8/12/2019 For Succession

1/3

Art. 777 Prof. Balane says the terminology used in this article is infelicitous because the rightto the succession is not transmitted; but rather vested.To say that it is transmitted upon death implies that before the decedents death, the right to thesuccession was possessed by the decedent [which is absurd].To say that it vests upon death implies that before the decedents death the right was merelyinchoate [which is correct].THE LAW PRESUMES THAT the person succeedingHas a right to succeed by

Legitime [compulsory succession],

Will [testamentary succession], orLaw [intestate succession]

Has the legal capacity to succeed, and

Accepts the successional portion

The vesting of the right occurs immediately upon the decedents death; i.e. without a momentsinterruption. From this principle, the following consequences flow The law in force at the time of the decedents death will determine who the heirs should beNew Civil CodeAugust 30, 1950

Ownership passes to the heir at the very moment of death, who therefore, from that momentacquires the right to dispose of his share.

The heirs have the right to be substituted for the deceased as party in an action that survives.Because the heir acquires ownership at the moment of death and become parties in interest.

It should be emphasized that the operation of Art. 777 is at the very moment of the decedentsdeath, meaning the transmission by succession occurs at the precise moment of death andtherefore the heir, devisee, or legatee is legally deemed to have acquired ownership at thatmoment, even if, particularly in the heirs case, he will generally not know how much he will be

inheriting and what properties he will ultimately be receiving, and not at the time of declarationof heirs or partition or distribution.

3 Kinds of Succession Accdg to Art. 778:TestamentaryThat which results from the designation of an heir, made in a will.Legal or IntestateLost definition: takes place by operation of law in the absence of a valid will. (nowill, void will,valid but inoperative willMixedThat effected partly by will and partly by operation of law.

Some observationsEnumeration cannot satisfactorily accommodate the system of legitimes.Legal or intestate succession operates only in default of a will [Arts960 and 961], while thelegitime operates whether or not there is a will, in fact prevails over a will.There are instances where the rules on legitime [Arts 887] operate, to the exclusion of the ruleson intestacy [Arts 960..]It is therefore best for clarity, to classify succession to the legitime as a separate and distinctkind of succession, which, for want of a better term, can be denominated compulsorysuccession.

Until the effectivity of the Family Code, there was one exceptional case of succession bycontract [contractual succession] found in Article 130 of Civil Code.ART 130. The future spouses may give each other in their marriage settlements as much asone-fifth of their present property, and with respect to their future property, only in the event ofdeath, to the extent laid down by the provisions of this Code referring to testamentarysuccession.

Donations propter nuptias of future property, made by one of the future spouses to the other,took effect mortis cause, and had only to be done in the marriage settlements, which weregoverned only by the Statute of Frauds.It was the only instance of Contractual Succession in our civil law.This has been eliminated by the Family Code in Article 84 paragraph 2:

Donations offuture property shall be governed by the provisions on testamentary successionand the formalities of wills.

Since under the provision, any donation of future property between the affianced couple is to begoverned by the rules of testamentary succession and the forms of wills, contractual successionno longer exists in this jurisdiction.Such a donation becomes an ordinary case of testamentary succession. (in antenuptialsagreement, there are 2 kinds of donation : MC and IV.

FOUR KINDS OF SUCCESSION ACCORDING TO IMPORTANCE [Prof. Balane]

COMPULSORYSuccession to the legitimePrevails over all other kinds

TESTAMENTARY [Art. 779]Succession by will

INTESTATESuccession in default of a will

MIXED [Art. 780]Not a distinct kind really, but a combination of any two or all of the first three.

DEATHLESS SUCCESSION: the effects of nullity of marriages, annulment, and legalseparation as provided in the FC provide for the delivery of presumptive legitimes by way ofcash, property or sound securities to the common children: Art. 50, 51 annulment anddeclaration of nullity. (succession takes place without the element of death.

Article 781 is best deleted; it serves only to confuse.The inheritance includes only those things enumerated in Article 776. Whatever accrues theretoafter the decedents death [which is when the succession opens] belongs to the heir, not byvirtue of succession, but by virtue of ownership.

