Wills 8th Assignment

7/23/2019 Wills 8th Assignment

1/12

Wills 8thAssignment

81. Tison vs CA (1997)

Facts:

The petitioners Corazon Tison and ReneDezoller are niece and nephew of the deceased

Tedora Dezoller Guerrero, who appears to bethe sister of their father Hermogenes Dezoller The present action for recon!e"ance in!ol!es aparcel of land with a house and apartmentwhich was originall" owned b" the spouses#artin Guerrero and Teodora Dezoller Guerrero$t Teodora Dezoller Guerrero died on #arch %,&'8( without an" ascendant or descendant,and was sur!i!ed onl" b" her husband, #artinGuerrero, and herein petitioners )etitioners*father, Hermogenes, died on +ctober (, &'(,hence the" see- to inherit from TeodoraDezoller Guerrero b" right of representation

The records re!eal that upon the death ofTeodora Dezoller Guerrero, her sur!i!ingspouse e.ecuted an A/da!it of 0.tra1udicial2ettlement ad1udicating unto himself, allegedl"as sole heir, the land in dispute #artin sold thelot to herein pri!ate respondent TeodoraDomingo and thereafter

#artin Guerrero died 2ubse3uentl", hereinpetitioners 4led an action for recon!e"anceclaiming that the" are entitled to inherit one5half of the propert" in 3uestion b" right ofrepresentation Tedoro Domingo howe!er,attac-s the legitimac" of Hermogenes

Issue:Whether or not a third person, not thefather nor an heir, ma" attac- the legitimac" ofHermogenes

Held: 6+ The pri!ate respondent is not theproper part" to impugn the legitimac" of hereinpetitioners There is no presumption of the lawmore 4rml" established and founded onsounder moralit" and more con!incing reasonthan the presumption that children born inwedloc- are legitimate And well settled is therule that the issue of legitimac" cannot beattac-ed collaterall"

+nl" the husband can contest thelegitimac" of a child born to his wife He is theone directl" confronted with the scandal andridicule which the in4delit" of his wifeproduces7 and he should decide whether toconceal that in4delit" or e.pose it, in !iew ofthe moral and economic interest in!ol!ed $t isonl" in e.ceptional cases that his heir areallowed to contest such legitimac" +utside ofthese cases, none e!en his heirs canimpugn legitimac"7 that would amount to aninsult to his memor"

82. Verdad vs CA (1996)

Facts:

#acaria Atega was married twice during herlifetime, 4rst with Angel 9urdeos, and secondwith Canuto Rosales 2he owned a land in9utuan Cit" about :;8 s3 m, #acaria died in&'%erdad, whopurchased the lot in 3uestion for ):(,?????from heirs of #acaria@s son Ramon 9urdeosB in&'8: When 2ocorro wife of the deceasedDa!id Rosales who died some time after hismother #acaria diedB found out in #arch (?,&'8 that the lot was sold to >erdad, shesought inter!ention of the upongTagapama"apa for redemption, her tender of):(,????? was refused because the current!alue of the propert" is higher +ctober &erdad

8. Cac!o vs "dan (196#)


2/12

Facts:

Iohn, Rustico and 2il!ina are siblings 2il!inaG Jdan died lea!ing a purported will namingher illegitimate son, Krancisco G Jdan, andone Wencesla Cacho, as her sole heirs, shareand share ali-e During the probate of the will,

opposition was made b" her two brothers onthe ground that the will was not attested ande.ecuted as re3uired b" law, that the testatri.was incapacitated to e.ecute it7 and that it wasprocured b" fraud or undue inLuence Kranciscodied pending the probate The RTC denied theoppositions 4led b" the two brothers Hence,this appeal

Issue: W+6 oppositor brothers, Iohn andRustico Jdan, ma" claim to be heirs intestateof their legitimate sister, the late 2il!ina Jdan

Held: The Court ruled that the court belowcorrectl" held that the" were not, for at the

time of her death 2il!ina*s illegitimate son,Krancisco Jdan, was her heir intestate, to thee.clusion of her brothers under Articles '88and &??( of the go!erning Ci!il Code of the)hilippines in force at the time of the death ofthe testatri. $t decreed that collateral relati!esof one who died intestate inherit onl" in theabsence of descendants, ascendants, andillegitimate children Albeit the brothers andsisters can concur with the widow or widowerunder Article &&?&, the" do, not concur, but aree.cluded b" the sur!i!ing children, legitimateor illegitimate Art &??(B The trial courtcommitted no error in holding that Iohn andRustico Jdan had no standing to oppose the

probate of the will Kor if the will is ultimatel"probated Iohn and Rustico are e.cluded b" itsterms from participation in the estate7 and ifprobate be denied, both oppositors5appellantswill be e.cluded b" the illegitimate son,Krancisco Jdan, as sole intestate heir, b"operation of law The death of Krancisco two"ears after his mother*s demise does notimpro!e the situation of appellants The rightsac3uired b" the former are onl" transmitted b"his death to his own heirs at law not to theappellants, who are legitimate brothers of hismother, for the reason that, as correctl"decided b" the court below, the legitimaterelati!es of the mother cannot succeed herillegitimate child This is clear from Article '':of the Ci!il Code The legitimate relati!es of themother cannot succeed her illegitimate childThis is clear from Article '': of the Ci!il Code

