succession 7

8/11/2019 Succession 7

1/7

Spouses share: (taken from the free portion

1. 1 legit child =

2. Legit children = share of legit child

3. Legit ascendants =

4. Illegit children = 1/3

5. Legit children + illegit children = share of legit child

6. Legit ascendants + illegit children = 1/8

7. If spouse is only heir = 1/2

a. If S died w/in 3 month of articulo mortis

marriage = 1/3

b. If same situation above but S has been living

with T for 5 yrs as husband & wife = 1/28. Legit ascendants + legit children = ?

Examples: T DIES WITH ESTATE WORTH 100K

a. A is legit child with S (Spouse)

As legitime is (50k) while S is (25k) and 25k will

be free portion

b. A,B,C,D are legit children with S

A,b,c,d will have a legitime of of estate (50K/4) so

12.5K each. S will get 12.5K. 37.5k wll be the free

portion

c. F and M are parents with SF and M will have a legitime of of estate (50K/2) so

25K each. S is (25k). Free portion is 25k

d. A and B are illegit with S (estate=90k)

A and Bs legitime is 1/3 of the estate (30k/2) so 15keach. S will get 1/3 (30k)

Illegit childrens share: (taken from legitime???)

1. Only illegit child is heir = ???

2. Legit child = of share of legit child

3. Legit ascendants (or + spouse) =

4. Legit children + spouse = of share of legit child

5. Spouse = 1/3

Examples: T DIES WITH ESTATE WORTH 100K

a) A is legit B & C illegit

A gets of estate (50k) A and B gets of 50k so 25k

each (25K will not be share by both A and B)b) F&M are parents A & C are illegit

F&M gets of estate 50k/2 = 25k each while A & C

gets (25k/2) so they have 12.5k each. Remaining

25k is free portion. (In this case, 25k was shared by theillegit)

c) F&M parents with S and B&A illegit

F&M gets of estate 50k/2 = 25k each while A & C

gets (25k/2) so they have 12.5k each. Then S gets

so 12.5k. Remaining 12.5 k is free portion

d) A & B are legit with S while C & D are illegitA & B will get of the estate 50k/2 = 25k each while S

will get the same share of one legit child so 25k. C & D

will get of the share of one legit child so 25k/2 =

12.5 k each.

In case illegit child dies:

1. Share of parents (where illegit child does not have any

child) =

2. If illegit child has child, share of parents is = none

3. If illegit child has spouse but no child, share of parents

is =

4. If illegit child has parents but no child, spouse gets =

5. If illegit child has child, spouse gets = ?

Reduction if there are compulsory heirs:

a.) Pay legitime

b.) Honor donations

c.) Pay preferred legacies/devises

d.) Pay other legacies and devises

Reduction if there are no compulsory heirsa.) Renumeratory legacies and devices

b.) Preferred l and d

c.) L for support

d.) L for educ

e.) L for specific things

f.) Other l and d

EXAMPLE OF REDUCTION: T DIED WITH 100K AS ESTATE

A legit child, B illegit, F (friend). In Ts will, only F w as given 40K

A must have of estate for his legitime = 50kB must have of what A will receive so = 25k, but if F will be

given 40K only 10k will be left to be, thus the money of F must be

reduced.

Since B must have 25k (25-10=15k) 15k must be reduced from Fso F will be given only = 25k

HOW TO COLLATE:

1. Know the gross value of Ts property upon death

2. Ts gross estate minus obli, debts and charges

3. Determine Net hereditary estate by using #2

4. Donations subject to collation PLUS NET VALUE

5. Determine amount of legitime by using the total of #4

EXERCISES IN COLLATION:

Estate = 20m; Legit child: A,B,C,D (4); Donations to X (8M), M

(4M), N (2M) all strangers plus to A (the child (6m)

Total donation = 20m (must be collated)

Total estate 20m plus 20m (from the donation) = 40m

o *Since the total donation (20m) does not

impair any legitime, the donations given

will be as is and will not be reduced. Legitime of the children = (40m/2) 20m thus A-D must

have 5m each

o BUT A already got 6M according to Art. 909,

donations given to children shall be charged

to their legitime (not free portion, so A willnot get an additional 5m aside from the 6m)

So: B, C, D will each get 5m =15m

The donations to A, X, M and N will remain = 20m

20M plus 15m = 35m (thus there is still 5m remaining.