To say, as Art781 does, that accruals to the inheritance after the decedents death are includedin the inheritance is to negate the principle in Art777 that transmission takes place precisely atthe moment of death.Once the decedent dies and the heir inherits, the fruits of the property or inheritance belongs tothe heir by accession, and not by succession. This is so even if the heir does not actuallyreceive the inheritance.If the assets left behind by the decedent are not sufficient to pay the debts, may the creditorsclaims the fruits produced by the decedents property after his death? Or do these fruits pertainto the heirs?But wouldnt the debts be deducted from the estate first before the properties are distributed tothe heirs? (misonif the creditors cannot claim on the asset they can claim on the income.)

The distinction between an heir and a devisee or legatee is important because on this distinctiondepends the correct application of Art854 on preterition.In cases of preterition, the institution of an heir is annulled, while the institution of legatees anddevisees is effective to the extent that the legitimes are not impaired. Instituted heirs will notreceive anything by virtue of their institution or under the will but they may receive something byway of intestacyThe legatees and the devises are favored since they will still receive what was given to themdespite the preterition.

The codal definitions are neither clear nor very helpful. They are so open-ended that an heir can

fall under the definition of a legatee/devisee and vice-versa.I give X my f ishpond in Navotas by definition of heir, is not X called to the succession byprovision of a will and therefore an heir?I give X of my estate if in the partition, X receives a fishpond, can X, by definition, not beconsidered a devisee, having received a gift of real property by will?Void disinheritance: Art. 918 if the disinheritance is void, there is a violation of the rights of anheir to receive his legitime huts the institution of heirs will also be annulled but the devisees /legacies will ramin valid.WHY??? In the case of an heir, though he may receive a larger amount, the testator did notcreate a specific preference for what the heir will receive and this depends on the liquidationprocess.on the other hand, legacies and devisees is granted particular properties to designatedbeneficiaries.

The definitions of the Spanish Code in conjunction with Castans explanations are more helpful: Heirone who succeeds to the WHOLE or an A liquot part of the inheritanceDEVISEE / LEGATEEthose who succeed to definite, specific, and individual properties.

CHARACTERISTICS OF WILLSPURELY PERSONAL

Articles 784, 785 and 787

FREE AND INTELLIGENTArticle 839The testators consent should not be vitiated by the causes mentioned in Article 839 paragraphs2-6 on Insanity, Violence, Intimidation, Undue Influence, Fraud and Mistake.

SOLEMN AND FORMAL

Articles 804-814 and 820-821The requirements of form depend on whether the will is attested or holographic.Articles 805-808 and 820-821 govern attested wills. Articles 810-814 govern holographic wills.Article 804 applies to both.

REVOCABLE AND AMBULATORYArticle 828. No rights can be said to have been impaired since succession only opens at themoment of death.

MORTIS CAUSAArticle 783This is a necessary consequence of Articles 774 and 777.

INDIVIDUALArticle 818Joint wills are prohibited in this jurisdiction.

EXECUTED WITH ANIMUS TESTANDIThis characteristic is implied in Article 783Rizals valedictory poem Ultimo Adios was not a will. An instrument which merely expresses alast wish as a thought or advice but does not contain a disposition of property and was notexecuted with animus testandi, cannot be legally considered a will.

EXECUTED WITH TESTAMENTARY CAPACITYArticles 796803 on testamentary capacity and intent

UNILATERALThis characteristic is implied in Article 783

DISPOSITIVE OF PROPERTYArticle 783 seems to consider the disposition of the testators estate mortis causa as thepurpose of will-making.

