legitimes uribe

7/24/2019 Legitimes Uribe

1/23

Art. 886. Legitime is that part of the testator's property which he cannot dispose ofbecause the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are, therefore, called compulsoryheirs. (806

Three principal systems of distribution of hereditary property:1. Absolute freedom of disposition2. Total reservation3. Partial reservation

T: Considering the customs and traditions of the Filipinos for the sae of family solidarity! thepresent code preserved the system of legitimes. "o#ever! changes have been made as follo#s:

1. #ith respect to the amounts of that coumpulsory heirs receive$2. illegitimate children have been made compulsory heirs though #ith a smaller legitime$3. legitime of surviving spouse has been changed from a mere usufruct to a full o#nership.%. eliminates the me&ora #hich resulted in the increase of both the legitime and the free portion

Thus! 'ustice '() *eyes has this to say:

The increase of the legitime to + as against the 1,3 in the old code! and the suppression of theme&ora! operate to limit the freedom of choice of the testator to a greater e-tent than under the oldcode! for the testator! under that la#! could at least select the individual descendants #ho shouldreceive the third betterment.

'urisprudence! ho#ever! interpreted the ultimate purpose of the systems of legitime. t is alimitation upon the freedom of the testator to dispose of his property. ts purpose is to protectthose heirs! for #hom the testator is presumed to have an obligation to reserve certain portions ofhis estate! from his un&ust ire or #eaness or thoughtlessness.

*atio of the free portion:1. An o#ner/s &us disponendi

2. man as a member of society can entertain not only familial affections! but also legitimateaffections to his fello#men! thus! should not be absolutely be restrained from disposing propertyaccording to dictates of generosity.

The legitime does not consist in determinate or specific property #hich the testator must reservefor his compulsory heirs. t consists of a part of fraction of the entire mass of the hereditary estate.The standard for determination is fi-ed by la#! but 0uantity may vary according to number andrelation of the heirs to the testator.

!. "ho are entitled#

Art. 88$. %he following are compulsory heirs&

( Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parentsand ascendants

() *n default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect totheir legitimate children and descendants

(+ %he widow or widower


2/23

( Ac-nowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction

( /ther illegitimate children referred to in Article )8$.

ompulsory heirs mentioned in 1os. +, , and are not e2cluded by those in 1os. and )neither do they e2clude one another.

*n all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.

%he father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned, shall inheritfrom them in the manner and to the e2tent established by this ode. (80$a

Compulsory heirs are those #ho succeed #hether the testator lies it or not and they cannot bedeprived of their legitime e-cept only by disinheritance.

An heir! of #hatever class is absolutely free to accept or renounce the inheritance because thela# on legitime is a restriction not on the freedom of the heir to accept or repudiate! but on thefreedom of testator to dispose of his property.

inds of Compulsory heirs:

1. Primary those #ho e-clude other compulsory heirs e-. )egit children ascendants

2. secondary succeed only in the absence of the primary. e-. )egit parents ascenadants

3. Concurring succeed together #ith the primary and secondary cannot be e-cluded bythem. 4-. 5ido#,er illegit children

Legitimate children and ascendants in the ordinary course of nature father or mother dieahead of the child$ the la# confers preferential legitimary rights upon them. Thus the la# intendsthat property of the decedent pass not to strangers but to his natural successor.

Legitimated hildren the 6CC is silent as to this ind of children but the Family code underArt. 272 grants the same rights to legitimated as that of the legitimate. "ence they are included asa compulsory heir.

Adopted hildren Art. 189 of the FC provides that for civil purposes! the adopted shall bedeemed a legitimate child of the adopters and both shall ac0uire reciprocal rights and obligationsfrom a parentchild relationship. "ence! considered as legitimate child of the deceased adoptingparent both as C" and )".

*llegitimate 3arents they are compulsory heirs only in the absence of legitimate! or illegitimate

children of the decedent as provided under Art. 9;3.

Adopting parents they are not compulsory heirs of the adopted child because Art. 19; of the FConly provides that they shall be legal heirs of the deceased adopted and is silent as to theirbecoming compulsory heir. This indicates that the latter #as not intended.

*atio: Adoption is for the benefit of the adopted! and unless the la# clearly intends to favor theadopter! all doubts should be resolved against him. (ecause of the silence of the la# onlegitimes! he cannot be entitiled to the legitime of the legitimate parents$ and in the la# of


3/23

testacy ! he is not given! in general! the same rights as a legitimate parent but only such as arespecifically provided in Article 19; of the FC. )egitimes of C" are restrictions on the freedom ofthe testator and must not be presumed but vie#ed strictly.

*llegitimate hildren the FC abolished the distinctions in the old civil code thus merging themto one group.

oidable marriages entitle the #ido#,er to legitime because there e-ists a valid marriageuntil it is annulled. Thus! once annulled before death of a spouse they are incapacitated to inherit."o#ever! pending the case of annulment and one spouse dies the #ido#,er! nevertheless!inherits the legitime because the marriage can no longer be annulled after death of one.

3. )egal separation of the spouses before death entitles the #ido#,er the )egitime if he ,sheis the innocent spouse. ?nless reconciliation occurred before the death of the spouse! thesurvivor #ill inherit regardless of his guilt. n such case that the decree is pending upon death ofone spouse then the decision should be a#aited. The fact that the innocent spouse instituted thelegal separation manifest his desire to not to allo# the guilty spouse to benefir fro his estate. Theaccident of death should not defeat this purpose.

%.