Lets assume this is instestate (no will) so theremaining 5M must be distributed to the compulsory

heirs:

5m/4 = 1.25 each

Thus: A = 1.25M + 6M (7.25M), B, C, D, will each get

(1.25M +5m) = 5.25m Total: 26m

Total donations to stranger = 14m

14m plus 26m = 40m

ART 886 and 887: This article enumerates the compulsory

heirs. The enumeration is EXCLUSIVE and may be classified as

follows:

1. Primary compulsory heirslegitimate children and / or

descendants

So called because they are preferred over,

and exclude the secondary heirs.

2. Secondary compulsory heirslegitimate parents and /

or ascendants ; illegitimate parents

So called because they receive legitimes only

in default of the primary heirs.

Legitimate parents/ascendants only in

default of legitimate children/ descendants.

Illegitimate parents only in default of any

kinds of children/descendants.

3. Concurring compulsory heirs surviving spouse;

illegitimate children and / or descendants

So called because they succeed as

compulsory heirs together with primary or

secondary heirs, except only that illegitimate

children / descendants exclude illegitimate

parents.

THE COMPULSORY HEIRS

LEGITIMATE CHILDREN / DESCENDANTS

1. Legitimate Children specified in Arts164 and 54

of the Family Code. Legitimated children fall under

this classification [Art179 FC]. The law does not

specify how the legitimate children should share in

the legitime. However, they will share EQUALLY

regardless of age, sex or marriage of origin.

2. Legitimate Descendants the GR is the nearer

exclude the more remote. Thus, children, if all

qualified, will exclude grandchildren and so on.

The qualification to this rule is representation

when proper.

LEGITIMATE PARENTS / ASCENDANTS

1. Legitimate Parents

2. Legitimate AscendantsOnly in default of parents.

The rule absolute in the ascending line is that

the nearer exclude the more remote. [Arts889-

890]

SURVIVING SPOUSE

1. The spouse of the decedent, not the spouse of achild who has predeceased the decedent.

2. Marriage between the decedent and his/her

surviving spouse must be either VALID or

VOIDABLE. If voidable, there should have been no

final decree of annulment at the time of the

decedents death.


2/7

Question if the consort dies during the

pendency of a petition for declaration of

nullity under Art36 or for nullity under

Art40 of the FC, should the proceedings be

dismissed or should they proceed?

Mere estrangement is not a ground for the

disqualification of the surviving spouse as

heir.

Effect of Decree of Legal Separation

a)

On the offending spouse disqualification

b) On the innocent spouse - nothing

Death of either spouse during pendency of a

petition for Legal Separation Dismissal of

the Case.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN / DESCENDANTS

1. Illegitimate Children Family Code has abolished

the distinction between natural and spurious

children and gives all of them indiscriminately

called illegitimate children equal legitimary

portions. However, pursuant to Art777, if death

occurred before effectivity of the Family Code on

August 3, 1988, the old distinctions will apply and

the spurious child gets only 4/5 of the share of the

natural child. [Art895]

2. Illegitimate DescendantsSame rule applies as in

the legitimate descending line, the nearer exclude

the more remote, without prejudice to

representation when proper.It should be noted that the illegitimate child

can be represented by both legitimate and

illegitimate descendants, as distinguished from the

legitimate child, who can be represented only by

legitimate descendants. [Art902 and 992]

ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS

1. Unlike the legitimate ascending line, which

includes ascendants in whatever degree, the

illegitimate ascending line only includes the

parents, it does not go beyond the parents.2. The illegitimate parents are secondary heirs of a

lower category that legitimate parents, because

the illegitimate parents are excluded by legitimate

and illegitimate children [Art903] whereas

legitimate parents are excluded onlyby legitimate

children/ descendants.

Variations in the Legitimary Portions

The legitimary system of the Philippine Code rests on a

double foundation EXCLUSION and CO NCURRENCE.

GENERAL RULE there is a basic amount of that is given toone heir or one group of heirs. This General Rule admits only

of 3 EXCEPTIONS:

1. Art894 surviving spouse and illegitimate

children

2. Art900 par2 surviving spouse in a marriage in

articulo mortis, with the conditions specified in

that article

3. Art903 surviving spouse and illegitimate

parents.

The term legitimate child or legitimate children includes alegally adopted child under Sec18 of RA8552 or the Domestic

Adoption Act of 1998.

Question Is an adopted child entitled to a legitime from his

biological parents or ascendants? Uncertain.

Art189[3] of the FC provides that the adopted shall

remain an intestate heir of his parents and other blood

relatives.

Thus, the adopted child was entitled to a legitime BOTH

from his adopter and his biological parents.

But now, the law is silent and it neither gives nor denies

an adopted child the right to a legitime from his

biological parents.

Sec16 of the law provides that all legal ties between the

biological parents and the adoptee shall be severed butthat is unavailing to answer the question because sec16

only has to do with parental authority.