STATUTORYWill-making is a permitted by statuteIt is only when the will disposes of property, wither directly or indirectly, that it has to beprobated. When there is no disposition of property, it is submitted that, although the instrumentmay be considered as a will, it does not have to be probated; its dispositions which are Would adocument merely appointing an executor, not containing any dispositive provision, have tocomply with the formal requirements of a will in order to be effective? Would such a documenthave to be probated?Justice Hofilena says NO, because there is no disposition and such appointment would not beunder the category of a will. Therefore, the formal requirements of a will do not apply.Would a document containing only a disinheriting clause have to be in the form of a will and be

probated? [Article 916]YES. According to Art916, disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein the legalcause therefore shall be specified.A valid disinheritance is in effect a disposition of the property of the testator in favor of thosewho would succeed in the absence of the disinherited heir. Unless the will is probated, thedisinheritance cannot be given effect

This provision gives the will its purely personal character.

NON-DELEGABILITY OF WILL-MAKINGIt is the exercise of the disposing power that cannot be delegated.Obviously, mechanical aspects, such as typing, do not fall within the prohibition.

8/12/2019 For Succession

2/3

What Constitute the Essence of Will-Making or the Exercise of the Disposing Power? The ff arenon-delegable:The designation of heirs, devisees or legateesThe duration of efficacy of such designation, including such things as conditions, terms,substitutions;The determination of the portions they are to receive.Exception to the Rule on Non-Delegability of Will-Making. Without this provision, the thingsallowed to be delegated here would be non-delegable.

TWO things MUST BE determined by the testator

The property or amount of money to be given; andThe class or the cause to be benefited.

TWO THINGS MAY BE DELEGATED BY THE TESTATORThe designation of persons, institutions, or establishments within the class or cause;The manner of distribution

What is delegated is the determination of recipients of the specified properties to persons,institutions w/in the specified class or cause. The 3rd person merely implements the dispositionsas to who are to receive the estate of the testator. For the delegated power to be ministerial, thetestator has to provide guidelines.

QuestionSuppose the testator specified the recipients by specific designation but left to the3rd person the determination of the sharing, ex. I leave P500,000 for the PNRC, the SPCA, andthe Tala Leprosarium, to be distributed among these institutions in such proportions as myexecutor may determine. Valid? One ViewArticle 785 seems to prohibit this, because the recipients are referred to by nameand therefore the portions they are to take must be determined by the testator. Article 786applies only where the testator merely specifies the class or the cause but not the specificrecipients.ContraThis actually involves a lesser discretion for the 3rd person than the instances allowedby Article 786 and should be allowed.

KINDS OF DISPOSIION: Directperson identifies a certain piece of property and gives it to aspecific individual; indirectdisposes of property by inference or implication (e.g.disinheritance)

This 787 article should be interpreted rationally. It is not to be so interpreted as to make it clashwith the principle expressed in Articles 1041-1057 of the NCC that the heir is free to accept orreject the testamentary disposition.What this article 787 prohibits is the delegation to a 3rd person of the power to decide whether adisposition should take effect or not.Articles 788-794 lays down the rules of construction and interpretation.The underlying principle here is that testacy is preferred to intestacy, because the former is theexpress will of the decedent whereas the latter is only his implied will.In statutory construction, the canon is: That the thing may rather be effective than be withouteffect.A similar principle in contractual interpretation is found in Art1373, which provides that if somestipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings, it shall be understood as bearingthat import which is most adequate to render it effectual. 2 Kinds of Ambiguity referred to LATENT (non-apparent)not obvious on the face of the willWhen there is an imperfect description or when no person or property exactly answers thedescriptionLatent as to PERSONI institute to of my estate my first cousin Jose and the testator has

more than one first cousin named Jose.Latent as to PROPERTYI devise to my cousin Pacifico my fishpond in Roxas City and thetestator has more than one fishpond in Roxas City.

PATENT (extrinsic)obvious on the face of the willWhen an uncertainty arises upon the face of the will, as to the application of any of its provisionsPatent as to PERSONI institute of my estate to some of my first cousins. Patent as to PROPERTYI bequeath to my cousin Pacifico some of my cars. In both cases, the ambiguity is evident from a reading of the testamentary provisionsthemselves; the ambiguity is patent [patereto be exposed]

How to Deal with AmbiguitiesThe provisions of this article do not make a distinction in the solution of the problem ofambiguities whether latent or patent.Hence, the distinction between the 2 kinds of ambiguity is, in the light of the codal provisions, anall but theoretical one.