8$. %olivio vs CA (199&)

Facts:

0steban Ia!ellana, Ir, a famous no!elist whowrote the criticall" acclaimed Without 2eeing

the Dawn,E died intestate and without issueHis onl" sur!i!ing relati!es were Celedonia2oli!io the half5sister of his mother, 2alustia2oli!ioB and Concordia Ia!ellana the sister ofhis fatherB The propert" sub1ect of dispute wasa parcel of land in $loilo which 0stebaninherited from his mother

During 0steban@s lifetime, he was !er" !ocalof his desire to put up a foundation in hismother@s name to help poor but deser!ingstudents obtain a college education Thus,Celedonia and 0steban both agreed that thewhole estate of 0steban would be used for thefoundation The" also agreed that Celedoniawould ta-e care of the proceedings Thus, ingood faith, Celedonia was appointed thespecial administratri. and was declared thesole heir of 0steban@s estate

ater on, Concordia 4led a motion forreconsideration of the court@s order declaring

Celedonia as sole heirE because she too wasan heir of the deceased This was denied, soshe instituted a separate action for partitionand reco!er" of the sub1ect propert" This wasgranted b" the RTC Hence, this petition b"Celedonia, in which she in!o-ed reser!a trocalamong others

Issue: Whether or not reser!a troncal isapplicable in this case

Held: 6o The reser!a troncal applies toproperties inherited b" an ascendant from adescendant who inherited it from anotherascendant or ' brother or sister $t does not

appl" to propert" inherited b" a descendantfrom his ascendant, the re!erse of the situationco!ered b" Article 8'& 2ince the deceased,0steban Ia!ellana, Ir, died withoutdescendants, ascendants, illegitimate children,sur!i!ing spouse, brothers, sisters, nephews ornieces, what should appl" in the distribution ofhis estate are Articles &??( and &??' of theCi!il Code which pro!ideM

ART &??( $f there are no descendants,ascendants, illegitimate children, or asur!i!ing spouse, the collateral relati!esshall succeed to the entire estate of thedeceased in accordance with the following

articles

ART &??' 2hould there be neitherbrothers nor sisters, nor children ofbrothers or sisters, the other collateralrelati!es shall succeed to the estate Thelatter shall succeed without distinction oflines or preference among them b" reasonof relationship b" the whole blood


3/12

Howe!er, $t is true that b" the agreement,she did not wai!e her inheritance in fa!or ofCeledonia, but she did agree to place all of0steban*s estate in the N2alustia 2oli!io >da deIa!ellana Koundation, and therefore, Concordiais obligated to honor her commitment asCeledonia has honored hers The petition for

re!iew was granted The decision of the trialcourt and the Court of Appeals were 20TA2$D0 Concordia I >illanue!a is declared anheir of the late 0steban Ia!ellana, Ir entitled toone5half of his estate Howe!er, comformabl"with the agreement between her and her co5heir, Celedonia 2oli!io, the entire estate of thedeceased should be con!e"ed to the N2alustia2oli!io >da de Ia!allana Koundation,N of whichboth the petitioner and the pri!ate respondentshall be trustees, and each shall be entitled tonominate an e3ual number of trustees toconstitute the 9oard of Trustees of theKoundation which shall administer the same forthe purposes set forth in its charter

8#. %arita vs Candia (1912)

Facts:

2pouses Apolinario Cedenio and Roberta#ontesa are allegedl" the owners of a parcel ofland apparentl" of an area of : ca!anes of cornupon which the" had planted fruit treesRespondent Candia claims ownership o!er theland ha!ing purchased the same from >illarosa,the !endee of Apolinario )etitioners claim onthe other hand, that as nieces andnephews,the" are the collateral heirs ofApolinario, through the latter@s brothers and

sisters 2arita, howe!er, is the grandnephew ofApolinario The RTC absol!ed the defendantfrom the complainant, on the grounds that,with regard to the animals and real propert"sued for, there was no proof whate!er thatthe" were in possession of the spouses at thetime of their death, and, with respect to thelandM &B That the defendant was the possessorin good faith continuousl" and was presumedto hold under 1ust title so long as the contrar"should not be pro!ed7 and :B that neither theplaintis nor their alleged predecessors ininterest made demand for it during the periodof twent"5si. "ears, since the ownership

thereof was con!e"ed b" $sidario or ApolinarioCedeOo to Iuan 9asa >illarosa, on the :;th ofIune, &88&, it being that during this !er" longperiod of time the" did not obtain possession ofthe propert" Hence, the 1udgment ha!ing beenappealed through a bill e.ceptions