The term legitimate child or legitimate children shall, inproper cases, include legitimate descendants other than

children.

The term legitimate parents includes, in proper cases, legitimateascendants other than parents.

NOBLE V NOBLE

FACTS: Don Vicente Noble died in 1959. The notarial will he

executed in 1957 was presented for probate wherein

JuanNoble was designated as executor. Maria Noble, claiming asthe illegitimate child of the deceased born out of an

illicitrelationship between the latter and Lucia Sinag in July 22,

1923, opposed the probate of the will. She prays for

thedisallowance of the will and be declared as the only surviving

illegitimate daughter or in the alternative, in case the will

beprobated, the institution of heirs made therein be declared nulland void. Simultaneously, she filed a motion asking for permission

to present evidence on her alleged filiation, stating therein that

she is in continuous possession of status of achild of the late Don

Vicente Noble by the direct acts of the latter and/or his family, and

that she has in her favor evidenceand/or proof that the deceasedis her father. This motion was opposed by Judge Noble on the

ground that the claim wasin effect an Action for Compulsory

recognition, and that since it was brought after the death of the

putative father, andwhen she was already of majority age, the

right to bring the same has already prescribed.CFI: admitted

the will for probate and the claim of Maria had been

barred byprescription.

HELD: Art. 887: In all case of illegitimate children, their filiation

must be duly proved. Filiation must be acknowledged bythe

alleged parent, for if the mere fact of paternity of the supposed

father is all that is needed to be proved, that wouldpave the way to

unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of the death of the

presumed parent who would no longer bein the position to deny

the allegation.In this case, what is i ntended to be proved is simply

the supposed naked paternity of the deceased. Her

allegationsmerely claimed that she is the child of the deceased,

which is a ground for compelling recognition.It is necessary to

allege that her putative parent had acknowledged and recognized

her as such. Such acknowledgmentis essential and is basis of her

right to inherit. There being no allegation of such

acknowledgment, the action becomesone to compel recognition

which cannot be brought af ter the death of the putative

parent.Acknowledgement is the basis of the right of a spuriouschild to enjoy the successional rights

VAN DORN V. ROMILLO JR.

Petitioner Alice Reyes is a citizen of the Philippines while private

respondent is a citizen of the United States; they were married in

Hongkong. Thereafter, they established their residence in the

Philippines and begot two children. Subsequently, they were

divorced in Nevada, United States, and that petitioner has re-

married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.

Private respondent filed suit against petitioner, stating that

petitioners business in Manila is their conjugal property; thatpetitioner he ordered to render accounting of the business and

that private respondent be declared to manage the conjugal

property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case contending that thecause of action is barred by the judgment in the divorce

proceedings before the Nevada Court. The denial now is the

subject of the certiorari proceeding.

ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce obtained by the parties is

binding only to the alien spouse.

HELD: Is it true that owing to the nationality principle embodied

in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are

covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being

considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality.

However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be

recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to

their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada releasedprivate respondent from the marriage from the standards of

American Law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage.

Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer

the husband petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in thecase below as petitioners husband entitled to exercise control

over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the decision of his own

countrys court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, andwhose decision he does not repudiate, he is stopped by his own

representation before said court from asserting his right over the

alleged conjugal property.

Art. 888: Equal sharing the legitimate children share the in

equal parts, regardless of age, sec or marriage of origin. The

provision should have been explicit about this. The counterpart

provision in intestacy [Art979 par1 and Art980] is quite explicit

on this.

Descendants other than children the GR is that the nearer

exclude the more remote. Hence, grandchildren cannot


3/7

inherit, since the children will bar the, unless all the children

renounce, in which case the grandchildren become the

nearest in degree. The rule goes on down the tine, great

grandchildren cannot inherit unless all the children and

grandchildren renounce.

The only qualification to the rule that the nearer exclude the

more remote in the descending line is representation when

proper [Arts970-977]

There is no limit to the number of degrees in the descending

line that may be called to succeed, whether in their own right

or by representation.

Art. 889 890

Legitimate parents/ascendants as secondary compulsory

heirs the legitimate ascending line succeeds only in default

of the legitimate descending line.

3 BASIC RULES ON SUCCESSION IN THE ASCENDING LINE

1.

The nearer exclude the more remote.

This rule in the ascending line admits of no

qualification, since there is no representation

in the ascending line. [Art972 par1]

2.

Division by line. This rule will apply if there are more than

one ascendant in the nearest degree. The

legitime shall then be divided in equal parts

between the paternal line and the maternal

line.

3.

Equal division within the line.