The ambiguity should, as far as possible, be cleared up or resolved, in order to give effect to thetestamentary disposition.Based on principle that testacy is preferred to intestacy.

Ambiguity may be resolved using any evidence admissible and relevant, excluding the oraldeclarations of the testator as to his intention.Reason for the statutory exclusion is that a dead man cannot refute a tale.Similar rules are laid down in Rule 130 Sections 10 and 14 of the Rules of Court Sec10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaningThe language of a writing is tobe interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless theparties intended otherwise.

Sec14. Peculiar signification of termsThe terms of a writing are presumed to have been used

in their primary and general application, but evidence is admissible to show that they have alocal, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in theparticular instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly.

In contractual interpretation, a similar principle is expressed in Article 1370 par1:Art1370. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of thecontracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.A similar rule is found in Rule 130 Sec11 of the RoCSec11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisionsIn the construction of aninstrument where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible,to be adopted as will give effect to all.

In contractual interpretation, Articles 1373 and 1374 lay down similar principlesArt1373. If some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings, it shall beunderstood as bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual.Art1374. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to thedoubtful one that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.This article makes applicable to wills the severability or separability principle in statutoryconstruction frequently expressly provided in a separability clause.The source of this article is Art2085 of the German Civil Code which provides that the invalidityof one of several dispositions contained in a will results in the invalidity of the other dispositionsonly if it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made these if the invalid disposition

had not been made.

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: A witness may be called upon to provide testimony as to what theimperfection is (rule 130) DEAD MANS STA UTUTE: plaintiff is the claimant and the defendantis the executor, both parties are prohibited to testify.

This 793 article creates problems which would not have existed had it not been so nonchalantlyincorporated in the Code, an implant from the Code of Civil Procedure and ultimately fromAmerican law.

The problem springs from the fact that this article makes the will speak as of the time it is made,rather than at the time of the decedents death [which is more logical because that is when thewill takes effect according to Article 777].IllustrationX executes a will in 1985 containing a legacy: I give to M all my shares in BPI.The testator dies in 1990, owning at the time of his death ten times as many BPI shares as hedid when he made the will.Under Article 793, the shares acquired after the will was executed are not included in thelegacy.

Article 793 therefore departs from the codal philosophy of Articles 774 and 776 and constitutesan EXCEPTION to the concept of succession as linked to death and rendered legally effective

by death.

Prof. Balane suggests the provisions be reworded as: Property acquired after the making of awill passes thereby unless the contrary clearly appears from the words or the context of the will.In the meantime, it is suggested that a liberal application of the article be allowed.Can the word expressly in this article be interpreted to mean clearly even if it might bestretching a point?This article 794 should be read together with Art929, which provides that if the testator, heir, orlegatee owns only a part of or an interest in the thing bequeathed, the legacy or devise shall beunderstood limited to such part or interest, unless the testator expressly declares that he givesthe thing in its entirety.

GENERAL RULEin a legacy or devise the testator gives exactly the interest he has in thething.

EXCEPTIONShe can give a less interest [Art794] or a greater interest[Art929] than he has.

In the latter case, if the person owning the interest to be acquired does not wish to part with it,the solution in Art931 can be applied wherein the legatee or devisee shall be entitled only to theJUST VALUE OF THE INTEREST that should have been acquired.

All assets subsequently acquired after the making of the will would have to pass by intestatesuccession. Art. 793 pertains to props after execution of the will, Art. 781 pertains to prop w/caccrued after the death of the testator.

RE-CAP OF THE RULES ON INTERPRETATIONAND CONSTRUCTION OF WILLS

In case of doubt, testacy is preferred and disposition should be interpreted in manner whichwould make it operative.

Two kinds of AmbiguitiesLatentimperfect description or when no person or property exactly answers to description.Patentbased on the face of the will as to the application of any of its provisions

In case of ambiguity, may resort to any evidence, even extrinsic evidence, but may not resort tooral declarations of the testator as to his intention.