Issue: W+6 grandnephews ha!e a right ofrepresentation o!er the estate of the deceased

Held: The Court ruled that the right ofrepresentation is limited to nephews andnieces who are children of brothers and sistersof decedent The plainti 2arita who 1oins asthe representati!e of his grandfather in acomplaint with others, who are brothers andnephews of the predecessor in interest, lac-s

such right of representation, for it belongs inthe collateral line onl" to the nephews and notto the grandnephews Hence, sister andnephews of the deceased ha!ing appeared toclaim the inheritance, the", as the nearest of-in, e.clude a remote relati!e li-e agrandnephew

86. '%I% vs Custodio (1969)

Facts:

G2$2 4led a complaint in interpleader todetermine who, among se!eral defendants, isentitled to the retirement bene4ts in the

amount of )8,((' that fell due to a deceasedG2$2 member, 2imeon Custodio Defendant5cross5claimant5appellee 2usana Custodio, asur!i!ing sister of the decedent and the aunt ofthe other defendants, claims to be the solebene4ciar" thereof Howe!er, her nephews andnieces contest her recognition as such andclaim to be entitled to share in the proceeds b"right of representation of their deceasedfathers, who are three (B brothers of the late2imeon These nephews and niecesdefendants5cross5claimants5appellees in thiscaseB are the followingM #acario, C, #acario A,uisa, Da!id, Romualdo, Iulian, #oises, Adrianoand Celestina, all surnamed NCustodioN

$n the stipulation of facts, it was agreed thatshortl" after the death of 2$#0+6 CJ2T+D$+,there was found among his personalbelongings an undated and unsignedapplication form for Retirement accomplishedb" said 2$#0+6 CJ2T+D$+ wherein his sister,2J2A6A CJ2T+D$+ was named the bene4ciar",although said application form was ne!ersubmitted to G2$2E $t was also stipulated thatMThat on Iul" , &'%, at the residence of eonP Tongohan, son5in5law of 2usana Custodio atTana", Rizal, 2J2A6A, R+#JAD+, IJ$A6,#ACAR$+ A, #+$202, ADR$A6+, andC002T$6A, all surnamed CJ2T+D$+, and IJ$AT+6G+HA6 e.ecuted a document entitledN0.tra Iudicial 2ettlement of 0state AmongHeirs* which pro!ides, among other things thatNcB Kor an" amount due the decedent 2$#0+6CJ2T+D$+, holder of G2$2 polic" 6o (%%,our Aunt 2usana Custodio as the decedent*sonl" li!ing sister, is hereb" recognized b" theaforementioned heirs as the sole and onl"bene4ciar" of the decedent 2$#0+6CJ2T+D$+, and gi!ing unto our Aunt 2usana


4/12

Custodio the right to 4le, sign and recei!ewhate!er retirement pa" under Republic Act


5/12

87. Aellana de aca*o vs orro+eo(196#)

Facts:

#elodia Kerraris was a resident of Cebu Cit"until &'( when she transferred to $ntramuros,#anila 2he was -nown to ha!e resided in#anilacontinuousl" until &';; #ore than ten&?B "ears ha!ing elapsed since the last timeshe was -nown to be ali!e, she was declaredpresumpti!el" dead for purposes of openingher succession and distributing her estateamong her heirs

#elodia Kerraris left properties in Cebu Cit"The deceased #elodia Kerraris left no sur!i!ingdirect descendant, ascendant, or spouse, butwas sur!i!ed onl" b" collateral relati!es,namel", Kilomena Abellana de 9aca"o, an auntand half5sister of decedent*s father, AnacletoKerraris7 and b" Gaudencia, Catalina, Conchita,

and Iuanito, all surnamed Kerraris, her niecesand nephew, who were the children of#elodia*s onl" brother of full blood, ArturoKerraris, who pre5deceased her the decedentB

The trial court ruled that the appellees, aschildren of the onl" predeceased brother of thedecedent, are nearer in degree than theappellant since nieces and nephews succeedb" right of representation

Issue:Who among the claimants are entitledto the inheritanceF

Held: We agree with appellants that as an auntof the deceased she is as far distant as thenephews from the decedent three degreesBsince in the collateral line to which both -indsof relati!es belong degrees are counted b" 4rstascending to the common ancestor and thendescending to the heir Appellant is li-ewiseright in her contention that nephews andnieces alone do not inherit b" right ofrepresentation ie, per stripesB unlessconcurring with brothers or sisters of thedeceased

