ETRIII Civil Law Review Lecture Series
TITLE IV
SUCCESSION
SUCCESSION
CHAPTER 1
General Provisions
Part II From “Reserva Troncal”
To End of Succession
Articles 890- 969
Comments:
Study of succession for
purposes of civil law review should be divided into: a. Kinds of Succession, i.e., Testamentary, Legal or Intestate;
Mixed Succession b. Formalities of Last Will & Testament; c.
Institution of Heirs; d. INTERPLAY of Substitution, Accretion &
Representation e. Predecease, Renunciation & Incapacity; f. Distribution of
Estate
Article
890. The legitime
reserved for the legitimate parents shall be divided between them equally; if
one of the parents should have died, the whole shall pass to the survivor.
If the testator leaves neither father nor mother,
but is survived by ascendants of equal degree of the paternal and maternal
lines, the legitime shall be divided equally between both lines. If the
ascendants should be of different degrees, it shall pertain entirely to the
ones nearest in degree of either line. (810)
Comments: 1. “Reserved
for the trunk”.
2. In reserva
troncal, there are four parties thus: a. ASCENDANT of BROTHER or SISTER
from where the property originally came from; b.PREPOSITUS (propositus); c. reservista; and d. reservatorios.
Article
891. The ascendant who
inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by
gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to
reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the
benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line
from which said property came. (871)
Comment: Reservee must
be legitimate relative of origin & prepositus (propositus).
The recent case of MARIA
MENDOZA , in her capacity and as Attorney-In-Fact of DEOGRACIAS, MARCELA,
DIONISIA, ADORACION, all surnamed MEDOZA, REMEDIOS MONTILLA, FELY BAUTISTA,
JULIAN GUILALAS and ELVIRA MENDOZA V. JULIA POLICARPIO DELOS SANTOS,
substituted by her heirs CARMEN P. DELOS SANTOS, ROSA BUENAVENTURA, ZENAIDA P.
DE LOS SANTOS VDA. DE MATEO ET AL.,[1]
is very instructive on the legal ramifications of reserve truncal, viz:
“DECISION
REYES, J.:
Reserva troncal
is
a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of a reservable property
to the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the property
originally came, and avoid its being dissipated into and by the relatives of
the inheriting ascendant.
The Facts
The properties
subject in the instant case are three parcels of land located in Sta. Maria,
Bulacan: (1) Lot 1681-B, with an area of 7,749 square meters;2 (2) Lot 1684,
with an area of 5,667 sq m;3 and (3) Lot No. 1646-B, with an area of 880 sq m.
Lot Nos. 1681-B and 1684 are presently in the name of respondent Julia Delos
Santos (respondent). Lot No. 1646-B, on the other hand, is also in the name of
respondent but co-owned by Victoria Pantaleon, who bought one-half of the
property from petitioner Maria Mendoza and her siblings.
Petitioners are
grandchildren of Placido Mendoza (Placido) and Dominga Mendoza (Dominga).
Placido and Dominga had four children: Antonio, Exequiel, married to
Leonor, Apolonio
and
Valentin. Petitioners
Maria, Deogracias, Dionisia, Adoracion, Marcela and Ricardo are the children of
Antonio. Petitioners Juliana, Fely, Mercedes, Elvira and Fortunato, on the
other hand, are Valentin’s children. Petitioners alleged that the properties
were part of Placido and Dominga’s properties that were subject of an oral
partition and subsequently adjudicated to Exequiel. After Exequiel’s death, it
passed on to his spouse Leonor and only daughter, Gregoria.
After Leonor’s
death, her share went to Gregoria. In 1992, Gregoria died intestate and without
issue. They claimed that after Gregoria’s death, respondent, who is Leonor’s
sister, adjudicated unto herself all these properties as the sole surviving
heir of Leonor and Gregoria. Hence, petitioners claim that the properties should
have been reserved by respondent in their behalf and must now revert back to
them, applying Article 891 of the Civil Code on reserva troncal.
Respondent,
however, denies any obligation to reserve the properties as these did not
originate from petitioners’ familial line and were not originally owned by
Placido and Dominga. According to respondent, the properties were bought by
Exequiel and Antonio from a certain Alfonso Ramos in 1931. It appears, however,
that it was only Exequiel who was in possession of the properties.
The Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 6, found merit in petitioners’
claim and granted their action for Recovery of Possession by Reserva Troncal, Cancellation
of TCT and Reconveyance. In its Decision dated November 4, 2002, the RTC
disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premised from the
foregoing judgment [is] hereby
rendered:
1. Ordering [respondents] (heirs
of Julia Policarpio) to reconvey
the three (3) parcels of land
subject of this action in the name of the
plaintiffs enumerated in the
complaint including intervenor Maria Cecilia
M. Mendoza except one-half of
the property described in the old title[,]
TCT No. T-124852(M) which
belongs to Victorina Pantaleon;
2. Ordering the Register of
Deeds of Bulacan to cancel the titles
in the name of Julia
Policarpio[,] TCT No. T-149033(M), T-183631(M)
and T-149035(M) and reconvey the
same to the enumerated plaintiffs;
[and]
3. No pronouncement as to claims
for attorney’s fees and
damages and costs.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal, the
Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the
complaint filed by petitioners. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision dated November 16, 2006 provides:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the November 4, 2002
Decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Br. 6, Third Judicial Region,
Malolos, Bulacan, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Third
Amended
Complaint in Civil Case No.
609-M-92 is hereby DISMISSED. Costs
against the
Plaintiffs-Appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied the same per Resolution
dated January 17, 2007.