Words of a will shall be taken in their ordinary and grammatical sense, unless:Another sense or meaning is clearly intended to be used, andThat other sense or meaning can be ascertained

Technical words shall be taken in technical sense, except:When context clearly indicates otherwiseWill was drawn solely by the testator and he was not acquainted with the technical meaning ofsuch word.

Words are to receive interpretation which will give it some effect.

Invalidity of one disposition in a will does not mean the other dispositions are also invalid.But invalidity of one provision affects the other if it is to be presumed that the testator would nothave made such other disposition if the first invalid disposition had not been made.

Property that is acquired by the testator after the will was executed shall only be transmittedalong with those in the will, if the testator expressly states in the will that such is his intention.

A devise of legacy shall transmit the whole extent of the testators interest in the propertydisposed.Except when it clearly appears that the testator intended to convey a less interest.

ASPECTS OF VALIDITY OF WILLSEXTRINSICrefers to the requirement of form / formal validityGoverning law as to TIMEFilipinos law in force when the will was executed [Art795]Foreignerssame rile. The assumption here is that the will is being probated in the Philippines.

Governing law as to PLACEFilipinos or ForeignersLaw of citizenshipLaw of domicileLaw of residenceLaw of place of execution, orPhilippine law

Articles 815-817 - Rules of formal validity

Filipino Abroad - According to the law in the country in which he may be and may be probatedin the PhilippinesAlien abroad - Has effect in the Philippines if made according to: Law of place where heresides, Law of his own country or Philippine lawAlien in the phils. - Valid in Phils. as if executed according to Phil. laws, if: Made according tolaw of country which he is a citizen or subject, and May be proved and allowed by law of hisown country.

INTRINSICrefers to the substance of the provisions / substantive validity

Governing law as to TIMEFilipinos law at the time of death, in connection with Art2263.Foreignersdepends on their personal law [Art16, par2 and Art1039]

Governing law as to PLACEFilipinos Philippine law [Art16 par2 and Art1039]Foreignerstheir national law [Art16 par2 and Art1039]

8/12/2019 For Succession

3/3

Art2263 provides that Rights to the inheritance of a person who died, with or without a will,before the effectivity of this Code [August 30, 1950], shall be governed by the Civil Code of1889, by other previous laws, and by the Rules of Court. The inheritance of those who, with orwithout a will, die after the beginning of the effectivity of this Code, shall be adjudicated anddistributed in accordance with this new body of laws and by the Rules of Court; but thetestamentary provisions shall be carried out insofar as they may be permitted by this Code.Therefore, legitimes, betterments, legacies and bequests shall be respected; however, theiramount shall be reduced if in no other manner can every compulsory heir be given his full shareaccording to this Code.

Art16 par2 provides that intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the orderof succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity oftestamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose successionis under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of thecountry wherein said property may be found.

While Art1039 provides that Capacity to Succeed is governed by the law of the nation of thedecedent.

NERI v. AKUTINFACTS: This is a case where the testator Agripino Neri in his will left all his property byuniversal title to the children by his second marriage, the herein respondents, with omission ofthe children by his first marriage, the herein petitioner. The omission of the heirs in the will wascontemplated by the testator with the belief that he had already given each of the childrenportion of the inheritance, particularly a land he had abandoned was occupied by therespondents over which registration was denied for it turned out to be a public land, and anaggregate amount of money which the respondents were indebted to their father.

ISSUE: Should there be cancellation of the will, in view of the omission of heirs? Is theredisinheritance in this case?

HELD: Yes. The Court annulled the institution of heirs and declared a total intestacy on theground that testator left all his property by universal title to the children by his second marriage,without expressly disinheriting the children by his first marriage but upon the erroneous beliefthat he had given them already more shares in his property than those given to the children byhis second marriage. Disinheritance made without a statement of the cause, if contested, shallannul the institution of heirs in so far as it is prejudicial to the disinherited person. This is but acase of preterition which annuls the institution of heirs.