4/23

"o#ever! though unfair to the latter this is an e-press provision of la# #hich #e are confronted#ith. Thus! dura le- sed le-

*osales vs. *osales

n this Petition for *evie# of t#o D2E rders of the Court of First nstance of Cebu the 0uestion

raised is #hether the #ido# #hose husband predeceased his mother can inherit from the latter!her motherinla#.

n the course of the intestate proceedings! the trial court issued an rder dated 'une 1! 1972declaring the follo#ing individuals the legal heirs of the deceased and prescribing their respectiveshare of the estate G Fortunato T. *osales DhusbandE 1,%$ Hagna *. Acebes DdaughterE! 1,%$Hacie0uero- *osales! 1,%$ and Antonio *osales DsonE! 1,%.

This declaration #as reiterated by the trial court in its rder dated February %! 197B. Theserders not#ithstanding! renea *osales insisted in getting a share of the estate in her capacity asthe surviving spouse of the late Carterio *osales! son of the deceased! claiming that she is acompulsory heir of her motherinla# together #ith her son! Hacie0uero- *osales.

n sum! the petitioner poses t#o D2E 0uestions for ur resolution. First G is a #ido# DsurvivingspouseE an intestate heir of her motherinla#I . *osales that Hacie0uero- *osales dra#s ashare of the inheritance by the right of representation as provided by Article 981 of the Code.

Article 971 e-plicitly declares that Hacie0uero- *osales is called to succession by la# because

of his blood relationship. "e does not succeed his father! Carterio *osales Dthe person

representedE #ho predeceased his grandmother! Petra *osales! but the latter #hom his father

#ould have succeeded. Petitioner cannot assert the same right of representation as she has no

filiation by blood #ith her motherinla#.


5/23

Petitioner ho#ever contends that at the time of the death of her husband Carterio *osales he hadan inchoate or contingent right to the properties of Petra *osales as compulsory heir. (e that as itmay! said right of her husband #as e-tinguished by his death that is #hy it is their sonHacie0uero- *osales #ho succeeded from Petra *osales by right of representation. "e did notsucceed from his deceased father! Carterio *osales.

n the basis of the foregoing observations and conclusions! 5e find it unnecessary to pass upon

the second 0uestion posed by the petitioner. Accordingly! it is ur considered opinion! and 5e so

hold! that a surviving spouse is not an intestate heir of his or her parentinla#. 5"4*4F*4! in

vie# of the foregoing! the Petition is hereby K464K for lac of merit! #ith costs against the

petitioner. )et this case be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

. oncurrence of compulsory heirs and their legitimes.

Art. 888. %he legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of onehalf of thehereditary estate of the father and of the mother.

%he latter may freely dispose of the remaining half, sub7ect to the rights of illegitimatechildren and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided. (808a

The enlargement of the legitime and the free portion to half each is primarily the result of removalof the 1,3 me&ora or betterment in the old code #here the testator disposes a portion in favor ofhis legitimate children for their betterment or re#ard. The 6CC eliminated the me&ora for thefollo#ing reasons:

1. The natural ine0ualities among children is but imaginary and parent re#ard merely onbetter 0ualities of one children

2. such re#ard may be effected by the father or mother by disposing of part or all of the freehalf

3. the testator should have greater freedom to dispoe of his estate by #ill

the supposed free portion is not al#ays disposable by the testator$ it is e-pressly made sub&ect tothe rights of illegitimate children and the surviving spouse. nly the remainder thereafter shall bedisposable! if there is any left.

Art. 885. %he legitime of legitimate parents or ascendants consists of onehalf of thehereditary estates of their children and descendants.

%he children or descendants may freely dispose of the other half, sub7ect to the rights of

illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided. (805a

Art. 850. %he legitime reserved for the legitimate parents shall be divided between themeually if one of the parents should have died, the whole shall pass to the survivor.

*f the testator leaves neither father nor mother, but is survived by ascendants of eualdegree of the paternal and maternal lines, the legitime shall be divided eually betweenboth lines. *f the ascendants should be of different degrees, it shall pertain entirely to theones nearest in degree of either line. (80


6/23

Art. 85). *f only one legitimate child or descendant of the deceased survives, the widow orwidower shall be entitled to onefourth of the hereditary estate. *n case of a legalseparation, the surviving spouse may inherit if it was the deceased who had given causefor the same.

*f there are two or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving spouse shall be

entitled to a portion eual to the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants.

*n both cases, the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be ta-en from the portion that canbe freely disposed of by the testator. (8+a

T: As to legitimate children! the la# maes no distinction #hether of the previous marriage or themarriage dissolved by death! hence! children in both cases are included

The surviving spouse concurring #ith legitimate children receives only e0ual to the legitime ofeach of the legitimate children and ascendants.

"hat if there are no legitimate children only descendants# 9oes this mean that the spouseshall receive eual to each descendants which may be even more than the number of

children of the deceased#6. #hatever the number of descendants is immaterial the divisor isstill the number of children they represent because the descendants only inherit byrepresentation. 4ven if all the children repudiate the legitime the divisor shall still be the numberof children. (ut if only some of the children repudiate! the basis of computation should be thenumber of children #ho accept the inheritance

f the surviving spouse receives a devise or legacy! is he entitiled to the same in addition to hislegitimeI

T: if the testator gives a devise or legacy to the surviving spouse! and there is enough of theportion sub&ect to his disposal #hich can cover such devise or legacy! then the surviving spouseshould get the devise or legacy in addition to his legitime. To merge the devise or legacy in thelegitime #ould leave a part of the free portion undisposed of$ this is contrary to the policy of la#against intestate succession and against the e-press #ill of the testator. 5e believe! therefore!that the devise or legacy should be first taen from the remaining disposable portion! and if thereis any e-cess of the devise or legacy over the disposable portion! that e-cess charged against ormerged in the legitime of the surviving spouse.

f ho#ever! the legitime of the surviving spouse is already protected by the disposition giving himan amount or portion e0uivalent to that legitime! then he cannot as for more unless! the testatorprovides it as addition to his legitime.