In dismissing
the complaint, the CA ruled that petitioners failed to establish that Placido
and Dominga owned the properties in dispute. The CA also ruled that even
assuming that Placido and Dominga previously owned the properties, it still
cannot be subject to reserva troncal as neither Exequiel predeceased Placido
and Dominga nor did Gregoria predecease Exequiel.
Now before the Court,
petitioners argue that:
A.
THE HONORABLE [CA] GRIEVOUSLY
ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECT
PROPERTIES ARE NOT
RESERVABLE PROPERTIES, COMING AS
THEY DO
FROM THE FAMILY LINE OF THE
PETITIONERS
MENDOZAS.
B.
THE HONORABLE [CA] GRIEVOUSLY
ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS MENDOZAS
DO
NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO THE SUBJECT
PROPERTIES BY
VIRTUE OF THE LAW ON RESERVA TRONCAL.
Petitioners take exception to
the ruling of the CA, contending that it is sufficient that the properties came
from the paternal line of Gregoria for it to be subject to reserva troncal. They also
claim the properties in representation of their own predecessors, Antonio and
Valentin, who were the brothers of Exequiel.
Ruling of the
Court
This petition
is one for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The general rule in this regard is that it should raise only questions of law.
There are, however, admitted exceptions to this rule, one of which is when the
CA’s findings are contrary to those of the trial court.
This being the
case in the petition at hand, the Court must now look into the differing
findings and conclusion of the RTC and the CA on the two issues that arise – one, whether the
properties in dispute are reservable properties and two, whether
petitioners are entitled to a reservation of these properties.
Article 891 of
the Civil Code on
reserva troncal
The principle
of reserva
troncal is
provided in Article 891 of the Civil Code:
Art. 891. The ascendant who
inherits from his descendant any
property which the latter may
have acquired by gratuitous title from
another ascendant, or a brother
or sister, is obliged to reserve such
property as he may have acquired
by operation of law for the benefit of
relatives who
are within the third degree and belong to the line from
which said
property came. (Emphasis ours)
There are three (3) lines of
transmission in reserva troncal. The first
transmission is by
gratuitous title, whether by inheritance or donation, from
an ascendant/brother/sister to a
descendant called the prepositus. The
second
transmission is by operation of law from the prepositus to the other
ascendant or reservor, also called the reservista. The third and last
transmission is from the reservista to the
reservees or reservatarios
who
must be relatives within the third degree from which the property came.
The lineal
character of the
reservable
property is reckoned
from the
ascendant from whom the
prepositus received the
property by
gratuitous
title
Based on the
circumstances of the present case, Article 891 on reserva troncal
is
not applicable.
The fallacy in
the CA’s resolution is that it proceeded from the erroneous premise that
Placido is the ascendant contemplated in Article 891 of the Civil Code. From
thence, it sought to trace the origin of the subject properties back to Placido
and Dominga, determine whether Exequiel predeceased Placido and whether
Gregoria predeceased Exequiel.
The persons involved in reserva troncal
are:
(1)
The ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property
was received by the descendant by lucrative or gratuitous title;
(2) The descendant or prepositus (propositus) who received
the property;
(3) The reservor (reservista), the other
ascendant who
obtained the property from the prepositus by operation of
law; and
(4) The reservee (reservatario) who is within
the third
degree from the prepositus and who belongs
to the (linea
o tronco) from which
the property came and for whom
the property should be reserved by the
reservor.
It should be
pointed out that the ownership of the properties should be reckoned only from
Exequiel’s as he is the ascendant from where the first transmission occurred,
or from whom Gregoria inherited the properties in dispute. The law does not go
farther than such ascendant/brother/sister in determining the lineal character
of the property. It was also immaterial for the CA to determine whether
Exequiel predeceased Placido and Dominga or whether Gregoria predeceased
Exequiel. What is pertinent is that Exequiel owned the properties and he is the
ascendant from whom the properties in dispute originally came. Gregoria, on the
other hand, is the descendant who received the properties from Exequiel by
gratuitous title.
Moreover,
Article 891 simply requires that the property should have been acquired by the
descendant or prepositus from an ascendant by gratuitous or
lucrative title. A transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the
recipient does not give anything in return. At risk of being repetitious, what
was clearly established in this case is that the properties in dispute were
owned by Exequiel (ascendant). After his death, Gregoria (descendant/prepositus) acquired the
properties as inheritance.
Ascendants,
descendants and
collateral
relatives under Article
964 of the
Civil Code
Article 891
provides that the person obliged to reserve the property should be an ascendant
(also known as the reservor/reservista) of the descendant/prepositus. Julia,
however, is not Gregoria’s ascendant; rather, she is Gregoria’s collateral
relative. Article 964 of the Civil Code provides for the series of degrees
among ascendants and descendants, and those who are not ascendants and
descendants but come from a common ancestor, viz:
Art. 964. A series of degrees
forms a line, which may be either
direct or collateral.
A direct line is that
constituted by the series of degrees among
ascendants and descendants.
A collateral line
is
that constituted by the series of degrees among
persons who are not
ascendants and descendants, but who come from a
common ancestor. (Emphasis and
italics ours)
Gregoria’s
ascendants are her parents, Exequiel and Leonor, her grandparents,
great-grandparents and so on. On the other hand, Gregoria’s descendants, if she
had one, would be her children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren. Not being
Gregoria’s ascendants, both petitioners and Julia, therefore, are her
collateral relatives. In determining the collateral line of relationship,
ascent is made to the common ancestor and then descent to the relative from
whom the computation is made. In the case of Julia’s collateral relationship
with Gregoria, ascent is to be made from Gregoria to her mother Leonor (one
line/degree), then to the common ancestor, that is, Julia and Leonor’s parents
(second line/degree), and then descent to Julia, her aunt (third line/degree).