Seangio vs. Hon. Amor A. ReyesFACTS:On September 1988, private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the intestateestate of the late Segundo. Petitioners opposed assailing among others that Segundo left aholographic will which is entirely a declaration of disinheritance affecting Alfredo, one of theprivate respondents. Private respondents opposed the probate on the ground that theholographic will did not contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased. RTC dismissedthe petition for probate easoning that the holographic will clearly shows preterition.ISSUE:Whether or not the document executed by Segundo can be considered as a holographic will.RULING:A holographic will must be written, dated and signed by the testator himself. An intent to dispose

mortis causa can be clearly deducted from the terms of the instrument, and while it does notmake an affirmative deposition of the latters property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, is an act ofdisposition in itself. The disinheritance results in the disposition of the property in favor of thosewho would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.With regard to the issue on preterition, the court believes that the compulsory heirs in the directline were not preterited in the will. It was Segundos last expression bequeath his estate to allhis compulsory heirs, with the sole exception of Alfredo.

FISCHER V. JOHNSON: Daniel and Nellie Peterson (nochild) left a will to each other. Nelledied. Before Daniel died, he wrote to his lawyer a handwritten letter with instructions on how todispose oof his properties and leaving the balance after funeral xpense to on L. Fscher. Thelatter is also the executrix w/o ond. Daniel instructed put these explanation in my will if youthink it advisable and in the event this doesn reach u before my death, try to make this bindingas possible.. issueis the letter a will? No, this is simply a direction. The will was prared for fourto five times and made no effort to legalize it. The determination whther one is a will depends onthe intent of the testator.

DIZON-RIVERA v. DIZON: Agripina Valdez died with a will with 7 compulsory heirs (6 legit childand 1 legit grandchild). Marina was executrix. Marina and tomas were given more than theirrespective legitimes Marina submitted a project of partitions, while the oppositors submitted theircounter-project partition(reduction of all testamentary disposition proportionately to the value of of the entire estate corresponding to the free portion and the other half to be divided among 7heirs. Issu; w/n the dispositions in the will are in the nature of devisees imputable to the freeportion of the estate and thus subject to reductioneach real property was specified, thetestamentary dispositions of the testatrix, being for compulsory heirs, need not to be taken onlyfrom the free protion since Art. 842 provides one who has compulsory heirs may dispose of hisestate provided he does not contravene the provisions of the legitime of said heris. . The law

does not prohibit favored heirs.

Parish Priest of Victoria tarlac v. rigor:Father Rigor, the parish priest of Pulilan, Bulacan, died on August 9, 1935, leaving a willexecuted onOctober 29, 1933 which was probated by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac in itsorder of December 5,1935. In addition to the devices contained therein, the will had a provisionto the effect that the testatorintended to devise the ricelands to his nearest male relative whowould become a priest. It was statedtherein that the parish priest of Victoria would administerthe ricelands only in two situations: one,during the interval of time that no nearest male relativeof the testator was studying for the priesthoodand two, in case the testator's nephew became apriest and he was excommunicated.ISSUE:Whether or not a device in favour of a person whose identity at the time of the testators death cannotbe ascertained, may be efficacious.RULING:No.The Supreme Court held that the said bequestrefers to the testator's nearest male relativeliving at thetime of his death and not to any indefinite time thereafter ."In order to be capacitated to inherit, theheir, devisee or legatee must be living at the momentthe succession opens, except in case of representation, when it is proper"(Art. 1025, Civil Code).The said testamentary provisions should be sensibly or reasonablyconstrued. To construe them asreferring to the testator's nearest male relative atanytime after his deathwould render the provisionsdifficult to apply and create uncertainty as to the disposition of hisestate. That could not have been hisintention.The reasonable view is that he was referring to a

situation whereby his nephew living at the time of hisdeath, who would like to become a priest,was still in grade school or in high school or was not yet in theseminary. In that case, the parishpriest of Victoria would administer the ricelands before the nephewentered the seminary. Butthe moment the testator's nephew entered the seminary, then he would beentitled to enjoy andadminister the ricelands and receive the fruits thereof. In that event, thetrusteeship would beterminated

IN RE ESTATE OF RUSSEL:Brief Fact Summary. Russell executed a will disposing of all her real and personal property to aclose friend and her dog. The trial court held that the gift to the dog was precatory in nature andthat the testator intended that her close friend care for the dog. Another beneficiary in the willappealed the decision.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The anti-lapse statute applies to void gifts as well as beneficiaries whopredecease the testator. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the testators intent if in lightof the circumstances surrounding the creation of the will, the language in the will is susceptibleto two or more meanings.

