forced heirs

7/27/2019 Forced Heirs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/forced-heirs 1/6

A MONOGRAPH ON FORCED SUCCESSION

ETYMOLOGY/ DEFINITION OF FORCED SUCCESSION

Forced Succession is a legal concept for which a person is not free to dictate who will

inherit his estate. Instead, forced heirship/ forced succession laws require a deceased

person's estate to pass to one or more blood relatives (usually children and

grandchildren) and/or a surviving spouse, who are referred to as the "protected heirs."

Filipinos generally adapt the English custom of ultimogeniture by which the youngest

son succeeds the family home. But the Philippine law respects the legitime of the

compulsory heirs for the sake of family solidarity and to protect them from the

unjustified anger or thoughtlessness of the testator.

Article 886 of the New Civil Code defines LEGITIME as part of the testator’s property

which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for compulsory heirs. Thus,

the dispositions that deprive a compulsory heir of his legitime cannot be given effect

albeit a WILL was validly executed by the testator.

WHO ARE CONSIDERED FORCED HEIRS/ COMPULSORY HEIRS?

The “compulsory heirs” are classified as:

A. Primary - legitimate children and/or descendants

B. Secondary - legitimate parents and/or ascendants; illegitimate parents

C. Concurring - surviving spouse; illegitimate children and/or descendants

In the Vizconde vs. CA , the Court held that petitioner, a son-in-law of decedent, is not

one of the latter’s compulsory heirs. What are contemplated as compulsory heirs are the

legitimate children of the decedent and their descendant. In default thereof, the



legitimate parents and their ascendant and the spouse. A son- in- law is not within the

purview of compulsory heirs.

The forced heir enjoys not only the right over his/ her inheritance. He/ She also has the

right to institute actions in order to protect such right. In the case of Concepcion vs.

Sta. Ana, the Court held that a forced heir has the right to institute an action of

rescission because the right to the legitime is similar to a credit of a creditor. As

Manresa correctly states in commenting on article 1291 of the Civil Code: "The rights of

a forced heir to the legitime are undoubtedly similar to a credit of a creditor in so far as

the rights to the legitime may be defeated by fraudulent contracts, and are superior to

the will of those bound to respect them. In its judgment of October 28, 1897, the

Supreme Court of Spain held that the forced heirs instituted as such by their father to

the latter's testament have the undeniable right to institute an action to annul contracts

entered into by the father to their prejudice. As it is seen the action is called action of

nullity, but it is rather an action of rescission taking into account the purpose for which

it is instituted and the confusion of ideas that has prevailed in this matter.

However, as the plaintiff in the present case, not being a forced heir of the late Perpetua

Concepcion, cannot institute an action to annul under article 1300 or to rescind under

article 1291 (3) of the Civil Code the contract under consideration entered into by thedeceased with the defendant.

Depending on the surviving heirs called to the succession, the law reserves at least one

half of the deceased’s hereditary estate for distribution to the heirs. The hereditary

estate is the difference between the assets and the liabilities of the deceased. If a

property is conjugally-owned by spouses, or co-owned by several parties, then only that

portion of the property belonging to the deceased forms part of the hereditary estate.

As can be seen from the enumeration of compulsory heirs, legitimate parents or

ascendants are compulsory heirs of the legitimate children and descendants only if such

legitimate children and descendants have no legitimate children and descendants of

their own.



LEGITIME OF COMPULSORY HEIRS IN LEGTIMES AND

INTESTACY

Survivors Legitimes Intestacy

ALL FORCED HEIRSLegitimate parents/ascendantsLegitimate children/descendantsSpouse

Illegitimate child

-1/2 Equal to legitime of a legitimate child1/2 of legitime of legitimate child

First, their legitimes will be satisfied, thenparticipate in the freeportion in the same freeportion as theirlegitimes.

ALL FORCED HEIRS, EXCEPTLEGITIMATE CHILDREN AND/OR

DESCENDANTS:Legitimate parents or ascendantsSpouseIllegitimate children

1/21/81/4

1/21/41/4

LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS ANDSPOUSE:Legitimate ascendantsSpouse

1/21/4

1/21/2

SPOUSE AND ILLEGITIMATECHILDREN:

SpouseIllegitimate children 1/31/3 1/21/2

SPOUSE ONLY 1/2 1/2

SPOUSE, BROTHERS AND SISTERS:SpouseBrothers and sisters

1/2-

1/21/2

BROTHERS AND SISTERS - All

COLLATERAL RELATIVES WITHINTHE FIFTH CIVIL DEGREE

- All

STATE - All



BASIC RULES TO FOLLOW IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THELEGITIMES

1. Legitimate children share equally in their legitime of 1/2 of the hereditary estate.

When the spouse survives with one legitimate child only, the legitime of the

spouse is 1/4 of the hereditary estate. If there are several legitimate children, the

legitime of the spouse is equal to the legitime of a legitimate child. When the

surviving spouse was marries in articulo mortis and the testator died within three

months from the time of marriage, his or her legitime, if sole compulsory heir, is

1/3 of the hereditary estate, unless they have been living together as husband and

wife for more than five years, in which case his or her legitime is 1/2 of the

hereditary estate.