6e!ertheless, the trial court was correctwhen it held that, in case of intestac", nephewsand nieces of the de cu1us e.clude all other

collaterals aunts and uncles, 4rst cousins, etcBfrom the succession Jnder Article &??', theabsence of brothers, sisters, nephews andnieces of the decedent is a precondition to theother collaterals uncles, cousins, etcB beingcalled to the succession 9rothers and sistersand nephews and nieces inherited ab intestatoahead of the sur!i!ing spouse, while othercollaterals succeeded onl" after the widower orwidow The present Ci!il Code of the )hilippinesmerel" placed the spouse on a par with the

nephews and nieces and brothers and sisters ofthe deceased, but without altering thepreferred position of the latter !is5a5!is theother collaterals Therefore, a decedent*suncles and aunts ma" not succeed ab intestatoso long as nephews and nieces of the decedentsur!i!e and are willing and 3uali4ed to

succeed

88. ico+on, vs Al+an-a (1977)

Facts:

2imeon 9agsic was married to 2isenanda9arcenas ha!ing three childrenM )erpetua,$gmedia and $gnacio When 2isenda died,2imeon married 2il!estra producing twochildrenM Kelipa and #aura The sub1ect matterof the complaint concerns the one5halfundi!ided share of #aura 9agsic in the %parcels of land which she inherited from herdeceased mother, 2il!estra Glorioso

Three sets of plaintis 4led the complaint,namel"M aB the 9icomongs, children of)erpetua 9agsic7 bB the Tolentinos, children of$gmedia 9agsic7 and cB Krancisco 9agsic,daughter of $gnacio 9agsic, in the CK$ ofaguna and 2an )ablo Cit" against thedefendants Geronimo Almanza and 0ngracio#enese for the reco!er" of their lawful sharesin the properties left b" #aura 9agsic

After the death of #aura 9agsic, propertiespassed on to Cristela Almanza who too- chargeof the administration of the same Thereupon,the plaintis approached her and re3uested for

the partition of their aunt*s propertiesHowe!er, the" were pre!ailed upon b" CristetaAlmanza not to di!ide the properties "et as thee.penses for the last illness and burial of#aura 9agsic had not "et been paid Ha!ingagreed to defer the partition of the same, theplaintis brought out the sub1ect againsometime in &'%' onl" This time CristetaAlmanza acceded to the re3uest as the debts,accordingl", had alread" been paidJnfortunatel", she died without the di!ision ofthe properties ha!ing been eected, thereb"lea!ing the possession and administration ofthe same to the defendants

The trial court rendered 1udgment in fa!orof plaintis The respondents ha!e the right toinherit from #aura b" right of representationThe appellate court certi4ed the case to the2upreme Court

Issue:Whether the nephews and nieces fromthe brothers and sisters whether full or halfblood has the right to inherit


6/12

Held:es The nephews and nieces from thebrothers and sisters whether full or half bloodhas the right to inherit $n the absence ofdefendants, ascendants, illegitimate children,or a sur!i!ing spouse, Art &??( of the 6CCpro!ides that collateral relati!es shall succeedto the entire estate of the deceased $t

appearing that #aura 9agsic died intestatewithout an issue, and her husband and all herascendants had died ahead of her, she issucceeded b" the sur!i!ing collateral relati!es,namel" the daughter of her sister of full bloodand the ten &?B children of her brother andtwo :B sisters of half blood in accordance withthe pro!ision of Art '% of the 6CC

Jnder the same pro!ision, Art '%, whichma-es no 3uali4cation as to whether thenephews or nieces are on the maternal orpaternal line and without preference as towhether their relationship to the deceased isb" whole or half blood, the sole niece of whole

blood of the deceased does not e.clude the tennephews and n of half blood The onl"dierence in their right of succession ispro!ided in Art &??8, 6CC in relation to Art&??< of the 6CC, which pro!isions, in eect,entitle the sole niece of full blood to a sharedouble that of the nephews and nieces of halfblood

89. Fernande- vs Fernande- (2&&1)

Facts:

The late 2pouses Dr Iose P Kernandez, andGenerosa A de >enecia were the registered

owners of a parcel of land located at DagupanCit" and the two5store" building constructedthereon Generosa ga!e birth to a bab" bo"named Rogelio who died when he was onl"twel!e &:B "ears old as paral"tic $t wasre!ealed that the late 2pouses being childlessb" the death of their son, purchased from acertain #iliang for ):??? a one &B monthbab" bo" The bo" being referred to was lateron identi4ed as Rodolfo Kernandez, the hereinappellantpetitioner Appellant was ta-en careof b" the couple and was sent to school andbecame a dental technician He li!ed with thecouple until the" became old and disabled

