sux final (portrait).doc

7/27/2019 sux final (portrait).doc

1/50

SUCCESSION September 25, 2013

DISINHERITANCE

The legitime is safeguarded by the law. The testator cannot just deprive his compulsory heirs of theirlegitime. We have discussed preterition the institution of heirs shall be annulled and the preterited heirshall be given his legitime. There will be intestate succession.

Art. 915. A compulor! "e#r m$!, #% co%e&ue%ce o' (##%"er#t$%ce, be (epr#)e( o' "# le*#t#me,

'or c$ue e+prel! t$te( b! l$. -/$

Art. 91. D##%"er#t$%ce c$% be e''ecte( o%l! t"rou*" $ #ll "ere#% t"e le*$l c$ue t"ere'or"$ll be pec#'#e(. -/9

"$t # D##%"er#t$%ce It is defined in Art 91.

!o a comp"ulsory heir can actually be deprived by his legitime but that is for grounds provided for by lawAnd the process of withholding his legitime is what we call disinheritance.

RE4UISITES O DISINHERITANCE

1# it should be for causes e$pressly stated by law %Art 91#

&ili pwede for any cause' pareha sa teleserye na idisinherit (ay magminyo sa dili gusto sa parentsThat cannot be. That is not valid. That is not a ground for disinheritance.

)# it should be made in an e$trinsically valid will%Art 91*#

!o no disinheritance can be made without a will. +or the disinheritance to be valid' the will must alsobe valid. !o if there were valid grounds but the will was witnessed by ) persons only' the will is novalid. Therefore' the disinheritance cannot be given effect.

In ,robate' the court will discuss only the e$trinsic validity of the will identity' due e$ecutiontestamentary capacity. -ne e$ception is preterition. If preterition is apparent from the very face of thewill the court may proceed to determine the uestion of preterition because it will be a waste of time ofthe court and the parties if they later discover that the will cannot be given effect because there ispreterition. That is not an absolute rule ha na once the uestion of preterition is raised the court wilimmediately consider that even during the probate proper. It is in a case to case basis.

6ANINAN7 ) CA7R 85:/ ;u%e 192

Issue: won the omission in the will is preterition or disinheritance.

Held: preterition and disinheritance are 2 diverse concepts.

Preterition "consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, eitherbecause they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor areepressly disinherited." !isinheritance, in turn, "is a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsoryheirs of his share in the legitimate for a cause authoried by law." !isinheritance is always "voluntary",

preterition upon the other hand, is presumed to be "involuntary"

#he effects of preterition and disinheritance are also totally different.

#he effects flowing from preterition are totally different from those of disinheritance. Pretention under$rticle %& of the (ew )ivil )ode shall annul the institution of heir. #his annulment is in toto, unless in thewail there are, in addition, testamentary dispositions in the form of devises or legacies. In ineffectivedisinheritance under $rticle *+% of the same )ode, such disinheritance shall also "annul the institution ofheirs", but only "insofar as it may preudice the person disinherited", which last phrase was omitted in thecase of preterition. -etter stated yet, in disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the estate ofwhich the disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived.

e cannot go directly to the determination of that issue, without first determining won the will isetrinsically valid. hy/ because if indeed it was a disinheritance, a valid disinheritance can only ta0e

place in a valid will. How do we 0now if the will is valid/ 1 If the 3uestions of identity, due eecution, and


2/50

testamentary capacity are answered. 4o that is not an ecuse for going directly to the 3uestion on intrinsicvalidity. If the issue is won there is preterition or disinheritance, we should first go to the etrinsic validityof the will first before we proceed to the intrinsic validity.so that would not warrant an eception to thegeneral rule. $gain because the 3uestion of disinheritance can only be addressed if indeed there is a validwill. 4o it is a prere3uisite that you first 0now won the will is etrinsically valid.