2. The legitimes of the legitimate children and descendants and that of surviving

spouse take precedence over those of illegitimate children. If the estate is not

sufficient to pay in full the legitimes, the legitimate children and spouse shall first

be paid their legitimes in full. The balance of the estate shall then be available for

legitimes of the illegitimate children.

3. Illegitimate parents are entitled to legitime only if they survive;

Alone Legitime is 1/2

With the spouse of the decedent Legitime is 1/4

4. In succession, the nearer relative excludes the further relative. Thus, a father

excludes the grandfather. In intestacy, a nephew or niece is excluded by a

brother or sister. A collateral relative in the fifth degree is excluded by a

collateral relative in the fourth degree.

5. In determining the number of degrees that separate a collateral relative from

another collateral relative whose relationship is being traced, go up to thenearest common ascendant of the two. Upon reaching the nearest common

ascendant, go down to the other collateral relative involved. In going up, each

generation is considered one degree. In going down, each generation is

considered one degree.



Between the date that a testator executed his last will and testament and the

date that he died, the composition of the estate may change, or the composition

not changing, the value of the properties in the estate may change. The basis of

the legitimes will be the hereditary estate (properties and values) at the time of

death.

While the values of the properties at the time of executing the last will and

testament are immaterial in determining the distributable estate and the

legitimes of compulsory heirs, it is still advisable to have the rules on legitimes in

mind at that time, so that the last will and testament will be able to provide for, at

least as nearly as possible, the legitimes of the compulsory heirs.

HOW ADOPTED CHILDREN ARE TREATED AS REGARD THEIR

LEGITIME

Art. 189 of the Family Code provides: “Adoption shall have thefollowing effects:

(1) For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to be a legitimate child of the

adopters and both shall acquire the reciprocal rights and obligations arising from

the relationship of parent and child, including the right of the adopted to use the

surname of the adopters x x x”

Art. 190 provides: “Legal or intestate succession to the estate of the adopted shall be

governed by the following rules:

(2) (1) Legitimate and illegitimate children and descendants and the surviving

spouse of the adopted shall inherit from the adopted, in accordance with the

ordinary rules of legal or intestate succession;

(2) When the parents, legitimate or illegitimate, or the legitimate ascendants of

the adopted concur with the adopter, they shall divide the entire estate, one-half

to be inherited by the parents or ascendants and the other half, by the adopters;

(3) When the surviving spouse or the illegitimate children of the adopted concur



with the adopters, they shall divide the entire estate in equal shares, one-half to

be inherited by the spouse or the illegitimate children of the adopted and the

other half, by the adopters.

(4) When the adopters concur with the illegitimate children and the surviving

spouse of the adopted, they shall divide the entire estate in equal shares, one-

third to be inherited by the illegitimate children, one-third by the surviving

spouse, and one-third by the adopters;

(5) When only the adopters survive, they shall inherit the entire estate; and

(6) When only collateral blood relatives of the adopted survive, then the ordinary

rules of legal or intestate succession shall apply. (39(4)a, PD 603)

In Rivera vs. Ramirez, the Court held The CA held that based on the article Women

Physicians of the World9 found in the record of the case before it, the late Rosita, a

physician, had adopted Raymond as her child. An adopted child, said the CA, is deemed

a legitimate child of the adopter. This being the case, Raymond’s presence barred

Eleuterio and Rosita’s other collateral relatives from inheriting intestate from her. A

further consequence is that they also did not have the right to seek the production and

examination of the documents allegedly in Robert’s possession.

But, whether or not the late Rosita had judicially adopted Raymond as her child is aquestion of fact that had neither been considered nor passed upon by the RTC in a direct

challenge to the claim of Eleuterio and Rosita’s other collateral relatives that they have

the right to inherit from her. The relevant issue before the RTC was only whether or not

the duly appointed administrator of Rosita’s estate had the right to the production and

examination of the documents believed to be in Robert’s possession. Indeed, one of the

reasons Robert brought the special civil action of certiorari before the CA is that

Eleuterio had no right to inspect the requested documents and have access to Adolfo’s

estate when Eleuterio’s authority as administrator extended only to Rosita’s estate.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jun2012/gr_189697_2012.html#fnt9



forced heirs

Documents