Art. 85+. *f the testator leaves no legitimate descendants, but leaves legitimate ascendants,the surviving spouse shall have a right to onefourth of the hereditary estate.

%his fourth shall be ta-en from the free portion of the estate. (8+6a

Art. 85. *f the testator leaves illegitimate children, the surviving spouse shall be entitled toonethird of the hereditary estate of the deceased and the illegitimate children to anotherthird. %he remaining third shall be at the free disposal of the testator. (n

Art. 85. %he legitime of each of the ac-nowledged natural children and each of the naturalchildren by legal fiction shall consist of onehalf of the legitime of each of the legitimatechildren or descendants.


7/23

%he legitime of an illegitimate child who is neither an ac-nowledged natural, nor a naturalchild by legal fiction, shall be eual in every case to fourfifths of the legitime of anac-nowledged natural child.

%he legitime of the illegitimate children shall be ta-en from the portion of the estate at thefree disposal of the testator, provided that in no case shall the total legitime of such

illegitimate children e2ceed that free portion, and that the legitime of the surviving spousemust first be fully satisfied. (80a

Article repealed by Article 17 of the Family Code #hich provides that the legitime of eachillegitimate children is onehalf of that of legitimate child.

*atio: the la# re#ards more the fruits of legal unions! thus! giving preference and greater portionof the hereditary estate. "o#ever! for humanitarian reasons the illegitimate children should not bedisregarded because they are &ust as innocent and blameless as the legitimate children for beingborn in this #orld beyond their control.

)imitations to the rights of )egitimate children:

1. filiation must be proved

2. their share comes only from the free portion

3. surviving spouse is preferred over them! the legitme of the spouse is satisfied first

%. their share is susceptible of proportionate reduction if their total legitimes e-ceeds the freeportion

Art. 856. *llegitimate children who may survive with legitimate parents or ascendants of thedeceased shall be entitled to onefourth of the hereditary estate to be ta-en from theportion at the free disposal of the testator. (8a

Art. 85$. "hen the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or descendants,and ac-nowledged natural children, or natural children by legal fiction, such survivingspouse shall be entitled to a portion eual to the legitime of each of the legitimate childrenwhich must be ta-en from that part of the estate which the testator can freely dispose of.(n

Art. 858. *f the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or descendants, andwith illegitimate children other than ac-nowledged natural, or natural children by legalfiction, the share of the surviving spouse shall be the same as that provided in thepreceding article. (n

The Family Code has already abolished the distinction bet#een natural and other illegitimate

children placing them under one category of illegitimate children.

Art. 855. "hen the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants andwith illegitimate children, such surviving spouse shall be entitled to oneeighth of thehereditary estate of the deceased which must be ta-en from the free portion, and theillegitimate children shall be entitled to onefourth of the estate which shall be ta-en alsofrom the disposable portion. %he testator may freely dispose of the remaining oneeighthof the estate. (n


8/23

T: This seems to be an un&ustified discrimination against the surviving spouse because hereceives a graeter or an e0ual amount #hen she survives #ith either the C or the )P but #ithboth at the same time she only receives a measly 1,8 of the estate. ?ndoubtedly! the code seemsto have #anted to save portion of the estate for the free disposal of the deceased. This is not asufficient &ustification for discriminating against the surviving spouse and destroying the balancebet#een the legitimes! after vall! there are instances in #,c the free portion is merely theoretical.

Art. 500. *f the only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled to onehalfof the hereditary estate of the deceased spouse, and the testator may freely dispose of theother half. (8+$a

*f the marriage between the surviving spouse and the testator was solemni:ed in articulomortis, and the testator died within three months from the time of the marriage, thelegitime of the surviving spouse as the sole heir shall be onethird of the hereditary estate,e2cept when they have been living as husband and wife for more than five years. *n thelatter case, the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be that specified in the precedingparagraph. (n

Presupposes that the surviving spouse is the only compulsory heir.

T: 5e believe that this rule #ill apply only #hen the deceased is the spouse #ho #as at the pointof death at the time of marriage$ hence! it #ill not apply #hen the spouse #ho #as at the point ofdeath at the time of marriage is the one #ho survives! and the other is the one #ho dies #,inthree months after the marriage.

*atio for the rule is the presumption that the marriage is contracted e-clusively for inheriting."o#ever! this suspicion is erased if the spouses had been living together as husband and #ife forat least five years on account of companionship and affection for such length of time.

This distinction does not apply to intestacy

Art. 50. "hen the testator dies leaving illegitimate children and no other compulsoryheirs, such illegitimate children shall have a right to onehalf of the hereditary estate of thedeceased.

%he other half shall be at the free disposal of the testator. (8)a

Art. 50+. %he legitime of the parents who have an illegitimate child, when such child leavesneither legitimate descendants, nor a surviving spouse, nor illegitimate children, is onehalf of the hereditary estate of such illegitimate child. *f only legitimate or illegitimatechildren are left, the parents are not entitled to any legitime whatsoever. *f only the widowor widower survives with parents of the illegitimate child, the legitime of the parents isonefourth of the hereditary estate of the child, and that of the surviving spouse also onefourth of the estate. (n

t must be noted that in illegitimate filiation! the right to succeed in the ascending line terminates#ith the parent of the deceased illegitimate child. There is! therefore! no reciprocity ofsuccessional reights bet#een the illegitimate grandparent and the illegitimate grandchild.