After the portion corresponding to the line

has been assigned, there will be equal

apportionment between or among the

recipients within the line, should there be

more than one.

Note also, there is no right of representation in the ascending

line.

The operation of the principles of Division By Line and Equal

Division within the Line may cause inequality of shares

among ascendants of identical degrees.

For example, if both legitimate parents of testator

predecease him and testator has no other legitimate

descendants, if there are 2 surviving maternal

grandparents but only 1 surviving paternal grandparent

the estate is divided equally between the maternal

and paternal lines, but the 2 maternal grandparents

must share the portion of the maternal line [they get

1/8 each] while the sole paternal grandparent gets the

whole portion of the paternal line.

Art. 891-892

1 LEGITIMATE CHILD / SURVIVING SPOUSEthe sharing is

for the legitimate child and for the surviving spouse.

If there has been LEGAL SEPARATION between the testator

and the surviving spouse

If there is a final decree of legal separation1. surviving spouse is the innocent party he/she

gets her legitime [Art63 par4 FC]

2. surviving spouse is the offending spouse he/she

is disqualified from inheriting [Art63 par4 FC]

If after the final decree of legal separation there was a

reconciliation between the parties, the reciprocal right

to succeed is restored because reconciliation sets aside

the decree [Art66 par2 FC]

DEATH PENDENTE LITE if either spouse dies during the

pendency of the proceedings for legal separation, the

proceedings are TERMINATED and the surviving spouse

inherits from the deceased spouse, no matter which spouse

died.

Termination of Marriage by REAPPEARANCE of prior Spouse

/ Decree of ANNULMENT or ABSOLUTE NULLITY of marriage

Arts 41-43 of FC govern a subsequent marriage

contracted by a party whose spouse has been absent for

the specified period and lay down the requisites

therefor.

The reappearance of the prior spouse TERMINATES the

second marriage. One of the effects of the termination asgiven in Art43[5] is The spouse who contracted the

subsequent marriage in BAD FAITH shall be disqualified

to inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and

intestate succession.

The implication of Art43 is that

1. If both consorts in the second marriage were in

GOOD FAITH, they continue to be heirs of each

other.

2. If only one of said consorts acted in bad faith, the

innocent one will continue by testate and intestatesuccession.

PROBLEM A and B are married. A disappears and is

absent for the required period. B then contracts a

second marriage with C, both in good faith. Out of

nowhere, A reappears [surprise!], and so the marriagebetween B and C is terminated. Under Art43[5] the

reciprocal right of succession between A and B as the

original spouses remains. What if B dies? Can A and C

inherit from him/her?

The same problem arises in cases of marriages judicially

annulled or declared void ab initio, because of the

provisions of Art50 par1 of the Family Code Theeffects provided for by paragraphs 2,3,4 and 5 of article

43 and by article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases

to marriages which are void ab initio or annulled by

final judgment under Articles 40 and 45.

The problem here will arise should either or both

partners in the defective marriage remarry later.

Balane says that prescinding from the practical problem

of having 2 husbands [or 2 wives] claiming the right to a

legitime, the very principle underlying the rule is

questionable why should consorts of a terminated

marriage, or an annulled one, or one declared void ab

initio continue to be heirs of each other? The marriage

which forms the basis of the right of succession no

longer exists.

LEGITIMATE CHILDREN / SURVIVING SPOUSE The

sharing is for the children collectively and for the spouse,

equivalent to that of each of the legitimate children or

descendants.

Determination of surviving spouses share

1. As long as at least 1 of several children inherits in

his own right, the determination of the share of the

surviving spouse presents no problem. It will

always be equivalent of one childs share.

2. But supposing ALL the children predecease or are

disinherited or are unworthy to succeed? Since all

the grandchildren would then inherit BY

REPRESENTATION and therefore in different

amounts, the practical solution will still be to give

the spouse the share that each child would have

gotten if qualified.

3.

Supposing ALL the Children RENOUNCE, thegrandchildren would inherit PER CAPITA or in

their own right and therefore equally. Should the

spouses share still be computed on the basis of the

childrens share had they accepted? If so, then

when will the word or descendants in the secondparagraph of this article ever be operative?

Art: 893: LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS / SURVIVING SPOUSE -

the sharing is for the ascendants collectively and for the

surviving spouse.

For the parents or ascendants, the sharing will be in

accordance with Articles 889-890. [Legitimate

parents/ascendants as secondary compulsory heirs the

legitimate ascending line succeeds only in default of the

legitimate descending line.]