Thus, Julia is Gregoria’s collateral relative within the third degree and
not her ascendant.
First cousins
of the
descendant/prepositus
are fourth
degree
relatives and cannot be
considered
reservees/reservatarios
Moreover,
petitioners cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios as they are not
relatives within the third degree of Gregoria from whom the properties came.
The person from whom the degree should be reckoned is the descendant/prepositus―the one at the
end of the line from which the property came and upon whom the property last
revolved by descent. It is Gregoria in this case. Petitioners are Gregoria’s
fourth degree relatives, being her first cousins. First cousins
of the prepositus are fourth degree relatives and are not reservees or reservatarios.
They cannot
even claim representation of their predecessors Antonio and Valentin as Article
891 grants a personal right of reservation only to the relatives up to the
third degree from whom the reservable properties came. The only recognized
exemption is in the case of nephews and nieces of the prepositus, who have the
right to represent their ascendants (fathers and mothers) who are the
brothers/sisters of the prepositus and relatives within the third degree.
In Florentino
v. Florentino, the Court stated:
Following the
order prescribed by law in legitimate succession, when there are relatives of
the descendant within the third degree, the right of the nearest relative,
called reservatario, over the
property which the reservista (person holding it subject to
reservation) should return to him, excludes that of the one more remote. The
right of representation cannot be alleged when the one claiming same as a reservatario of the
reservable property is not among the relatives within the third degree belong
to the line from which such property came, inasmuch as the right
granted by the Civil Code in [A]rticle 811 [now Article 891] is in the highest degree
personal and for the exclusive benefit of the designated persons who are the
relatives, within the third degree, of the person from whom the reservable
property came. Therefore, relatives of the fourth and the succeeding degrees
can never be considered as reservatarios, since the law does not
recognize them as such.
x x x
[N]evertheless there is right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are within
the third degree mentioned by law, as in the case of nephews of the deceased
person from whom the reservable property came. x x x.23 (Emphasis and
underscoring ours)
The conclusion,
therefore, is that while it may appear that the properties are reservable in
character, petitioners cannot benefit from reserve troncal. First, because
Julia, who now holds the properties in dispute, is not the other ascendant within
the purview of Article 891 of the Civil Code and second, because
petitioners are not Gregoria’s relatives within the third degree. Hence, the
CA’s disposition that the complaint filed with the RTC should be dismissed,
only on this point, is correct. If at all, what should apply in the
distribution of Gregoria’s estate are Articles 1003 and 1009 of the Civil Code,
which provide:
Art. 1003. If there are no
descendants, ascendants, illegitimate
children, or a surviving spouse,
the collateral relatives shall succeed to the
entire estate of the deceased in
accordance with the following articles.
Art. 1009. Should there be
neither brothers nor sisters, nor children
of brothers or sisters, the
other collateral relatives shall succeed to the
estate.
The latter shall succeed without
distinction of lines or preference
among them by reason of
relationship by the whole blood.
Nevertheless,
the Court is not in the proper position to determine the proper distribution of
Gregoria’s estate at this point as the cause of action relied upon by
petitioners in their complaint filed with the RTC is based solely on reserva troncal. Further, any
determination would necessarily entail reception of evidence on Gregoria’s
entire estate and the heirs entitled thereto, which is best accomplished in an
action filed specifically for that purpose.
A reservista
acquires ownership of
the reservable
property until the
reservation
takes place or is
extinguished
Before
concluding, the Court takes note of a palpable error in the RTC’s disposition
of the case. In upholding the right of petitioners over the properties, the RTC
ordered the reconveyance of the properties to petitioners and the transfer of
the titles in their names. What the RTC should have done, assuming for
argument’s sake that reserva troncal is applicable, is have the reservable nature of the property registered
on respondent’s titles. In fact, respondent, as reservista, has the duty
to reserve and to annotate the reservable character of the property on the
title. In reserva
troncal,
the reservista
who
inherits from a prepositus, whether by the latter’s wish or by
operation of law, acquires the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly
transferring absolute ownership. All the attributes of ownership belong to him
exclusively.
The reservor
has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property but subject to the resolutory
condition that such title is extinguished if the reservor predeceased the
reservee. The reservor is a usufructuary of the reservable property. He may
alienate it subject to the reservation. The transferee gets the revocable and
conditional ownership of the reservor. The transferee’s rights are revoked upon
the survival of the reservees at the time of the death of the reservor but
become indefeasible when the reservees predecease the reservor.26 (Citations
omitted).
It is when the
reservation takes place or is extinguished, that a reservatario becomes,
by operation of law, the owner of the reservable property. In any event, the foregoing discussion does
not detract from the fact that petitioners are not entitled to a reservation of
the properties in dispute.
WHEREFORE, the petition is
DENIED. The Decision dated November 16, 2006 and Resolution dated
January 17, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77694 insofar as it
dismissed the Third Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 609-M-92 are AFFIRMED.
This Decision is without prejudice to any civil action that the heirs of
Gregoria Mendoza may file for the settlement of her estate or for the determination
of
ownership of the properties in
question.
SO ORDERED.”
Article
892. If only one
legitimate child or descendant of the deceased survives, the widow or widower
shall be entitled to one-fourth of the hereditary estate. In case of a legal separation,
the surviving spouse may inherit if it was the deceased who had given cause for
the same.