3.9. 60+ Art. +5. ;ffects of Adoption. %he adoption shall&(


9/23

() 9issolve the authority vested in the natural parent or parents, e2cept where theadopter is the spouse of the surviving natural parent(+ ;ntitle the adopted person to use the adopter's surname and( =a-e the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter& 3rovided, %hat if theadopter is survived by legitimate parents or ascendants and by an adopted person,the latter shall not have more successional rights than an ac-nowledged naturalchild& 3rovided, further, %hat any property received gratuitously by the adoptedfrom the adopter shall revert to the adopter should the former predecease the latterwithout legitimate issue unless the adopted has, during his lifetime, alienated suchproperty& 3rovided, finally, %hat in the last case, should the adopted leave noproperty other than that received from the adopter, and he is survived byillegitimate issue or a spouse, such illegitimate issue collectively or the spouseshall receive onefourth of such property if the adopted is survived by illegitimateissue and a spouse, then the former collectively shall receive onefourth and thelatter also onefourth, the rest in any case reverting to the adopter, observing in thecase of the illegitimate issue the proportion provided for in Article 85 of the ivilode.

%he adopter shall not be a legal heir of the adopted person, whose parents by nature shallinherit from him, e2cept that if the latter are both dead, the adopting parent or parents ta-ethe place of the natural parents in the line of succession, whether testate or interstate.

9. >estrictions regarding the legitime

Art. 50. %he testator cannot deprive his compulsory heirs of their legitime, e2cept incases e2pressly specified by law.

Art. 8$). %he testator cannot impose any charge, condition, or substitution whatsoeverupon the legitimes prescribed in this ode. 4hould he do so, the same shall be consideredas not imposed. (8+a

The legitime goes to the heir by operation of la# and not by the #ill of the testator$ hence it

cannot be sub&ect to the freedom of the latter to impose encumbrances! conditions andsubstitutions. Any encumbrance is simply disregarded and considered as not #ritten. The C"/sright to the legitime is free! unencumbered! and pure.

Art. 50. ;very renunciation or compromise as regards a future legitime between theperson owing it and his compulsory heirs is void, and the latter may claim the same uponthe death of the former but they must bring to collation whatever they may have receivedby virtue of the renunciation or compromise. (86

1. The future legitime bet#een is merely an e-pectancy! and the heir does not ac0uire anyright over the same until death of testator.

2. The renunciation or compromise does not become valid by the mere failure of the

compulsory heirs to assert its invalidity because the matter of its legal effect cannot be left to the#ill of the parties.

3. all renunciations of future legitimes are void. "o#ever! a mere statement made by a sonof the properties ne has received from his father! still living! for the purpose of taing the sameinto account in case of partition in the event the father dies! is not a renunciation or compromiseon future legitime.
http://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippines.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippines.htm


10/23

%.


11/23

e-ception! the la# generally does not allo# contracts on future inheritance. n order to be futureinheritance! the succession must not have been opened at the time of the contract. A contract tofall #ithin the prohibition of this article! the follo#ing re0uisites are necessary: 1. that thesuccession is yet to be opened. 2. the ob&ect forms part of the inheritance. 3. the promissor hasan e-pectant right over the ob&ect #hich is purely hereditary in nature.

An agreement to partition an estate of a living person by those #ho inherit from him is void. Acontract renouncing the right to inherit from one #ho is still alive is void.

After the death of the person! ho#ever! the properties and rights left by him by #ay of inheritancecan be the sub&ect matter of a contract among or by his heirs! even before a partition thereof hasbeen made! because the rights of the heirs are transmitted to them from the death of thepredecessor.5hen the ob&ect of the contract is not a part of the inheritance! the prohibition does not apply!even if delivery of such ob&ect is dependent upon the death of one of the contracting parties.Thus! life insurance contracts! and stipulations providing for reversion of property donated inmarriage settlements in the event of the death of the donee! are valid. )ie#ise! if the right of theparty over the thing is not by virtue of succession! but as creditor! the contract does not fall #ithinthe prohibition of this article. t has been held that in a contract of purchase by coo#ners! it isvalid to stipulate that in the event of death of any of them! those #ho survive #ill ac0uire theshare of the predeceased.

;. 9etermination of computation

Art. 508. %o determine the legitime, the value of the property left at the death of the testatorshall be considered, deducting all debts and charges, which shall not include thoseimposed in the will.


12/23

The second concept entails that property donated by the testator during his lifetime must bebrought bac actually and returened to the hereditary estate #henever it is found that suchdonation e-ceeds the disposable portion of the estate. The purpose of #hich is to complete theassets necessary for the payment of the shares of the compulsory heirs.

Collation is thus for the benefit of the C"! and not the creditors of the decedent. The presence of

the latter! ho#ever! must be determined at the time of the testator/s death! not at the time thedonation #as made. The value of the property donated! ho#ever! is determined on the date thedonations #ere made.

%o the net value of the hereditary estate, shall be added the value of all donations by thetestator that are sub7ect to collation, at the time he made them. (88a

Art. 505. 9onations given to children shall be charged to their legitime.

9onations made to strangers shall be charged to that part of the estate of which thetestator could have disposed by his last will.

*nsofar as they may be inofficious or may e2ceed the disposable portion, they shall be

reduced according to the rules established by this ode. (85a

Art. 50. 9onations which an illegitimate child may have received during the lifetime of hisfather or mother, shall be charged to his legitime.

4hould they e2ceed the portion that can be freely disposed of, they shall be reduced in themanner prescribed by this ode. (8$a

Any donation to the grandchild is not sub&ect to collation because the same is not a C" but it maybe charged against the free portion as a donation to stranger.

5hen the donation to a compulsory heir e-ceeds his legitime! the e-cess is chargeable against

the free portion #hich is at the disposal of the the testator! &ust as any donation to stranger!sub&ect to the res of reduction.

f the donation to a stranger e-ceeds the free portion! then it #ill have to be reduced asinofficious. The purpose of the la# is not to prevent the stranger from getting more from theinheritance! but to ascertain that the C" do not get less than #hat pertains to them as legitime.

