Uson vs. Del Rosario- P was only heir to the death of estranged husband- P filed for recovery of properties from common-law-

spouse (D)- D alleged that P signed a deed of separation relinquishing

her rights to inherit- D also alleged that the new civil code has retroactive effect

in granting inheritance to illegitimate children- WON D is correct?- No- Future inheritance cannot be renounced- Ownership was vested upon the death, not retroactive

Borja vs. Borja- Husband filed probate for deceased wife as he was

appointed administrator- Husband died and left P as sole administrator- Husband had second wife (D) after death of first- P & D entered into compromise agreement providing that

she shall receive 800k as full payment of her share- WON the CA is valid- Yes- Settlement of estate is not needed as there is no bar for a

successor to dispose of her actual share even without determination (in this case: conveyance)

Bonilla vs. Barcena- Mother of minors (P) filed an action for quieting but then

died- D filed to dismiss alleging since mother is dead, there exist

no legal capacity- CFI dismissed- WON CFI is correct- NO- Heirs may be substituted in pursuing a case- Complaint was clearly filed before her death

De Vera vs. Galauran- P, surviving spouse and guardian of six minor children filed

a complaint naming his children thereto- P alleged they executed a mortgage with D but then later

found out that it was a pacto de retro sale- D alleged that minors have no cause of action having not

yet declared heirs- WON D is correct- NO- Legal heirs may commence an action arising from a right

belonging to an ancestor

Suroza vs.Honrado- Marcelina Suroza “supposedly” executed a notarial will

bequeathing her house and lot to certain Marilyn Suroza- Marcelina died, Marina Paje was named executrix and

probate was filed in the court of D Judge- P, daughter-in-law of Marcelina alleged that the notarial

will was void, alleging among others: Marilyn Suroza is actually Sy and is a stranger Marcelina was an illiterate and the will was in

English Agapito Suroza is still alive Will was thumbmarked Notary never saw Marcelina

- D continued the probate hearing- WON D is correct- No- Guilty of misconduct- First paragraph : English was understood and known- Last paragraph : will was read to the testator and

translated into Filipino

Matias vs. Salud- Will of Gabina Raquel was probated- Gabina left a thumbprint on each page of the will with her

name written by another person beside it for she had a shoulder injury and had difficulty affixing her signature

- CFI denied alleging that the attestation clause did not describe the thumbprint nor the writing of Gabina’s name by Lourdes.

- WON the thumbprint is sufficient- YES- The absence in the attestation clause that another person

wrote her name beside her thumbprint is not a fatal defect- The law only requires a signature, which was complied by

a thumbprint

Barut vs. Cabacungan- Will was applied for probate- The will was witnessed by 3 persons and stated she

(testatrix) was unable to read and write and that the will was read to her

- Thus, had one witness sign her name in her behalf- WON the will is valid- YES- Immaterial who wrote the name provided that the same

was written at her request and in the presence of the witnesses

Balonan vs. Abellana- Abellana made a will having Juan Bello sign the will for her- The first page signature is handwritten while the second

page is typewritten signed by Juan- WON the typewritten phrase complies with the law?- No- Testator’s name must be written by himself or by another

in his request- The name on the second page was not written, thus,

invalid will

Nera vs. Remando- A will was signed but was alleged that the testator and

some witnesses were in one room and the other witnesses in another during signing separated by a curtain

- WON the signing is valid- No, but in this case SC ruled YES for the facts were not

proven- The true test is not whether the actually saw each other

sign, but whether they might have seen each other sign- All witnesses must be in one room (not separated by a

curtain)

Taboada vs. Rosal- A 2 page will was left which was Probated by P- Judge D denied the petition alleging that the testator

signed at the bottom of both pages and not on the left margin; and that the attestation clause did not contain the number of pages

- WON the will is valid- Yes, Liberally interpreted- The number of pages would have been a fatal defect, but

interpreted liberally, and the will only having two pages, and and the will was titled “Last will consisiting of two pages” and the second page properly labeled

- As long as the signatures are found

Palacios vs. Ramirez- Wanda was instituted as first heir- Juan and Horacio as second heirs in a fideicommissary

substitution- Both were strangers to Wanda- W/N the fideicommissary substitution is valid- No- Art 863 of the Civil Code validates a fideicommissary

substitution “provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted.

Cisologo vs. Singson- Donya Leona left a will - Upon Crisologo’s death, whether this happens before or

after Donya Leona’s death, that Crisologo’s share shall belong to the brothers of Donya Leona

- W/N this is a valid fideicommissary substitution- No- Purpose of fideicommissary substitution is for the first heir

to preserve and transmit to another the whole or part of the estate bequeathed to him, upon his death or upon the happening of a particular event.