/# the legal cause should be specified %Art 91*#

0ven if there is indeed a ground for disinheritance but it was not mentioned in the will' niingon lang naI hereby disinherit my son2' the disinheritance cannot be given effect.

3# it should be for an e$isting cause

+or e$ample4 iyang ana( ) yrs old pero naay tendency na mahimong criminal. !o gidisinherit na niyaThat is not valid because the cause does not yet e$ist. It cannot be for a future cause.

Art. 91:. T"e bur(e% o' pro)#%* t"e trut" o' t"e c$ue 'or (##%"er#t$%ce "$ll ret upo% t"eot"er "e#r o' t"e tet$tor, #' t"e (##%"er#te( "e#r "oul( (e%! #t. -50

# the cause for the disinheritance must be a true cause

It has to be a true cause because it has to be proved. If the disinherited heir would deny having attemptedagainst the life of the testator' the other heirs have the burden of proving the truth of the cause fordisinheritance. !o dili automatic na ma e$clude' the heir can actually uestion5oppose5deny the ground fordisinheritance.

Art. 91. D##%"er#t$%ce #t"out $ pec#'#c$t#o% o' t"e c$ue, or 'or $ c$ue t"e trut" o' "#c",#' co%tr$(#cte(, # %ot pro)e(, or "#c" # %ot o%e o' t"oe et 'ort" #% t"# Co(e, "$ll $%%ult"e #%t#tut#o% o' "e#r #%o'$r $ #t m$! preA8ID DISINHERITANCE -Art 91


3/50

@RETERITION IN>A8IDDISINHERITANCE

Co%e&ue%ce to t"e#%t#tut#o%o' "e#r

!hall annul theentire institutionof heirs

shall annul theinstitution ofheirs insofar asit may prejudicethe person

disinherited

Ho(#tr#bute(

distribute theestate byintestatesuccession

the devises andlegacies andothertestamentarydispositionsshall be valid tosuch e$tent aswill not impairthe legitime

E+$mple

?


4/50

"e% $ c"#l( or (ece%($%t "$ bee% co%)#cte( o' $(ulter! or co%cub#%$*e #t" t"e poue

o' t"e tet$tor=

"e% $ c"#l( or (ece%($%t b! 'r$u(, )#ole%ce, #%t#m#($t#o%, or u%(ue #%'lue%ce c$ue t"e

tet$tor to m$Be $ #ll or to c"$%*e o%e $lre$(! m$(e=

A re'u$l #t"out


5/50

osario raise her hand against the testator/ 4) found out the cause why osario acted that way, 0aggistoryahan diay siya about sa lala0e na nanguyab sa iyaha. $fter that incident, osario lost all her mentalfaculties 5nabuang a6.

HELD: 4) said that she was not responsible for the disrespect and disobedience shown to her grandfatherduring that occasion. It was found that she was of very tender age 5+ at that time6 and she lost the use ofher mental faculties. 4o basig buang na a before pa ato. It was invalid disinheritance, the ground wasdisregarded because it was not a valid ground for disinheritance.

5=6 hen a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life7

This is a very controversial ground. dishonorable or disgraceful2 we have to ta(e the norms of society. Iacceptable na sa society ang mangawat' then dili na $a dishonorable. 0$ample4 ?apoles she can bedisinherited if maconvict na $a' although she doesn=t need it. Tuition fee girl not dishonorable daw %anasi mac)H


6/50


7/50

when the spouse has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the child' parents of the testatorthat is not mentioned in the provision but we have here when the spouse has given cause for legaseparation. ?ow' what are the cause for legal separationJ Art of the +amily 7ode.