Art. 5. After the legitime has been determined in accordance with the three precedingarticles, the reduction shall be made as follows&

( 9onations shall be respected as long as the legitime can be covered, reducingor annulling, if necessary, the devises or legacies made in the will

() %he reduction of the devises or legacies shall be pro rata, without anydistinction whatever.

*f the testator has directed that a certain devise or legacy be paid in preference toothers, it shall not suffer any reduction until the latter have been applied in full tothe payment of the legitime.

(+ *f the devise or legacy consists of a usufruct or life annuity, whose value may beconsidered greater than that of the disposable portion, the compulsory heirs may


13/23

choose between complying with the testamentary provision and delivering to thedevisee or legatee the part of the inheritance of which the testator could freelydispose. (8)0a

Konation intervivos is preferred over disposition mortis causa. *atio:

1. Konation intervivos are by nature irrevocable to allo# annulment on account of legaciesand devise in e-cess of free portion in effect allo#s the revocation to depend on the #ill of thedonortestator.

2. Konation is a bilateral act based on the sgreement of donor and donee #hile a #ill isunilateral$

3. Priority in time is priority in right.

The article provides a rule on preference to determine #hich devise or legacy is to be reduced#henervr it e-eceeds the free portion or to the e-tent that it impairs the legitime.

Art. 9B; also provides the follo#ing order of reduction of legacy or devise:

1. remunatory legacy or devise$

2. legacy or devise declared by testator to be preferred$

3. legacies for support$

%. legacies for education$

B. specific determinate thing ehich form part of the estate$

. all others pro rata.

5here lies the distintion bet. 9B; and 911I

Article 911 #ill apply as to the manner of reducing legacies:

a. #hen reduction is necessary to preserve legitime of C" from impairment #heter there aredonation inter vivos$

b. #hen although legitime has been preserve by the testator! by giving sufficient portion tocover legitime of C"! thereare donations inter vivos concurring #ith legacies or devises#ithin the free portion.

Article 9B; applies #hen the 0uestion of reduction is e-clusively among the legatees themselves!either because ther are no compulsory heirs! or because the legitme of C" has already beenprovided for by the testator in his #ill and there are no donation inter vivos.

As to usufruct! use or habitation! or life annuity there shall be taen into account the probable lifeof the beneficiary in accordance #ith the American Tropical 4-perience table at 8L per annum.

Konations are reduced first the most recent ones #ith regard the e-cess. Thus! priority in timepriority in right. f several donations made on the same date they are reduced pro rata


14/23

A property donated once alienated by donee cannot be set aside. t #ould be dangerous to thestability of property and inimical to the freedom of alienation.

n the above instance! can the inofficious part of the donation be taen from other proerty of thedoneeI

5e believe that in such case the donee should be made to respond fro the value of the e-cess orinofficoius part. t #as the act of the donee #hich made it impossible to recover the inofficoius partto the hereditary estate. "e is conclusively presumed to noe that that the donation stands theris of reduction.

5hat if the donee is insolvent and cannot return anything to the estate to complete the impairedlegitime$ #ho shall bear the lossI

t is submitted that that the amount to be returned by the insolvent must be borne and paid bythose #hose donation are #ithin the free portion. As bet#een the compulsory heir! #hose rightsare derived from la#! and the donees! #hose rights spring from the #ill of the deceased! theformer should be protected from the impairment of their shares.

Art. 5). *f the devise sub7ect to reduction should consist of real property, which cannot beconveniently divided, it shall go to the devisee if the reduction does not absorb onehalf ofits value and in a contrary case, to the compulsory heirs but the former and the lattershall reimburse each other in cash for what respectively belongs to them.

%he devisee who is entitled to a legitime may retain the entire property, provided its valuedoes not e2ceed that of the disposable portion and of the share pertaining to him aslegitime. (8)

Art. 5+. *f the heirs or devisees do not choose to avail themselves of the right granted bythe preceding article, any heir or devisee who did not have such right may e2ercise itshould the latter not ma-e use of it, the property shall be sold at public auction at theinstance of any one of the interested parties. (8))

T: Kivision under this article means a material division! #hich is inconvenient! because the theproperty is not susceptible of such division! or because it #ill lose or diminish its value or utitlity#hen so divided. "ence! although the la# specifically refers only to devise! it should beconsidered applicable to all ob&ects #hether movable or immovable! of the same nature! such asvessels.

Muery: if the reduction should be e-actly + of the value! does it mean that the hir gets to retain itnot being less than +I @does not absorb +

t is submitted that the thing should be retained by the devisee. The intention of the testaor inmaing a devise of a determinate ob&ect is clearly so that the legatee may en&oy that particular

property. ut of respect for this intention! and since the #ill of the testator is the governing la# inthe succession! the thing should be given to the devisee in case he is entitled to half its value andthe heirs the other half.


15/23

c. )C alone +d. 1 )C #,

a. P alone +b. P #, )C or C e-cluded by the latterc. P #,


16/23

Art. 06. 3arents are not obliged to bring to collation in the inheritance of theirascendants any property which may have been donated by the latter to their children.(0+5

Art. 066. 1either shall donations to the spouse of the child be brought to collation but ifthey have been given by the parent to the spouses 7ointly, the child shall be obliged to

bring to collation onehalf of the thing donated. (00

Art. 06$. ;2penses for support, education, medical attendance, even in e2traordinaryillness, apprenticeship, ordinary euipment, or customary gifts are not sub7ect tocollation. (0

Art. 068. ;2penses incurred by the parents in giving their children a professional,vocational or other career shall not be brought to collation unless the parents so provide,or unless they impair the legitime but when their collation is reuired, the sum which thechild would have spent if he had lived in the house and company of his parents shall bededucted therefrom. (0)a

Art. 065. Any sums paid by a parent in satisfaction of the debts of his children, election

e2penses, fines, and similar e2penses shall be brought to collation. (0+a

Art. 0$0. "edding gifts by parents and ascendants consisting of 7ewelry, clothing, andoutfit, shall not be reduced as inofficious e2cept insofar as they may e2ceed onetenth ofthe sum which is disposable by will. (0

Art. 0$. %he same things donated are not to be brought to collation and partition, butonly their value at the time of the donation, even though their 7ust value may not then havebeen assessed.