Article
894. If the testator
leaves illegitimate children, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to
one-third of the hereditary estate of the deceased and the illegitimate
children to another third. The remaining third shall be at the free disposal of
the testator. (n)
Article
895. The legitime of
each of the acknowledged natural children and each of the natural children by
legal fiction shall consist of one-half of the legitime of each of the
legitimate children or descendants.
The legitime of an illegitimate child who is
neither an acknowledged natural, nor a natural child by legal fiction, shall be
equal in every case to four-fifths of the legitime of an acknowledged natural
child.
The legitime of the illegitimate children shall be
taken from the portion of the estate at the free disposal of the testator,
provided that in no case shall the total legitime of such illegitimate children
exceed that free portion, and that the legitime of the surviving spouse must
first be fully satisfied. (840a)
Article
896. Illegitimate
children who may survive with legitimate parents or ascendants of the deceased
shall be entitled to one-fourth of the hereditary estate to be taken from the
portion at the free disposal of the testator. (841a)
Article
897. When the widow or
widower survives with legitimate children or descendants, and acknowledged
natural children, or natural children by legal fiction, such surviving spouse
shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate
children which must be taken from that part of the estate which the testator
can freely dispose of. (n)
Article
898. If the widow or
widower survives with legitimate children or descendants, and with illegitimate
children other than acknowledged natural, or natural children by legal fiction,
the share of the surviving spouse shall be the same as that provided in the
preceding article. (n)
Article
899. When the widow or
widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants and with illegitimate
children, such surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-eighth of the
hereditary estate of the deceased which must be taken from the free portion,
and the illegitimate children shall be entitled to one-fourth of the estate
which shall be taken also from the disposable portion. The testator may freely
dispose of the remaining one-eighth of the estate. (n)
Article
900. If the only
survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled to one-half of
the hereditary estate of the deceased spouse, and the testator may freely
dispose of the other half. (837a)
If the marriage between the surviving spouse and
the testator was solemnized in articulo mortis, and the testator died within
three months from the time of the marriage, the legitime of the surviving
spouse as the sole heir shall be one-third of the hereditary estate, except
when they have been living as husband and wife for more than five years. In the
latter case, the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be that specified in
the preceding paragraph. (n)
Article
901. When the testator
dies leaving illegitimate children and no other compulsory heirs, such
illegitimate children shall have a right to one-half of the hereditary estate
of the deceased.
The other half shall be at the free disposal of the
testator. (842a)
Article
902. The rights of
illegitimate children set forth in the preceding articles are transmitted upon
their death to their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate. (843a)
Comment: See Art. 992
Article
903. The legitime of
the parents who have an illegitimate child, when such child leaves neither
legitimate descendants, nor a surviving spouse, nor illegitimate children, is
one-half of the hereditary estate of such illegitimate child. If only
legitimate or illegitimate children are left, the parents are not entitled to
any legitime whatsoever. If only the widow or widower survives with parents of
the illegitimate child, the legitime of the parents is one-fourth of the hereditary
estate of the child, and that of the surviving spouse also one-fourth of the
estate. (n)
Article
904. The testator
cannot deprive his compulsory heirs of their legitime, except in cases
expressly specified by law.
Neither can he impose upon the same any burden,
encumbrance, condition, or substitution of any kind whatsoever. (813a)
Article
905. Every renunciation
or compromise as regards a future legitime between the person owing it and his
compulsory heirs is void, and the latter may claim the same upon the death of
the former; but they must bring to collation whatever they may have received by
virtue of the renunciation or compromise. (816)
Article
906. Any compulsory
heir to whom the testator has left by any title less than the legitime
belonging to him may demand that the same be fully satisfied. (815)
Article
907. Testamentary
dispositions that impair or diminish the legitime of the compulsory heirs shall
be reduced on petition of the same, insofar as they may be inofficious or
excessive. (817)
Article
908. To determine the
legitime, the value of the property left at the death of the testator shall be
considered, deducting all debts and charges, which shall not include those
imposed in the will.
To the net value of the hereditary estate, shall be
added the value of all donations by the testator that are subject to collation,
at the time he made them. (818a)
Article
909. Donations given to
children shall be charged to their legitime.
Donations made to strangers shall be charged to
that part of the estate of which the testator could have disposed by his last
will.
Insofar as they may be inofficious or may exceed
the disposable portion, they shall be reduced according to the rules
established by this Code. (819a)
Article
910. Donations which an
illegitimate child may have received during the lifetime of his father or
mother, shall be charged to his legitime.
Should they exceed the portion that can be freely
disposed of, they shall be reduced in the manner prescribed by this Code.
(847a)
Article
911. After the legitime
has been determined in accordance with the three preceding articles, the
reduction shall be made as follows:
(1) Donations shall be respected as long as
the legitime can be covered, reducing or annulling, if necessary, the devises
or legacies made in the will;
(2) The reduction of the devises or legacies
shall be pro rata, without any distinction whatever.
If the testator has directed that a certain
devise or legacy be paid in preference to others, it shall not suffer any
reduction until the latter have been applied in full to the payment of the
legitime.
(3) If the devise or legacy consists of a
usufruct or life annuity, whose value may be considered greater than that of
the disposable portion, the compulsory heirs may choose between complying with
the testamentary provision and delivering to the devisee or legatee the part of
the inheritance of which the testator could freely dispose. (820a)
Article
912. If the devise
subject to reduction should consist of real property, which cannot be
conveniently divided, it shall go to the devisee if the reduction does not
absorb one-half of its value; and in a contrary case, to the compulsory heirs;
but the former and the latter shall reimburse each other in cash for what
respectively belongs to them.