+n Iul" :?, &'8:, Iose P Kernandez diedthereb" lea!ing his wife Generosa A de>enecia and Rodolfo Kernandez his estateAppellant and Generosa de >enecia e.ecuted aDeed of 0.tra51udicial )artition di!iding andallocating to themsel!es the properties of Iose+n the same da", Generosa de >eneciae.ecuted a Deed of Absolute 2ale in fa!or of0ddie Kernandez, appellants son o!er the sameproperties

After learning the transaction, Romeo,)otenciano, Krancisco, Iulita, William, #ar",Ale1andro, Gerardo, Rodolfo and Gregorio, allsurnamed Kernandez, being nephews andnieces of the deceased Iose P Kernandez, theirfather Genaro being a brother of Iose, 4led on2eptember :&, &'';, an action to declare the

0.tra5Iudicial )artition of 0state and Deed of2ale !oid ab initio

Their main contention was that petitioner5appellant Rodolfo was neither a legitimate nora legall" adopted child of 2pouses Kernandez,hence, he could not inherit

The RTC and CA ruled in fa!or of thenewphews and nieces )etitioner argued thatboth lower courts had no power to pass uponthe matter of 4liation because it could not becollaterall" attac-ed in the present action butin a separate and independent action directl"impugning such 4liation

Issue: Whether or not Rodolfo has right toinherit

Held: 6o $t must be noted that therespondents principal action was for thedeclaration of absolute nullit" of twodocuments, namel"M deed of e.tra51udicialpartition and deed of absolute sale, and not anaction to impugn ones legitimac" Therespondent court ruled on the 4liation ofpetitioner Rodolfo Kernandez in order todetermine Rodolfos right to the deed of e.tra51udicial partition as the alleged legitimate heirof the spouses Kernandez While we are aware

that ones legitimac" can be 3uestioned onl" ina direct action seasonabl" 4led b" the properpart", this doctrine has no application in theinstant case considering that respondentsclaim was that petitioner Rodolfo was not bornto the deceased spouses Iose and GenerosaKernandez7 we do not ha!e a situation whereinthe" respondentsB den" that Rodolfo was achild of their uncles wife

$n another case, the Court heldM )etitionersrecourse to Art :ioletaCabatbat im is an illegitimate child of thedeceased, but that she is not the decedentschild at all 9eing neither legall" adopted child,nor an ac-nowledged natural child, nor a child


7/12

b" legal 4ction of 0speranza Cabatbat, >ioletais not a legal heir of the deceasedE

Thus, it is necessar" to pass upon therelationship of petitioner Rodolfo Kernandez tothe deceased spouses Kernandez for thepurpose of determining what legal right Rodolfo

has in the propert" sub1ect of the e.tra51udicialpartition $n fact, the issue of whether or notRodolfo Kernandez was the son of the deceasedspouses Iose Kernandez and Generosa de>enecia was s3uarel" raised b" petitioners intheir pre5trial brief 4led before the trial court,hence the" are now estopped from assailingthe trial courts ruling on Rodolfos status

We agree with the respondent court when itfound that petitioner Rodolfo failed to pro!e his4liation with the deceased spouses Kernandez2uch is a factual issue which has beenthoroughl" passed upon and settled both b"the trial court and the appellate court

Considering the foregoing 4ndings,petitioner Rodolfo is not a child b" nature ofthe spouses Kernandez and not a legal heir ofDr Iose Kernandez , thus the sub1ect deed ofe.tra51udicial settlement of the estate of DrIose Kernandez between Generosa !da deKernandez and Rodolfo is null and !oid insofaras Rodolfo is concerned pursuant to Art&&?%of the 6ew Ci!il Code which statesM A partitionwhich includes a person belie!ed to be an heir,but who is not, shall be !oid onl" with respectto such personE

The Court agreed with petitioner thatM since

respondents admitted that the propert" in3uestion was the con1ugal propert" of the latespouses Dr Iose Kernandez and Generosa de>enecia, it follows that when Dr Iose Kernandezdied intestate in &'8:, his estate consistedsolel" of pro indi!iso of the con1ugal propert"and the other half belonged to his wifeGenerosa de >enecia7 that granting Dr IoseKernandez was onl" sur!i!ed b" his wife, therespondents nephews and nieces of Dr Ioseare entitled to inherit the share of thedecedents estate while the share of thecon1ugal propert" will still belong to Generosaas the widow of Dr Iose Kernandez, hence thetrial courts order recon!e"ing the possession of

the sub1ect lot and building to respondents wascontrar" to the admitted facts and law sincerespondents are not related b" consanguinit"to Generosa !da de Kernandez Article &??& ofthe Ci!il Code pro!idesM 2hould brothers andsisters or their children sur!i!e with the widowor widower, the latter shall be entitled to onehalf of the inheritance and the brothers andsisters or their children to the other halfE