- It is not stated that crisologo enjoy usufructuary rights only

- It only state that upon her death, the share shall belong to her brothers, a mere sustitucion vulgar (substitution upon the death)

Perez vs. Garchitorena

Acciano vs. Brimo- Turkish man executed a will and contained a provision that

the estate shall be distributed in accordance with the laws of the Philippines

- W/N this is valid?- No- Art 16 of the Civil code stated that the national law of the

testator shall govern testamentary dispositions- Thus, such condition is an impossible condition being

contrary to law, and thus considered unwritten

Santos vs. Buenaventura

Villaflor-Villanueva vs. Juico- Nicolas Villaflor left a will leaving most of his properties to

his wife Fausta, and his brother Fausto- In addition, he left use and possession to his wife while

alive with the condition that she doesn’t remarry, otherwise the properties shall go to the grandniece

- Fausta died and never remarried- W/N the property shall remain with the estate to Fausta of

to the grandniece- Fausta was only granted no more than a life interest as

long as she does not marry during her lifetime- Thus, goes to grandniece

Nieva vs. Alcala- Property was inherited BY LAW by Francisco from his son

Alfeo- Alfeo inherited form his mother Juliana, his natural mother- Petitioner is natural sister of Alfeo- W/N Francisco is obliged by law to reserve said property

for the benefit of the petitioner and all illegitimate relatives within the third degree of Alfeo?

- No- Only legitimate ascendants are obliged to reserve- Thus only legitimate relatives are able to receive

Celedonia vs. CA- the Court held that the property of the deceased, Esteban

Javellana, Jr., is not reservable property, for Esteban, Jr. was not an ascendant, but the descendant of his mother, Salustia Solivio, from whom he inherited the properties in question. Therefore, he did not hold his inheritance subject to a reservation in favor of his aunt, Celedonia Solivio, whois his relative within the third degree on his mother’s side. The reserva troncal applies to properties

inherited by an ascendant from a descendant who inherited it from another ascendant or a brother or a sister. It does not apply to property inherited by a descendant

Edroso vs. Sablan- two parcels of land where inherited by Marcelina, mother

of Pedro who died unmarried- Pedro inherited parcels of land from his father who had

died- Marcelina applied for registration of the property but was

opposed alleging that the said lands were reservable and are merely usufructuary

- W/N reserva troncal transfers absolute ownership?- Yes- He may alienate or dispose of property- Relative within the third degree may rescind the contract

upon the death of ascendant who reserved the property.

Sienes vs. Esparcia- Saturnino with wife Teresa had four children- Saturnino had a second wife Andrea and had one sone

Francisco- When Saturnino died, his property was left to Francisco - Francisco then died and then left the property to Adrea his

mother- Andrea then executed a sale of the property - 2 of the four children from the original wife of Saturnino

Registered the property in their names and declared the sale to be void alleging that Andrea had no right to alienate the same

- W/N the reservista may alienate the same?- Yes- Andrea acquires absolute ownership that is subject to a

resolutory condition upon her death

Maghirang vs. Balcita- Property was inherited by minor Balcita from her

grandfather in representation of her predeceased mother- Bautista, her father, representing to be absolute owner,

sold the property with right to repurchase within 10 years- Balcita died predeceasing the father- Her maternal aunt brought an action for registration of the

land in her capacity as reserve- W/N the aunt may recover said property in her capacity as

reserve- Yes- during the existence of the life estate, the remainderman

has no right to possession and consequently cannot bring an action to recover it.

- No possession can be deemed adverse to a party who has not at the time the right of entry and possession

- Prescription ran from the date of the death of Balcita, not the sale of the property

Carillo vs. De paz- Severino sold his land to Honoria- Severino died and was survived by his daughter Francisca- Honoria, together with her mother and her brother were

massacred by the Japanese- They were survived by Agustina, mother of the mother of

Honoria- Intestate proceedings of Severino, the entire property was

adjudicated to Francisca- Agustina died- Prima Carillo, daughter of Augustina, sister of Isabel, filed

an action for recovery of the ½ from Francisca in her capacity as reservatario

- W/N Carillo’s right has prescribed- Yes- There is a valid reserva troncal- It is presumed that Honoraria died first, then Isabel, then

Adolfo- Thus, when Honoria died, the property was inherited by

Isabel, her mother, then Isabel died, it was inherited by Adolfo

- When adolfo died, it was passed to his maternal grandmother

- Isabel is the origin- Adolfo the descendant-propositus- Agustina the ascendant-reservista- Prima as reservatario- Augustina died in 1950 and the reserva was extinguished- Prima filed an action to recover property in 1963, more

than 10 years after she had a perfect right to recover the property

- Period had prescribed- If the new civil code applied, they would have died at the

same time and no reserva troncal would have been constituted