The devisee who is entitled to a legitime may
retain the entire property, provided its value does not exceed that of the
disposable portion and of the share pertaining to him as legitime. (821)
Article
913. If the heirs or
devisees do not choose to avail themselves of the right granted by the
preceding article, any heir or devisee who did not have such right may exercise
it; should the latter not make use of it, the property shall be sold at public
auction at the instance of any one of the interested parties. (822)
Article
914. The testator may
devise and bequeath the free portion as he may deem fit. (n)
SECTION
6
Disinheritance
Disinheritance
Article
915. A compulsory heir
may, in consequence of disinheritance, be deprived of his legitime, for causes
expressly stated by law. (848a)
Article
916. Disinheritance can
be effected only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be
specified. (849)
Article
917. The burden of
proving the truth of the cause for disinheritance shall rest upon the other
heirs of the testator, if the disinherited heir should deny it. (850)
Article
918. Disinheritance
without a specification of the cause, or for a cause the truth of which, if
contradicted, is not proved, or which is not one of those set forth in this
Code, shall annul the institution of heirs insofar as it may prejudice the
person disinherited; but the devises and legacies and other testamentary
dispositions shall be valid to such extent as will not impair the legitime.
(851a)
Article
919. The following
shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of children and descendants,
legitimate as well as illegitimate:
(1) When a child or descendant has been found
guilty of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her spouse,
descendants, or ascendants;
(2) When a child or descendant has accused
the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years
or more, if the accusation has been found groundless;
(3) When a child or descendant has been
convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
(4) When a child or descendant by fraud,
violence, intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to make a will
or to change one already made;
(5) A refusal without justifiable cause to
support the parent or ascendant who disinherits such child or descendant;
(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or
deed, by the child or descendant;
(7) When a child or descendant leads a
dishonorable or disgraceful life;
(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with
it the penalty of civil interdiction. (756, 853, 674a)
Article
920. The following
shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of parents or ascendants,
whether legitimate or illegitimate:
(1) When the parents have abandoned their
children or induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral life, or
attempted against their virtue;
(2) When the parent or ascendant has been
convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her spouse,
descendants, or ascendants;
(3) When the parent or ascendant has accused
the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years
or more, if the accusation has been found to be false;
(4) When the parent or ascendant has been
convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
(5) When the parent or ascendant by fraud,
violence, intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to make a will
or to change one already made;
(6) The loss of parental authority for causes
specified in this Code;
(7) The refusal to support the children or
descendants without justifiable cause;
(8) An attempt by one of the parents against
the life of the other, unless there has been a reconciliation between them.
(756, 854, 674a)
Article
921. The following
shall be sufficient causes for disinheriting a spouse:
(1) When the spouse has been convicted of an
attempt against the life of the testator, his or her descendants, or
ascendants;
(2) When the spouse has accused the testator
of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment of six years or more, and
the accusation has been found to be false;
(3) When the spouse by fraud, violence,
intimidation, or undue influence cause the testator to make a will or to change
one already made;
(4) When the spouse has given cause for legal
separation;
(5) When the spouse has given grounds for the
loss of parental authority;
(6) Unjustifiable refusal to support the
children or the other spouse. (756, 855, 674a)
Article
922. A subsequent
reconciliation between the offender and the offended person deprives the latter
of the right to disinherit, and renders ineffectual any disinheritance that may
have been made. (856)
Article
923. The children and
descendants of the person disinherited shall take his or her place and shall
preserve the rights of compulsory heirs with respect to the legitime; but the
disinherited parent shall not have the usufruct or administration of the
property which constitutes the legitime. (857)
SECTION
7
Legacies and Devises
Legacies and Devises
Article
924. All things and
rights which are within the commerce of man be bequeathed or devised. (865a)
Article
925. A testator may
charge with legacies and devises not only his compulsory heirs but also the
legatees and devisees.
The latter shall be liable for the charge only to
the extent of the value of the legacy or the devise received by them. The
compulsory heirs shall not be liable for the charge beyond the amount of the
free portion given them. (858a)
Article
926. When the testator
charges one of the heirs with a legacy or devise, he alone shall be bound.
Should he not charge anyone in particular, all
shall be liable in the same proportion in which they may inherit. (859)
Article
927. If two or more
heirs take possession of the estate, they shall be solidarily liable for the
loss or destruction of a thing devised or bequeathed, even though only one of
them should have been negligent. (n)
Article
928. The heir who is
bound to deliver the legacy or devise shall be liable in case of eviction, if
the thing is indeterminate and is indicated only by its kind. (860)
Article
929. If the testator,
heir, or legatee owns only a part of, or an interest in the thing bequeathed,
the legacy or devise shall be understood limited to such part or interest,
unless the testator expressly declares that he gives the thing in its entirety.
(864a)
Article
930. The legacy or
devise of a thing belonging to another person is void, if the testator
erroneously believed that the thing pertained to him. But if the thing
bequeathed, though not belonging to the testator when he made the will,
afterwards becomes his, by whatever title, the disposition shall take effect.
(862a)
Article
931. If the testator
orders that a thing belonging to another be acquired in order that it be given
to a legatee or devisee, the heir upon whom the obligation is imposed or the
estate must acquire it and give the same to the legatee or devisee; but if the
owner of the thing refuses to alienate the same, or demands an excessive price
therefor, the heir or the estate shall only be obliged to give the just value
of the thing. (861a)
Article
932. The legacy or
devise of a thing which at the time of the execution of the will already
belonged to the legatee or devisee shall be ineffective, even though another
person may have some interest therein.