Generosa was the widow of Dr IoseKernandez and as pro!ided in the abo!e53uoted Article &??&, she is entitled to the ofthe inheritance and the respondents to theother $n eect, pro indi!iso is the share ofGenerosa as the sur!i!ing spouse, ie, as hershare of the con1ugal propert" estate and of

the remaining as share as heir from herhusbands estate Thus, we 4nd well ta-en thepetitioners assertion that the annulment of thee.tra51udicial partition between Generosa andpetitioner Rodolfo does not necessaril" result inrespondents ha!ing e.clusi!e right to thecon1ugal propert", as erroneousl" found b" therespondent court Generosa, during herlifetime, had the right to en1o" and dispose ofher propert" without other limitations thanthose established b" law, which right shee.ercised b" e.ecuting a deed of sale in fa!orof petitioner 0ddie Kernandez

)etitioners further allege that the

respondent court erred in declaring null and!oid the deed of sale e.ecuted betweenGenerosa and petitioner 0ddie Kernandezconcluding that the same was simulated orfalse and in a/rming the trial courts 4ndingsthat the deed was prepared and e.ecutedunder abnormal, unusual and irregularcircumstances without howe!er, particularl"stating the circumstances We agreeRespondents allege that the deed of sale was4ctitious and simulated because there was noconsideration for the sale Howe!er, thisassertion was contro!erted b" !endeepetitioner 0ddie Kernandez declaration, thatthe mone" he paid for the sale came from hissa!ings as o!erseas contract wor-er in 2audiArabia from &'8:5&'8' which respondentsfailed to contro!ert b" presenting e!idence tothe contrar" The presumption that a contracthas su/cient consideration cannot beo!erthrown b" a mere assertion that it has noconsideration Jnder Art &(%; of the Ci!ilCode, consideration is presumed unless thecontrar" is pro!en

9&. Cit* o /anila vs Arc!is!o0 (1917)

Facts:

$n &


8/12

administration should continue perpetuall" $n&icente K opez, as guardian The willinstituted as uni!ersal heirs of all his propert"his daughter uz opez de 9ueno and cousinopez opez died ; da"s from the time the willwas made and the testator died about a month

thereafter The time the will was made opezhad not presented his 4nal accounts asguardian, and no such accounts had beenpresented b" him at the time of his death#argarita opez was a cousin and nearestrelati!e of the decedent, 4led a case claiminghalf of the estate of Tomas b" intestate

succession as ne.t of -in and nearest heir uz,on the other hand, claims the same b"accretion and in the character of uni!ersal heirunder the will of Tomas Appellant contendsthat there has super!ened a partial intestac"with respect to the half of the estate which wasintended for >icente K opez and that this halfhas descended to the appellant The trial courtruled in fa!or of uz

Issue: Whether or not one5half of the estate ofTomas Rodri3uez should go to #argarita opezbeing the ne.t of -in and nearest heir of>icente opez or to his daughter b" accretionF

Held:Article %( of the Ci!il Code which ineect declares that, with certain e.ceptions infa!or of near relati!es, no testamentar"pro!ision shall be !alid when made b" a wardin fa!or of his guardian before the 4nalaccounts of the latter ha!e been appro!edThis pro!ision is of undoubted application tothe situation before the court and the pro!isionmade in the will of Tomas Rodriguez in fa!or of>icente K opez was not an" general incapacit"on his part, but a special incapacit" due to theaccidental relation of guardian and warde.isting between the parties

Accretion ta-es place in a testamentar"

success when two or more persons are calledto the same inheritance or the same portionthereof without special designation of sharesand secondl", when one of the persons socalled dies before the testator or renounces theinheritance or is dis3uali4ed to recei!e it

$n the case before us we ha!e a will calling>icente K opez and his daughter, uz opezde 9ueno, to the same inheritance withoutspecial designation of shares $n addition tothis, one of the persons named as heir haspredeceased the testator, this person beingalso dis3uali4ed to recei!e the estate e!en ifhe had been ali!e at the time of the testator*s

death b" reason of his being then the legalguardian of the testator with accountsunsettled, does not ma-e a case for intestatesuccession as to his part of the estate Thisarticle '8:B is the e.act application to thecase and its eect is to gi!e to the sur!i!or,uz opez de 9ueno, not onl" the undi!idedhalf which she would ha!e recei!ed incon1unction with her father if he had been ali!eand 3uali4ed to ta-e, but also the half which


9/12

pertained to him There was no error whate!er,therefore in the order of the trial courtdeclaring uz opez de 9ueno entitled to thewhole estate

92. e0o+uceno vs IAC (198#)

Facts:

+n Iul" &


10/12

its probate order egac" made in a will cannotbe distributed without a prior li3uidation of thedecedent@s estate and pa"ment of debts andta.es A legac" is not a debt of the estate forwhich a writ of e.ecution ma" issue An orderof e.ecution that !aries the terms of a 4nalorder can be 3uestioned in a certiorari

proceeding

9$. %anc!e- vs CA (1997)

