ope!ty to *anuta Pa#katipunan
Fu!in# the pendency of this suit, the su%&ect p!ope!ty was
su%diided and assi#ned %y *anta in fao! of he! 13
child!en. The 13 child!en caused the issuance of sepa!ate
f!ee patent titles in thei! fao! coe!in# the su%diided
lots.
"nothe! p!ope!ty, which is the -est "enue
p!ope!ty is a !esidential lot pu!chased on installments %y
spouses (ose E!. and *anuta. -hen (ose E!. died
*anuta shoulde!ed the payment of the !emainin#
installment until the p!ope!ty was paid in full. " deed of
a%solute sale coneyin# the house was issued in fao! of
*anuta.
The lowe! cou!t !uled in fao! of he!ein
!espondents. <t decla!ed the sale of the lots in a#una in
fao! of Moises and Ma#dalena null and oid. The deeds
14
8/19/2019 FOURTH LIST - WILLS.docx
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fourth-list-willsdocx 15/16
of assi#nments e+ecuted %y *anuta in fao! of he!
child!en we!e also decla!ed null and oid. The house and
lot in -est "enue was also o!de!ed to %e diided amon#
*anuta and he! child!en and (ose E!.Ds hei!s f!om his fi!st
ma!!ia#e. The !ulin# was appealed %efo!e the
<nte!mediate "ppellate *ou!t. The <"* affi!med the
decision of the t!ial cou!t with the modification that the
enti!e house and lot in -est "enue %e diided into two L
alue to *anuta and the 13 child!en to the e+tent of
thei! !espectie p!opo!tional cont!i%utions and the othe!
half alue to the second con&u#al pa!tne!ship of (ose
Helasue), E!. and *anuta Pa#katipunan to %e
pa!titioned onefou!th to the wife and the othe! onefou!th
appe!tainin# to the deceased (ose E!. to %e diided
eually amon# his hei!s.
ISSUE: ;ow should le#itime %e computed
HELD: <t is a %asic !ule that %efo!e any conclusion a%out
the le#al sha!e due to the hei!s may %e !eached, it isnecessa!y that ce!tain steps %e taken fi!st. <n the assailed
decision, the !espondent cou!t affi!med the t!ial cou!t's
!ulin#, that (ose Helasue), E!. had al!eady disposed of
and e+hausted his co!!espondin# sha!e in the con&u#al
pa!tne!ship owned %y him and Hicto!ina eal, so that his
hei!s hae nothin# mo!e to inhe!it f!om him, and that
acco!din#ly, whatee! !emainin# po!tion of the con&u#al
p!ope!ty must necessa!ily appe!tain only to the p!iate
!espondents as hei!s of the deceased Hicto!ina eal. The
pe!tinent p!oisions of the *iil *ode p!oide/
"!t. 68. To dete!mine the le#itime, the alue of the p!ope!ty left at the death of the testato! shall %e
conside!ed, deductin# all de%ts and cha!#es, which shall
not include those imposed in the will.
To the net alue of the he!edita!y estate, shall %e
added the alue of all donations %y the testato! that a!e
su%&ect to collation, at the time he made them.
"!t. 161. Be!y compulso!y hei!, who succeeds
with othe! compulso!y hei!s, must %!in# into the mass of
the estate any p!ope!ty o! !i#ht which he may hae
!eceied f!om the decedent, du!in# the lifetime of the
latte!, %y way of donation, o! any othe! #!atuitous title, in
o!de! that it may %e computed in the dete!mination of the
le#itime of each hei!, and in the account of the pa!tition.
<t is undenia%le that nume!ous donations inter
vivos we!e made %y (ose Helasue), E!. in fao! of some
of his compulso!y hei!s.
<t appea!s that the!e was no dete!mination
whatsoee! of the #!oss alue of the con&u#al p!ope!ties
of (ose Helasue), E!. and Hicto!ina eal. @%iously it is
impossi%le to dete!mine the con&u#al sha!e of (ose
Helasue), E!. f!om the said p!ope!ty !elationship
ikewise, no collation of the donations he e+ecuted du!in#
his lifetime was unde!taken %y the t!ial cou!t. Thus, it
would %e e+t!emely difficult to asce!tain whethe! o! not
such donations t!enched on the hei!s' le#itime so that the
same may %e conside!ed su%&ect to !eduction fo! %ein#
inofficious.
"!ticle 6 of the *iil *ode p!oides/
"!t. 6. Fonations #ien to child!en shall %e
cha!#ed to thei! le#itime.
Fonations made to st!an#e!s shall %e cha!#ed to
that pa!t of the estate of which the testato! could hae
disposed %y his last will.
<nsofa! as they may %e inofficious o! may e+ceed
the disposa%le po!tion, they shall %e !educed acco!din# to
the !ules esta%lished %y this *ode.
Heir% o* (arceino Doronio v. Heir% o* Fort$nato
Doronio'
$.. o. 1454, Fecem%e! 2, 266
9manne! of computation:
FACTS: Epouses Eimeon Fo!onio and *o!nelia $ante
we!e the !e#iste!ed owne!s of a pa!cel of land in
Pan#asinan. They had see!al child!en, two of which
we!e Ma!celino Fo!onio and o!tunato Fo!onio.
<n 11, a p!iate deed of donation propter
nuptias was e+ecuted %y Eimeon and *o!nelia in fao! of
Ma!celino and his wife He!onica Pico. @ne of the
p!ope!ties su%&ect of said deed of donation is a !esidentia
lot in *a%alitian. The lot was desc!i%ed in the deed of
donation as %ound in the east %y o!tunato Fo!onio.
;owee!, it appea!s that the p!ope!ty desc!i%ed
was p!eiously coe!ed %y @*T o. 352. "cco!din# to the@*T the ad&acent lot in the east was owned %y Qaca!ias
and "le&and!o a&o!da %ut acco!din# to the deed o
donation, the p!ope!ty was owned %y o!tunato Fo!onio.
The hei!s of Ma!celino and the hei!s of o!tunato
hae %een occupyin# the su%&ect land fo! see!a
decades. ;e!ein petitione!s, the hei!s of Ma!celino
contend that they a!e the owne!s of the enti!e p!ope!ty in
iew of the p!iate deed of donation propter nuptias in
fao! of Ma!celino and He!onica. @n the othe! hand
15