%heir subseuent increase or deterioration and even their total loss or destruction, be itaccidental or culpable, shall be for the benefit or account and ris- of the donee. (0a

Art. 0$). *n the collation of a donation made by both parents, onehalf shall be brought tothe inheritance of the father, and the other half, to that of the mother. %hat given by onealone shall be brought to collation in his or her inheritance. (06a

Art. 0$+. %he donee's share of the estate shall be reduced by an amount eual to thatalready received by him and his coheirs shall receive an euivalent, as much as possible,in property of the same nature, class and uality. (0$

Art. 0$. 4hould the provisions of the preceding article be impracticable, if the propertydonated was immovable, the coheirs shall be entitled to receive its euivalent in cash orsecurities, at the rate of uotation and should there be neither cash or mar-etablesecurities in the estate, so much of the other property as may be necessary shall be sold

at public auction.

*f the property donated was movable, the coheirs shall only have a right to select aneuivalent of other personal property of the inheritance at its 7ust price. (08

Art. 0$. %he fruits and interest of the property sub7ect to collation shall not pertain to theestate e2cept from the day on which the succession is opened.


17/23

?or the purpose of ascertaining their amount, the fruits and interest of the property of theestate of the same -ind and uality as that sub7ect to collation shall be made the standardof assessment. (05

Art. 0$6. %he coheirs are bound to reimburse to the donee the necessary e2penseswhich he has incurred for the preservation of the property donated to him, though they

may not have augmented its value.

%he donee who collates in -ind an immovable which has been given to him must bereimbursed by his coheirs for the improvements which have increased the value of theproperty, and which e2ist at the time the partition if effected.

As to wor-s made on the estate for the mere pleasure of the donee, no reimbursement isdue him for them he has, however, the right to remove them, if he can do so withoutin7uring the estate. (n

Art. 0$$. 4hould any uestion arise among the coheirs upon the obligation to bring tocollation or as to the things which are sub7ect to collation, the distribution of the estateshall not be interrupted for this reason, provided adeuate security is given. (00

9i:on>ivera vs. 9i:on

n 'anuary 28! 191! the testatri-! Agripina '. >alde=. a #ido#! died in Angeles! Pampanga! and#as survived by seven compulsory heirs! to #it! si- legitimate children named 4stela Ki=on!Tomas >. Ki=on! (ernardita Ki=on! Harina Ki=on Dherein e-ecutri-appelleeE! Angelina Ki=on and'osefina Ki=on! and a legitimate granddaughter named )ilia Ki=on! #ho is the only legitimatechild and heir of *amon Ki=on! a predeceased legitimate son of the said decedent.


18/23

The lo#er court! after hearing! sustained and approved the e-ecutri-J pro&ect of partition! rulingthat ODAErticles 9; and 9;7 of the 6e# Civil Code specifically provide that #hen the legitime isimpaired or pre&udiced! the same shall be completed and satisfied. 5hile it is true that thisprocess has been follo#ed and adhered to in the t#o pro&ects of partition! it is observed that thee-ecutri- and the oppositors differ in respect to the source from #hich the portion or portions shallbe taen in order to fully restore the impaired legitime. The proposition of the oppositors! ifupheld! #ill substantially result in a distribution of intestacy! #hich is in controversion of Article791 of the 6e# Civil CodeO adding that Othe testatri- has chosen to favor certain heirs in her #illfor reasons of her o#n! cannot be doubted. This is legally permissible #ithin the limitation of thela#! as aforecited.O 5ith reference to the payment in cash of some P23;!BB2.38! principally bythe e-ecutri- as the largest beneficiary of the #ill to be paid to her five coheirs! the oppositorsDe-cluding Tomas Ki=onE! to complete theirimpaired legitimes! the lo#er court ruled that ODTEhepayment in cash so as to mae the proper ad&ustment to meet #ith the re0uirements of the la# inrespect to legitimes #hich have been impaired is! in our opinion! a practical and valid solution inorder to give effect to the last #ishes of the testatri-.O

m the lo#er courtJs orders of approval! oppositorsappellants have filed this appeal! and raiseane# the follo#ing issues:

1. 5hether or not the testamentary dispositions made in the testatri-J #ill are in the nature

of devises imputable to the free portion of her estate! and therefore sub&ect to reduction$

2. 5hether the appellants are entitled to the devise plus their legitime under Article 1;3! ormerely to demand completion of their legitime under Article 9; of the Civil Code$ and

3. 5hether the appellants may be compelled to accept payment in cash on account of theirlegitime! instead of some of the real properties left by the Testatri-$

The testatorJs #ishes and intention constitute the first and principal la# in the matter oftestaments! and to paraphrase an early decision of the


19/23

they #ould consider as mere devises or legacies! to onehalf of the estate as the disposable freeportion! and apply the other half of the estate to payment of the legitimes of the seven compulsoryheirs. ppositorsJ proposal #ould amount substantially to a distribution by intestacy and pro tantonullify the testatri-J #ill! contrary to Article 791 of the Civil Code. t #ould further run counter to theprovisions of Article 1;91 of the Civil Code that ODAE partition legally made confers upon each heirthe e-clusive o#nership of the property ad&udicated to him.