Facts:

)ri!ate respondent Rosalia 2 ugod is theonl" child of spouses Iuan C 2anchez and#aria >illafranca while Arturo 2 ugod, 0!el"n Ranises and Roberto 2 ugod are thelegitimate children of Rosalia )etitionersRolando, Klorida #ierl", Alfredo and #"rna, allsurnamed 2anchez, are the illegitimatechildren of Iuan C 2anchez Rosalia 4led apetition for letters of administration o!er the

estate of her mother following her death andthe estate of her father, Iuan, who was at thetime in a state of senilit" 9ut before theadministration proceedings could formall" beterminated and closed, Iuan died 2uch thatpetitioners as heirs of Iuan, 4led a petition forletters of administration o!er the intestateestate of Iuan, which petition was opposed b"Rosalia Thereafter, Rosalia and petitionerse.ecuted a Compromise Agreement whereinthe" agreed to di!ide the propertiesenumerated therein of the late Iuan 2anchez)etitioners 4led a #otion to re3uireadministratri., Rosalia, to deli!er de4cienc" of:; hectares andor to set aside compromise

agreement )ri!ate respondent Rosalia andpetitioners entered into and e.ecuted amemorandum of agreement which modi4edthe compromise agreement 6ine "ears later,petitioners 4led a motion to re3uire Rosalia tosubmit a new in!entor" and to render anaccounting o!er properties not included in thecompromise agreement The" li-ewise 4led amotion to defer the appro!al of thecompromise agreement, in which the" pra"edfor the annulment of the compromiseagreement on the ground of fraud

The trial court declared the compromiseagreement !oid and unenforceable, the samenot ha!ing been appro!ed b" the intestatecourt and that the same ha!ing beenseasonabl" repudiated b" petitioners on theground of fraud The Court of Appeals re!ersedthe trial court and declared the modi4ed

compromise agreement !alid and binding)etitioners contend that, because thecompromise agreement was e.ecuted duringthe pendenc" of the probate proceedings,1udicial appro!al is necessar" to shroud it with!alidit"

Issue: Whether or not the compromiseagreement entered b" the parties during thependenc" of probate proceedings is !alid andbinding

Held: es Article :?:8 of the Ci!il Codede4nes a compromise agreement as Nacontract whereb" the parties, b" ma-ing

reciprocal concessions, a!oid a litigation or putan end to one alread" commencedN 9eing aconsensual contract, it is perfected upon themeeting of the minds of the parties Iudicialappro!al is not re3uired for its perfection)etitioners* argument that the compromise wasnot !alid for lac- of 1udicial appro!al is notno!el7 the same was raised in #a"uga !sCourt of Appeals, where the Court ruledM $t isalleged that the lac- of 1udicial appro!al is fatalto the compromise A compromise is aconsensual contract As such, it is perfectedupon the meeting of the minds of the parties tothe contract And from that moment not onl"does it become binding upon the parties, it also

has upon them the eect and authorit" of res1udicata Ci!il Code, Art :?(B, e!en if not1udiciall" appro!ed E $n the case before us, it isineludible that the parties -nowingl" and freel"entered into a !alid compromise agreementAde3uatel" assisted b" their respecti!ecounsels, the" each negotiated its terms andpro!isions for four months7 in fact, saidagreement was e.ecuted onl" after the fourthdraft As noted b" the trial court itself, the 4rstand second drafts were prepared successi!el"in Iul", &'


11/12

settlement that is not onl" allowed but alsoencouraged in ci!il cases Article :?:' of theCi!il Code mandates that a Ncourt shallendea!or to persuade the litigants in a ci!ilcase to agree upon some fair compromiseN$nopposing the !alidit" and enforcement of thecompromise agreement, petitioners harp on

the minorit" of Klorida #ierl", Alfredo and#"na Citing Article :?(: of the Ci!il Code,the" contend that the court*s appro!al isnecessar" in compromises entered into b"guardians and parents in behalf of their wardsor children Howe!er, we obser!e that althoughdenominated a compromise agreement, thedocument in this case is essentiall" a deed ofpartition, pursuant to Article &?8: of the Ci!ilCode which pro!ides that NUeV!er" act which isintended to put an end to indi!ision among co5heirs and legatees or de!isees is deemed to bea partition, although it should purport to be asale, an e.change, a compromise, or an" othertransactionNKor a partition to be !alid, 2ection

&, Rule ; of the Rules of Court, re3uires theconcurrence of the following conditionsM &B thedecedent left no will7 :B the decedent left nodebts, or if there were debts left, all had beenpaid7 (B the heirs and li3uidators are all of age,or if the" are minors, the latter are representedb" their 1udicial guardian or legalrepresentati!es7 and ;B the partition wasmade b" means of a public instrument ora/da!it dul" 4led with the Register of DeedsWe 4nd that all the foregoing re3uisites arepresent in this case We therefore a/rm the!alidit" of the parties* compromiseagreementpartition in this case