Art. . A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of thefollowing grounds4

%1# Bepeated physical violence or grossly abusiveconduct directed against the petitioner' a common child'or a child of the petitioner8

%)# ,hysical violence or moral pressure to compel thepetitioner to change religious or political affiliation8

%/# Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce thepetitioner' a common child' or a child of the petitioner' toengage in prostitution' or connivance in such corruptionor inducement8

%3# +inal judgment sentencing the respondent toimprisonment of more than si$ years' even if pardoned8

%# &rug addiction or habitual alcoholism of therespondent8

%*# esbianism or homose$uality of the respondent8

%# 7ontracting by the respondent of a subseuentbigamous marriage' whether in the ,hilippines or abroad8

%"# !e$ual infidelity or perversion8

%9# Attempt by the respondent against the life of thepetitioner8 or

%1C# Abandonment of petitioner by respondent withoutjustifiable cause for more than one year.

+or purposes of this Article' the term MchildM shall include a childby nature or by adoption. %9a#

!o ta(e note of those grounds for legal separation. They are also grounds for the disinheritance of thespouse. 7an you disinherit your son because he is gayJ Is this provided for in Art 919J 7ould you say thatbeing a gay is living a corrupt or an immoral lifeJ Then you are bound to receive a lot of objections. !o justbecause a person is a gay is not a ground if he is a child or a parent. ;ut if the spouse or the husband isgay or if the wife is a lesbian' is that a ground to disinherit him or herJ L0!. !o for e$ample' if the spousehas an affair with the child or ascendant of the testator' can that be a ground for disinheritanceJ -( so thatcould be considered as infidelity or perversion' so that is also a ground for legal separation. And ta(e notethat there is no more need of conviction. i(e when a child is convicted of adultery or concubinage to thespouse of the testator' there is a conviction there' but here se$ual infidelity or perversion does not needconviction' a mere preponderance of evidence is sufficient. If that can be proved by preponderance oevidence' then that can be ground for disinheritance.

Attempt by the spouse against the life of the other. Again' in Art 9)1' ?o.1 When the spouse has been

convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator' his or her descendants' or ascendants' so hereconviction by final judgement is reuired but in Art of +7' as a ground for legal separation' when theguilty spouse attempted against the life of the innocent spouse' again here there is no need for convictionby final judgement because a mere preponderance of evidence is sufficient.

!eangio vs BeyesG Actually this case falls under Art 919G !o here the testator left a holographic wildisinheriting his son Alfredo !eangio for a cause. The document is a holographic will which reads asfollows4 ;$0o si 4egundo 4eangio >ilipino may asawa naninirahan sa 8&1$ >lores 4t., ?rmita, 9anila atnagtatalay ng maiwanag na pag1iisip at disposisyon ay tahasan at hayagang inaalisan 0o ng lahat atanumang mana ang paganay 0ong ana0 na si $lfredo 4eangio dahil siya ay naging lapastangan sa a0in atisan beses siya ng sasalita ng masama harapan 0o at mga 0apatid niya na si @irginia 4eangio labis 0ong0inasama ng loob 0o at sasabe rin ni $lfredo sa a0in na a0o nasa ibabaw gayon gunit daratin ang araw naa0o nasa ilalim siya at siya nasa ibabaw.


8/50

Aabis 0ong i0inasama ng loob 0o ang gamit ni $lfredo ng a0in pagalan para ma0apagutang na 0uarta siyaat 0anya asawa na si 9erna de los eyes sa )hina -ang0ing )orporation na millon pesos at hindi ngbabayad at hindi ng babayad ito ay nagdulot sa a0ing ng mala0ing 0ahihiya sa mga may1ari atstoc0holders ng )hina -an0ing.

$t i0inagalit 0o pa rin ang pag0uha ni $lfredo at ng 0anyang asawa na mga customeBrC ng #ravel )enter ofthe Philippines na pinagasiwaan 0o at ng ana0 0o si @irginia.

!ito a0o nagalit din 0aya gayon ayo0o na bilanin si $lfredo ng ana0 0o at hayanan 0ong inaalisan ng lahatat anoman mana na si $lfredo at si $lfredo 4eangio ay hindi 0o siya ana0 at hindi siya ma0oha mana.

Documents

sux final (portrait).doc