The burden of oppositorsJ contention is that the testamentary dispositions in their favor are in thenature of devises of real property! citing the testatri-J repeated use of the #ords O be0ueathO inher assignment or distribution of her real properties to the respective heirs. From this erroneouspremise! they proceed to the e0ually erroneous conclusion that Othe legitime of the compulsoryheirs passes to them by operation of la# and that the testator can only dispose of the free portion!that is! the remainder of the estate after deducting the legitime of the compulsory heirs . . . and alltestamentary dispositions! either in the nature of institution of heirs or of devises or legacies! haveto be taen from the remainder of the testatorJs estate constituting the free portion.O

ppositorsJ conclusions necessarily are in error. The testamentary dispositions of the testatri-!being dispositions in favor of compulsory heirs! do not have to be taen only from the free portionof the estate! as contended! for the second paragraph of Article 8%2 of the Civil Code preciselyprovides that ODEne #ho has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does not

contravene the provisions of this Code #ith regard to the legitime of said heirs.O And even goingby oppositorsJ o#n theory of be0uests! the second paragraph of Article 912 of the Civil Codecovers precisely the case of the e-ecutri-appellee! #ho admittedly #as favored by the testatri-#ith the large bul of her estate in providing that ODTEhe devisee #ho is entitled to a legitime mayretain the entire property! provided its value does not e-ceed that of the disposable portion and ofthe share pertaining to him as legitime.O For "diversity of apportionment is the usual reason formaking a testament; otherwise, the decedent might as well die intestate." 18 Fundamentally, ofcourse, the dispositions by the testatrix constituted a partition by will, which by mandate of rticle1!8! of the ivil ode and of the other cited codal provisions upholding the primacy of thetestator#s last will and testament, have to be respected insofar as they do not pre$udice thelegitime of the other compulsory heirs.

ppositorsJ invoing of Article 1;3 of the Civil Code that ODPEroperty left by #ill is not deemed

sub&ect to collation! if the testator has not other#ise provided! but the legitime shall in any caseremain unimpairedO and invoing of the construction thereof given by some authorities that OJnotdeemed sub&ect to collationJ in this article really means not imputable to or chargeable against thelegitimeO! #hile it may have some plausibility 19 in an appropriate case! has no application inthe present ease. "ere! #e have a case of a distribution and partition of the entire estate by thetestatri-! #ithout her having made any previous donations during her lifetime #hich #ould re0uirecollation to determine the legitime of each heir nor having left merely some properties by #ill#hich #ould call for the application of Articles 1;1 to 1;3 of the Civil Code on collation. Theamount of the legitime of the heirs is here determined and undisputed.

5ith this resolution of the decisive issue raised by oppositorsappellants! the secondary issuesare lie#ise necessarily resolved. Their right #as merely to demand completion of their legitimeunder Article 9; of the Civil Code and this has been complied #ith in the approved pro&ect of

partition! and they can no longer demand a further share from the remaining portion of the estate!as be0ueathed and partitioned by the testatri- principally to the e-ecutri-appellee.

6either may the appellants legally insist on their legitime being completed #ith real properties ofthe estate instead of being paid in cash! per the approved pro&ect of partition. The properties arenot available for the purpose! as the testatri- had specifically partitioned and distributed them toher heirs! and the heirs are called upon! as far as feasible to comply #ith and give effect to theintention of the testatri- as solemni=ed in her #ill! by implementing her manifest #ish oftransmitting the real properties intact to her named beneficiaries! principally the e-ecutri-appellee. The appraisal report of the properties of the estate as filed by the commissioner


20/23

appointed by the lo#er court #as approved in toto upon &oint petition of the parties! and hence!there cannot be said to be any 0uestion G and none is presented G as to fairness of thevaluation thereof or that the legitime of the heirs in terms of cash has been understated. Theplaint of oppositors that the purchasing value of the Philippine peso has greatly declined since thetestatri-J death in 'anuary! 191 provides no legal basis or &ustification for overturning the #ishesand intent of the testatri-. The transmission of rights to the succession are transmitted from themoment of death of the decedent DArticle 777! Civil CodeE and accordingly! the value thereof mustbe reconed as of then! as other#ise! estates #ould never be settled if there #ere to be arevaluation #ith every subse0uent fluctuation in the values of the currency and properties of theestate. There is evidence in the record that prior to 6ovember 2B! 19%! one of the oppositors!(ernardita! accepted the sum of PB;!;;;.;; on account of her inheritance! #hich! per the partiesJmanifestation! 2; Odoes not in any #ay affect the ad&udication made to her in the pro&ects ofpartition of either party as the same is a mere advance of the cash that she should receive in bothpro&ects of partition.O The payment in cash by #ay of maing the proper ad&ustments in order tomeet the re0uirements of the la# on nonimpairment of legitimes as #ell as to give effect to thelast #ill of the testatri- has invariably been availed of and sanctioned. 21 That her cooppositors#ould receive their cash differentials only no# #hen the value of the currency has declinedfurther! #hereas they could have received them earlier! lie (ernardita! at the time of approval ofthe pro&ect of partition and #hen the pesoJs purchasing value #as higher! is due to their o#ndecision of pursuing the present appeal.

9e >oma vs. A

Candelaria de *oma had t#o legally adopted daughters! (uhay de *oma and *osalinda de*oma.


21/23

language of the document! that he #ould have included therein an e-press prohibition to collate ifthat had been the donorJs intention.

Anything less than such e-press prohibition #ill not suffice under the clear language of Article1;2. The suggestion that there #as an implied prohibition because the properties donated #ereimputable to the free portion of the decedentJs estate merits little consideration. mputation is notthe 0uestion here! nor is it claimed that the disputed donation is officious. The sole issue is#hether or not there #as an e-press prohibition to collate! and #e see none.