9#. a-areno vs CA (2&&&)

Facts:

#a.iminoo 6azareno 2r and Aurea )obletewere husband and wife Aurea died on April &%,&'? , while #a.imo 2r died on December &8,&'8? The" were sur!i!ed b" their children,6ati!idad, Romeo, Iose, )aci4co and #a.iminooIr #a.iminoo Ir and 6ati!idad are petitionersin this case, while Romeo and his wife are

respondents Deceased spouses 6azarenoac3uired properties in Suezon Cit" and inCa!ite $t is the ownership of some of theseproperties that is in 3uestion in this case $tappears that after the death of #a.imino 2rRomeo 4led an intestate case in the CK$ ofCa!ite Romeo was appointed administrator ofhis father@s estate $n the course of theproceedings, Romeo disco!ered that hisparents e.ecuted se!eral deeds of salecon!e"ing a number of real properties in fa!orof his sister, 6ati!idad This in!ol!ed < lots inSC one of which is a lot occupied b" Romeoand his wife This lot was later sold b"6ati!idad to #a.imino Ir

Romeo 4led on behalf of the estate of#a.imino 2r, a case for annulment of sale withdamages against 6ati!idad and #a.imino Ir onthe ground that both sales were !oid for lac- ofconsideration Trial Court rendered 1udgementdeclaring the nullit" of the deed of sale CAmodi4ed RTC, ordered lots cancelled andrestored to the estate of #a.imino 2r

Issue: Whether upon death of the deceasedspouses their estate alone can see- theannulment of said saleF Whether the sale is!alidF

Held: The petition is without merit The factthat other properties had allegedl" been soldb" the spouses #a.imino 2r and Aurea doesnot necessaril" show that the deed of salemade in fa!or of 6ati!idad is !alid The trialcourt and CA found that the 6azareno spousestransferred their properties to their children b"4ctitious sales in order to a!oid pa"ment ofinheritance ta.es $t was also found out that6ati!idad had no means to pa" for the si. lotssub1ect of the deed of sale The estate of#a.imino alone cannot contest the !alidit" ofthe deed of sale because the estate of Aureahas not been settled CA decision a/rmed

96. 4ara,osa vs CA (2&&&)

Facts:

Kla!io =aragoza Cano was a registeredowner of certain parcels of land situated at themunicipalities of Cabatuan, 6ew ucena and2ta 9arbara, $loilo He had four children,Gloria, =acariaz, Klorentina and Alberta +nDecemeber &'


12/12

Alberta =aragoza5#organ 4led a complaintagainst Klorentino for deli!er" of herinheritance share, consisting of lots ';( and8& and for pa"ment of damages 2he claimsthat, his father in his lifetime partitioned thesaid properties among his children The sharesof her brothers and sisters were gi!en to them

in ad!ance b" wa" of deed of sale, but without!alid consideration Her share, lots ';( and8& were not con!e"ed then 2he a!erred thatbecause of her marriage, she became anAmerican citizen and was prohibited to ac3uirelands in the )hilippines e.cept b" hereditar"succession

)etitioners denied that there was partitionof the estate of their father during his lifetimeThe trial court ruled and ordered ad1udicationlot 8& to the plainti Alberta , the claim for lot';( is dismissed Ca re!ersed RTC in so far aslot ';( is concerned, ordered Alberta as ownerof lot ';(

Issues: &B Whether the partition inter !i!os b"Kla!io =aragoza of his properties whichincludes lot 8& and ';( !alid7 :B Whether the

!alidit" of the sale and conse3uentl", the TCTo!er lot ';( registered in the name of)etitioners Klorentina be a !alid sub1ect matterof the entire proceeding for the deli!er" of theinheritance share

Held:This court a/rms the decision of CA, lots

8& and ';( were inheritance shares ofrespondent, based on documentar" e!idenceand testimonial e!idence )artition during thelifetime of Kla!io zaragoza is !alid $t is basic inthe law of succession that a partition inter!i!os ma" be done for as long as legitimes arenot pre1udiced Article &?8? of the Ci!il Code isclear, the petition, must be dismissed withoutpre1udice to the institution of a new proceedingwere all the indispensable parties are presentfor the rightful determination of theirrespecti!e legitime 2econd $ssue )etition is acollateral attac- $t is not allowed b" 2ec ;8 of)D &%:' The certi4cate, in absence of fraud, ise!eidence of title and shows e.actl" the real

interest of the owner The title once registered2hould not be thereafter impugned, altered orchanged e.cept in direct proceeding permittedb" law

Documents

Wills 8th Assignment