If the testator expressly orders that the thing be
freed from such interest or encumbrance, the legacy or devise shall be valid to
that extent. (866a)
Article
933. If the thing
bequeathed belonged to the legatee or devisee at the time of the execution of
the will, the legacy or devise shall be without effect, even though it may have
subsequently alienated by him.
If the legatee or devisee acquires it gratuitously
after such time, he can claim nothing by virtue of the legacy or devise; but if
it has been acquired by onerous title he can demand reimbursement from the heir
or the estate. (878a)
Article
934. If the testator should
bequeath or devise something pledged or mortgaged to secure a recoverable debt
before the execution of the will, the estate is obliged to pay the debt, unless
the contrary intention appears.
The same rule applies when the thing is pledged or
mortgaged after the execution of the will.
Any other charge, perpetual or temporary, with
which the thing bequeathed is burdened, passes with it to the legatee or
devisee. (867a)
Comment: Note that only
pledge and mortgage.
Examples of 2nd para. Easement, usufruct.
Article
935. The legacy of a
credit against a third person or of the remission or release of a debt of the
legatee shall be effective only as regards that part of the credit or debt
existing at the time of the death of the testator.
In the first case, the estate shall comply with the
legacy by assigning to the legatee all rights of action it may have against the
debtor. In the second case, by giving the legatee an acquittance, should he
request one.
In both cases, the legacy shall comprise all interests
on the credit or debt which may be due the testator at the time of his death.
(870a)
Article
936. The legacy
referred to in the preceding article shall lapse if the testator, after having
made it, should bring an action against the debtor for the payment of his debt,
even if such payment should not have been effected at the time of his death.
The legacy to the debtor of the thing pledged by
him is understood to discharge only the right of pledge. (871)
Article
937. A generic legacy
of release or remission of debts comprises those existing at the time of the
execution of the will, but not subsequent ones. (872)
Article
938. A legacy or devise
made to a creditor shall not be applied to his credit, unless the testator so
expressly declares.
In the latter case, the creditor shall have the
right to collect the excess, if any, of the credit or of the legacy or devise.
(837a)
Article
939. If the testator
orders the payment of what he believes he owes but does not in fact owe, the
disposition shall be considered as not written. If as regards a specified debt
more than the amount thereof is ordered paid, the excess is not due, unless a
contrary intention appears.
The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to
the fulfillment of natural obligations. (n)
Article
940. In alternative
legacies or devises, the choice is presumed to be left to the heir upon whom
the obligation to give the legacy or devise may be imposed, or the executor or
administrator of the estate if no particular heir is so obliged.
If the heir, legatee or devisee, who may have been
given the choice, dies before making it, this right shall pass to the
respective heirs.
Once made, the choice is irrevocable.
In the alternative legacies or devises, except as
herein provided, the provisions of this Code regulating obligations of the same
kind shall be observed, save such modifications as may appear from the
intention expressed by the testator. (874a)
Article
941. A legacy of
generic personal property shall be valid even if there be no things of the same
kind in the estate.
A devise of indeterminate real property shall be
valid only if there be immovable property of its kind in the estate.
The right of choice shall belong to the executor or
administrator who shall comply with the legacy by the delivery of a thing which
is neither of inferior nor of superior quality. (875a)
Article
942. Whenever the
testator expressly leaves the right of choice to the heir, or to the legatee or
devisee, the former may give or the latter may choose whichever he may prefer. (876a)
Article
943. If the heir,
legatee or devisee cannot make the choice, in case it has been granted him, his
right shall pass to his heirs; but a choice once made shall be irrevocable.
(877a)
Article
944. A legacy for
education lasts until the legatee is of age, or beyond the age of majority in
order that the legatee may finish some professional, vocational or general
course, provided he pursues his course diligently.
A legacy for support lasts during the lifetime of
the legatee, if the testator has not otherwise provided.
If the testator has not fixed the amount of such
legacies, it shall be fixed in accordance with the social standing and the
circumstances of the legatee and the value of the estate.
If the testator or during his lifetime used to give
the legatee a certain sum of money or other things by way of support, the same
amount shall be deemed bequeathed, unless it be markedly disproportionate to
the value of the estate. (879a)
Article
945. If a periodical
pension, or a certain annual, monthly, or weekly amount is bequeathed, the
legatee may petition the court for the first installment upon the death of the
testator, and for the following ones which shall be due at the beginning of
each period; such payment shall not be returned, even though the legatee should
die before the expiration of the period which has commenced. (880a)
Article
946. If the thing
bequeathed should be subject to a usufruct, the legatee or devisee shall
respect such right until it is legally extinguished. (868a)
Article
947. The legatee or
devisee acquires a right to the pure and simple legacies or devises from the
death of the testator, and transmits it to his heirs. (881a)
Article
948. If the legacy or
devise is of a specific and determinate thing pertaining to the testator, the
legatee or devisee acquires the ownership thereof upon the death of the
testator, as well as any growing fruits, or unborn offspring of animals, or
uncollected income; but not the income which was due and unpaid before the
latter's death.
From the moment of the testator's death, the thing
bequeathed shall be at the risk of the legatee or devisee, who shall,
therefore, bear its loss or deterioration, and shall be benefited by its
increase or improvement, without prejudice to the responsibility of the
executor or administrator. (882a)
Article
949. If the bequest
should not be of a specific and determinate thing, but is generic or of
quantity, its fruits and interests from the time of the death of the testator
shall pertain to the legatee or devisee if the testator has expressly so
ordered. (884a)
Article
950. If the estate
should not be sufficient to cover all the legacies or devises, their payment
shall be made in the following order:
(1) Remuneratory legacies or devises;
(2) Legacies or devises declared by the
testator to be preferential;
(3) Legacies for support;
(4) Legacies for education;
(5) Legacies or devises of a specific,
determinate thing which forms a part of the estate;
(6) All others pro rata. (887a)
Comment: BUT, if they
concur with legitimes, donations inter
vivos, Article 911 applies.