Facts. Thelma Russell executed a will leaving her real and personal property to H. Quinn andRoxy Russell. Roxy Russell was Russells dog. Russell also disposed of jewelry and money toGeorgia Nan Russell Hembree. The trial court held that Russell intended Quinn to receive all of

her personal and real property and that the gift to the testators dog merely reflected a wish thatQuinn care for the dog. Hembree appeals the decision.

Issue.Whether a gift lapses under the anti-lapse statute if the gift is void?Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible because the language of a will could reasonablysignify two or more meanings?HELD: A gift lapses under an anti-lapse statute if the gift is void. Testamentary gifts to animalsare void. The gift to the dog lapses under the anti-lapse statute.Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove the testators intent because the language of thewill does is not reasonably susceptible to one or more meaning. Here the testator left herproperty to an person and to her dog. The language did not state that the testator was making agift to a person for the benefit of the dog. The will on its face makes a gift to the dog. Thelanguage is not precatory in nature. Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove the testatorsintent. In determining whether a gift is clear and definite, a court will consider outside evidenceconcerning the creation of the will. However to prevent fraud, the court will not allow theevidence if the will itself does not reasonably reflect the intent attempted to be proved by theoutside evidence.

Bellis v. BellisAmos Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States.By his first wife, he had 5 legitimate children; by his second wife, he had 3 legitimate children;and he had 3 illegitimate children.Amos executed a will in the Philippines, in which he specified how his estate will be divided anddistributed.Subsequently, Amos died, a resident of Texas.His will was admitted to probate in the CFI of Manila.The Peoples Bank, as executor of will, paid all the bequests included in Amos will.Before closing its administration, the executor submitted its final report and project of partition.

However, 2 of Amos illegitimate children filed their oppositions to the project of partition on theground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and thereforecompulsory heirs of the deceased.The CFI issued an order overruling the oppositions and approving the executors final account,report and project partition. The lower court, relying upon Art. 16 of the NCC, applied thenational law of Amos, which is the Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes.The illegitimate children thus filed an Appeal.

Whether this case falls under Art. 17 of the NCC.NO.Appellants argue that their case falls under the circumstances mentioned in the 3rd paragraphof Art. 17 in relation to Art. 16 of the NCC. It argues that Art. 17 prevails as the exception to Art.16.The SC rule that appellants argument is incorrect.It ruled that the change in the NCC shows that whatever public policy and good customs may beinvolved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to thesuccession of foreign nationals. Congress has specifically chose to leave the amount ofsuccessional rights to the decedents national law.

Whether Philippine law should govern to Amos Philippine estate.NO. Appellants argued that Amos executed 2 wills one to govern his Texas estate and theother his Philippine estatearguing that he intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine

estate.The SC held that that a provision in a foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall bedistributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, forhis national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Art. 16 of the NCC states saidnational law should govern.

Which law must applyTexas law or Philippine law?Texas law applies.The petitioners admit that Amos was a citizen of State of Texas and that under the laws o fTexas, there are no forced heirs of legitimes.

Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and theamount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law onlegitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos.Art. 16: Real property as well as personal property is subject ot the law of the country where it issituated. However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the order ofsuccession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentaryprovisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is underconsideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the countrywherein said property may be found.Art. 1039: Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.Art. 17: Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have fortheir object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by

laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreigncountry.The decedents national law governs the (1) order of succession, (2) the amount of successionalrights, (3) the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and (4) the capacity to succeed.Testamentary provision that successional right to decedents estate would be governed by lawother than his national law if void, being contrary to article 16 of the NCC.