The intention to e-empt from collation should be e-pressed plainly and une0uivocally as ane-ception to the general rule announced in Article 1;2. Absent such a clear indication of thatintention! #e apply not the e-ception but the rule! #hich is categorical enough.

Locsin vs. A

Hariano )ocsin e-ecuted a )ast 5ill and Testament instituting his #ife! Catalina! as the sole anduniversal heir of all his properties 3 . The #ill #as dra#n up by his #ifeJs nephe# and trustedlegal adviser! Attorney elasco!and the husbands of the last t#o: "ostilio Cornelio and Fernando >elasco. 8 "er trust in "ostilioCornelio #as such that she made him custodian of all the titles of her properties$ and before shedisposed of any of them! she unfailingly consulted her la#yernephe#! Attorney


22/23

n 1989! or si- DE years after KoRa CatalinaJs demise! some of her 'aucian nephe#s and nieces#ho had already received their legacies and hereditary shares from her estate! filed action in the*egional Trial Court of )egaspi City D(ranch >! Civil Case 6o. 71B2E to recover the properties#hich she had conveyed to the )ocsins during her lifetime! alleging that the conveyances #ere inofficious! #ithout consideration! and intended solely to circumvent the la#s on succession. Those#ho #ere closest to KoRa Catalina did not &oin the action.

After the trial! &udgment #as rendered on 'uly 8! 198B in favor of the plaintiffs D'aucianE! andagainst the )ocsin defendants

The petition has merit and should be granted. The trial court and the Court of Appeals erred indeclaring the private respondents! nephe#s and nieces of KoRa Catalina '. >da. de )ocsin!entitled to inherit the properties #hich she had already disposed of more than ten D1;E yearsbefore her death. For those properties did not form part of her hereditary estate! i.e.! Othe propertyand transmissible rights and obligations e-isting at the time of Dthe decedentJsE death and those#hich have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession.O 1; The rights to a personJssuccession are transmitted from the moment of his death! and do not vest in his heirs until suchtime. 11 %roperty which &o'a atalina had transferred or conveyed to other persons during herlifetime no longer formed part of her estate at the time of her death to which her heirs may lay

claim."ad she died intestate! only the property that remained in her estate at the time of herdeath devolved to her legal heirs$ and even if those transfers #ere! one and all! treated asdonations! the right arising under certain circumstances to impugn and compel the reduction orrevocation of a decedentJs gifts inter vivos does not inure to the respondents since neither theynor the donees are compulsory Dor forcedE heirs. 12

There is thus no basis for assuming an intention on the part of KoRa Catalina! in transferring theproperties she had received from her late husband to his nephe#s and nieces! an intent tocircumvent the la# in violation of the private respondentsJ rights to her succession.


23/23

Among KoRa CatalinaJs last transactions before she died in 1977 #ere the sales of property#hich she made in favor of Aurea )ocsin and Hariano )ocsin in 197B. 18

There is not the slightest suggestion in the record that KoRa Catalina #as mentally incompetent#hen she made those dispositions. ndeed! ho# can any such suggestion be made in light of thefact that even as she #as transferring properties to the )ocsins! she #as also contemporaneouslydisposing of her other properties in favor of the 'auciansI icente'aucian! on 'uly 1! 19% D21 years before her deathE onehalf Dor B!;;; s0.m.E of )ot 2;2;.Three years later! or on Harch 22! 197! she sold another B!;;; s0.m. of the same lot to 'ualian)ocsin. 19

This Court finds no reason to disbelieve Attorney )orayesJ testimony that before Kon Harianodied! he and his #ife DKoRa CatalinaE! being childless! had agreed that their respective propertiesshould eventually revert to their respective lineal relatives. As the trusted legal adviser of thespouses and a fullblood nephe# of KoRa Catalina! he #ould not have spun a tale out of thin airthat #ould also pre&udice his o#n interest.

Their desistance persuasively demonstrates that KoRa Catalina acted as a completely free agent#hen she made the conveyances in favor of the petitioners. n fact! considering their closeness toKoRa Catalina it #ould have been #ellnigh impossible for the petitioners to employ Ofraud! undue

pressure! and subtle manipulationsO on her to mae her sell or donate her properties to them.KoRa CatalinaJs niece! 4lena 'aucian! daughter of her brother! 4duardo 'aucian! lived #ith her inher house. "er nephe#inla#! "ostilio Cornelio! #as the custodian of the titles of her properties.

Apart from the foregoing considerations! the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in notdismissing this action for annulment and reconveyance on the ground of prescription.Commenced decades after the transactions had been consummated! and si- DE years afterKoRa CatalinaJs death! it prescribed four D%E years after the sub&ect transactions #ere recorded inthe *egistry of Property! 28 #hether considered an action based on fraud! or one to redress anin&ury to the rights of the plaintiffs. The private respondents may not feign ignorance of saidtransactions because the registration of the deeds #as constructive notice thereof to them andthe #hole #orld. 295"4*4F*4! the petition for revie# is granted.

?. ?reedom to dispose free portion

Art. 5. %he testator may devise and beueath the free portion as he may deem fit.

The article reiterates the principle embodied already in article 8%2. thus! superfluous and atsome point misleading. n many cases! the testator cannot really dispose of part or #hole of thefree portion! because the legitimes of concurring compulsory heirs! lie the surviving spouse andillegitimate children #hen there are legitimate children or descendants! are taen from the freeportion. "ence! he can only dispose that #hich is the remainder of the free portion #hen this ispartly consumed by the legitimes of concurring compulsory heirs. The phrase! @as he may deemfit! is therefore erroneous. The testator does not absolute freedom over the free portion #hen

concurring C" are present and only to those 0ualified to succeed.

legitimes uribe

Documents