Article
951. The thing
bequeathed shall be delivered with all its accessories and accessories and in
the condition in which it may be upon the death of the testator. (883a)
Article
952. The heir, charged
with a legacy or devise, or the executor or administrator of the estate, must
deliver the very thing bequeathed if he is able to do so and cannot discharge
this obligation by paying its value.
Legacies of money must be paid in cash, even though
the heir or the estate may not have any.
The expenses necessary for the delivery of the
thing bequeathed shall be for the account of the heir or the estate, but
without prejudice to the legitime. (886a)
Article
953. The legatee or
devisee cannot take possession of the thing bequeathed upon his own authority,
but shall request its delivery and possession of the heir charged with the
legacy or devise, or of the executor or administrator of the estate should he
be authorized by the court to deliver it. (885a)
Article
954. The legatee or
devisee cannot accept a part of the legacy or devise and repudiate the other,
if the latter be onerous.
Should he die before having accepted the legacy or
devise, leaving several heirs, some of the latter may accept and the others may
repudiate the share respectively belonging to them in the legacy or devise.
(889a)
Article
955. The legatee or
devisee of two legacies or devises, one of which is onerous, cannot renounce
the onerous one and accept the other. If both are onerous or gratuitous, he
shall be free to accept or renounce both, or to renounce either. But if the
testator intended that the two legacies or devises should be inseparable from
each other, the legatee or devisee must either accept or renounce both.
Any compulsory heir who is at the same time a
legatee or devisee may waive the inheritance and accept the legacy or devise,
or renounce the latter and accept the former, or waive or accept both. (890a)
Article
956. If the legatee or
devisee cannot or is unwilling to accept the legacy or devise, or if the legacy
or devise for any reason should become ineffective, it shall be merged into the
mass of the estate, except in cases of substitution and of the right of
accretion. (888a)
Article
957. The legacy or
devise shall be without effect:
(1) If the testator transforms the thing
bequeathed in such a manner that it does not retain either the form or the
denomination it had;
(2) If the testator by any title or for any
cause alienates the thing bequeathed or any part thereof, it being understood
that in the latter case the legacy or devise shall be without effect only with
respect to the part thus alienated. If after the alienation the thing should
again belong to the testator, even if it be by reason of nullity of the
contract, the legacy or devise shall not thereafter be valid, unless the
reacquisition shall have been effected by virtue of the exercise of the right
of repurchase;
(3) If the thing bequeathed is totally lost
during the lifetime of the testator, or after his death without the heir's
fault. Nevertheless, the person obliged to pay the legacy or devise shall be
liable for eviction if the thing bequeathed should not have been determinate as
to its kind, in accordance with the provisions of article 928. (869a)
Article
958. A mistake as to
the name of the thing bequeathed or devised, is of no consequence, if it is
possible to identify the thing which the testator intended to bequeath or
devise. (n)
Article
959. A disposition made
in general terms in favor of the testator's relatives shall be understood to be
in favor of those nearest in degree. (751)
CHAPTER
3
Legal or Intestate Succession
Legal or Intestate Succession
SECTION
1General Provisions
Article
960. Legal or intestate
succession takes place:
(1) If a person dies without a will, or with
a void will, or one which has subsequently lost its validity;
(2) When the will does not institute an heir
to, or dispose of all the property belonging to the testator. In such case,
legal succession shall take place only with respect to the property of which
the testator has not disposed;
(3) If the suspensive condition attached to
the institution of heir does not happen or is not fulfilled, or if the heir
dies before the testator, or repudiates the inheritance, there being no
substitution, and no right of accretion takes place;
(4) When the heir instituted is incapable of
succeeding, except in cases provided in this Code. (912a)
Article
961. In default of
testamentary heirs, the law vests the inheritance, in accordance with the rules
hereinafter set forth, in the legitimate and illegitimate relatives of the
deceased, in the surviving spouse, and in the State. (913a)
Article
962. In every
inheritance, the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones,
saving the right of representation when it properly takes place.
Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal
shares, subject to the provisions of article 1006 with respect to relatives of
the full and half blood, and of article 987, paragraph 2, concerning division
between the paternal and maternal lines. (912a)
SUBSECTION
1. Relationship
Article
963. Proximity of
relationship is determined by the number of generations. Each generation forms
a degree. (915)
Article
964. A series of
degrees forms a line, which may be either direct or collateral.
A direct line is that constituted by the series of
degrees among ascendants and descendants.
A collateral line is that constituted by the series
of degrees among persons who are not ascendants and descendants, but who come
from a common ancestor. (916a)
Article
965. The direct line is
either descending or ascending.
The former unites the head of the family with those
who descend from him.
The latter binds a person with those from whom he
descends. (917)
Article
966. In the line, as
many degrees are counted as there are generations or persons, excluding the
progenitor.
In the direct line, ascent is made to the common
ancestor. Thus, the child is one degree removed from the parent, two from the
grandfather, and three from the great-grandparent.
In the collateral line, ascent is made to the
common ancestor and then descent is made to the person with whom the
computation is to be made. Thus, a person is two degrees removed from his
brother, three from his uncle, who is the brother of his father, four from his
first cousin, and so forth. (918a)
Article
967. Full blood
relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father and the
same mother.
Half blood relationship is that existing between
persons who have the same father, but not the same mother, or the same mother,
but not the same father. (920a)
Comments: (Quoted from
Aquino Reviewer on Civil Law, First Edition, 2014).
1. Rule on Preference Between Lines
1.1. Persons in direct descending
line EXCLUDE those in the direct ascending and collateral lines
1.2. Persons in the
direct ascending line EXCLUDE those in the collateral line.
2. Rule of Proximity. The relative NEAREST in degree excludes the more
distant ones. EXCEPTION: When the right of representation takes place.
3. Rule on Equal Division. Relatives in the SAME degree shall inherit
in equal shares.
3.1. Exceptions: There is no equality.
a) Between
legitimate and illegitimate children. Art. 967, New Family Code
b) If the
rule of preference between the lines applies
c) Under
the rule of division by line in the ascending line (between paternal and
maternal grandparents) . Art. 987, New Civil Code
d) Between
relatives of the full and half-blood- brothers and sisters and nephews and
nieces. Articles 1006 and 1008, New Civil Code
e) When
the right of representation takes place.
4. Curtain Bar Rule. This means that there is a separation between the
legitimate family and the illegitimate family. The illegitimate family cannot
inherit by intestate succession from
the legitimate family.
4.1. Not
applicable to preference in appointment of administrator. “The curtain bar
rule is inapplicable if the issue to be resolved is who is better qualified to
administer the estate of the decedent. The paramount consideration in the
appointment if an administrator over the estate of a decedent is the
prospective administrator’s interest in the estate.[2]”
5. Separation of the Adopted and the Relatives of the Adopter. Although
the adopted child shall be treated as a legitimate child, the relationship
extends only up to the adopter/s. There is no legal relationship with the
relatives of the adopter/ s, hence: (1) the adopted cannot inherit from the
relatives of the adopter, (2) The right of representation DOES NOT APPLY – the
adopted child cannot represent and cannot be represented. EXCEPTION: If the
adopted is a blood relative in proper case.
6. Double Share of collateral relatives of full-blood. When full and
half-blood brothers or sisters, nephews or nieces, survive, the full-blood
shall take a portion in the inheritance double that of the half-blood.
7. Repudiation by All in the Same Degree. If the inheritance should be
repudiated by the nearest relative, should there be one only, or by all the
nearest relatives called by law to succeed, should there be several, those of
the following degree shall inherit in their own right and cannot represent the
person or persons repudiating the inheritance.[3] This is subject to the rule of
preference between lines.
8. Right of REPRESENTATION. A right created by fiction of law, by
virtue of which the representative is raised to the place and degree of the
person represented, and acquires the rights which the latter would have if he
were living or if he could have inherited.[4]
a)
Law. The representative is called to the succession
by the law not by the person represented.
b)
Capacity. He does not succeed from the person
represented but from the decedent – one whom the person represented would have
succeeded.[5] Hence,
the representative must be capable of succeeding the decedent[6].
Nevertheless, the representative is not disqualified to represent the heir
whose inheritance he has renounced.[7]
c)
Representation in Direct and Collateral Line.
1. Direct
line. – representation takes place ad
infinitum in the direct descending line, NEVER in the ascending line.[8]
a. Only
legitimate children can represent a legitimate child of the decedent
b. Both
legitimate and illegitimate children can represent an illegitimate child of the
decedent.[9]
2. Collateral
line. Representation takes place only in favour of the children of brothers or
sisters (nephews or nieces), whether of the full- or half-blood, and only if
they concur with one ormore uncle/ s or aunt/ s.[10]
d) No representation in Repudiation. Heirs who
repudiate their share may NOT be represented. [11]
e) Cases when there is Representation. 1.
Predecease of the person represented; 2. Incapacity or Unworthiness of the
person represented; and 3. Disinheritance of the person represented.
9. Per STIRPES SHARING. Whenever there is succession by
representation, the division of the estate shall be made per stirpes, in such manner that the representative or
representatives shall not inherit more than what the person they represent
would inherit, if he were living or could inherit.[12]
10. Order of Intestate Succession.
1) Legitimate children or descendants;
2) Legitimate parents or ascendants;
3) Illegitimate children or descendants;
4) Surviving spouse;
5) Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces;
6) Other collateral relatives within the 5th degree; and,
7) The State.
1) Legitimate children or descendants;
2) Legitimate parents or ascendants;
3) Illegitimate children or descendants;
4) Surviving spouse;
5) Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces;
6) Other collateral relatives within the 5th degree; and,
7) The State.
Article
968. If there are
several relatives of the same degree, and one or some of them are unwilling or
incapacitated to succeed, his portion shall accrue to the others of the same
degree, save the right of representation when it should take place. (922)
Article
969. If the inheritance
should be repudiated by the nearest relative, should there be one only, or by
all the nearest relatives called by law to succeed, should there be several,
those of the following degree shall inherit in their own right and cannot
represent the person or persons repudiating the inheritance. (923)
[1]
G.R. No. 176422, March 20, 2013
[2]
Suntay III v. Cojuangco-Suntay, 683 SCRA 439 (2012)
[3]
Art. 969, NCC
[4]
Article 970, Ibid.
[5]
Art. 971, Ibid.
[6]
Art. 973, Ibid
[7]
Art. 976, Ibid
[8]
Art. 972, Ibid
[9]
Arts. 902, 989, 990, Ibid.
[10]
Art. 972, Ibid
[11]
Art. 977, Ibid.
[12]
Art. 974, NCC
No comments:
Post a Comment