Art. 894:ILEGITIMATE CHILDREN / SURVIVING SPOUSE the

sharing is 1/3 for the illegitimate children or descendants

collectively and 1/3 for the surviving spouse.

Sharing among illegitimate children

1. If the decedent died during the effectivity of theFAMILY CODE the sharing will be equal,

inasmuch as the Family Code has abolished the old

distinction between natural and illegitimate

children other than natural or spurious [Arts 163,

165 and 178 of FC]

2. If the decedent died BEFORE the effectivity of the

Family Code, the old distinctions must be

observed.

The legitime of the spurious child will only

be 4/5 that of a natural child, according to

the ratio established in Art895 par2.


4/7

This ratio of 5:4 among natural and spurious

children should be observed in all cases

under the Civil Code where they concur.

Art. 895: This article has beenpro tantoamended by Articles 163,

165 and 176 of the Family Code.

ONE LEGITIMATE CHILD / ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN /

SURVIVING SPOUSE the sharing is for the illegitimate

child, for the surviving spouse, and for each illegitimate

child. These sharings are based on Art.892 of NCC and Art176

of FC.

LEGITIMATE CHILDREN / ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN /

SURVIVING SPOUSE - the sharing is for the legitimate

children collectively, a share equal to that of one legitimate

child for the surviving spouse, and the share of one

legitimate child for each illegitimate child.

SHARING PRIOR TO THE FAMILY CODE

If death occurred before the effectivity of the Family

Code, this article will govern consequently, should the

natural and spurious children concur in the succession,

each spurious child will get 4/5 the share of one natural

child, and each natural child gets the share of one

legitimate child. Example -

5 legitimate children and total estate is 1M. of estate [500,000] divided by 5 so 1 Legit

child 100,000

Natural child 50,000

Spurious child 40,000

Should there be no natural children but only spurious

children, each spurious child will get 2/5 share of one

legitimate child.

1 legit child 100,000

No natural children

Spurious child 40,000

REDUCTION OF SHARES

Depending on the number of legitimate and illegitimate

children, the possibility exists that the total legitimes

will exceed the entire estate. Reductions, therefore will

have to be made in accordance with the following rules

1. The legitimes of the legitimate children should

never be reduced, they are PRIMARY andPREFERRED compulsory heirs

2. The legitime of the surviving spouse should never

be reduced, this article prohibits this.

3. The legitimes of the illegitimate children will be

reduced pro rata and without preference among

them.

Art. 896: I LLEGITIMATE CHILDREN / LEGITIMATE PARENTS

the sharing is for the legitimate parents collectively and for

the illegitimate children collectively.

For the parents or ascendants, the sharing will be in

accordance with the rules laid down in Articles 889-890.

For the illegitimate children or descendants, the sharing shall

depend on whether death occurred before or during the effectivity

of the Family Code

- Art. 897 and 898 REITERATE 892 TO 895

Art. 899: LEGITIMATE PARENTS / ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN /

SURVIVING SPOUSEthe sharing is for the legitimate parents

collectively, for the illegitimate children collectively and 1/8 for

the surviving spouse.

For the parents or ascendants, the sharing will be inaccordance with the rules laid down in Articles 889-890.

For the illegitimate children or descendants, the sharing

shall depend on whether death occurred before or

during the effectivity of the Family Code.

Art. 900: SURVIVING SPOUSE AS SOLE COMPULSORY HEIR

General rule of the estate

Exception 1/3 of the estate, if the following

circumstances are present

a) The marriage was in articulo mortis

b) The testator died within 3 months from the

time of the marriage

c) The parties did not cohabit for more than 5

years, and

d) The spouse who died was the party in articulo

mortis at the time of the marriage.

NOTE the last requisite is not explicit in the article but can

be derived from the sense and intent of the provision. The law

does not regard such marriages with eager approval.

Art. 901: ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN ALONE they get of the

estate collectively. The sharing among the illegitimate children or

descendants will depend on whether death occurred before or

during the effectivity of the Family Code.

Art. 902: Right of representation to the legitimate a nd illegitimate

descendants of an illegitimate child.

Rule of Article 902 compared with Rule of Article 992 In the

case of descendants of legitimate children, the right of

representation is given only to legitimate descendants, by

virtue of Art992. The net effect of all this is that the right of representation

given to descendants of illegitimate children is BROADER thanthe right of representation given to descendants of legitimate

children. Thus, an illegitimate child of a predeceased

legitimate child cannot inherit by representation [Art992],

while an illegitimate child of an illegitimate child can

[Art902]. A classic instance of unintended consequence.

Art. 903: ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS ALONE they get of the

estate. Note that in the illegitimate ascending line, the right DOES

NOT go beyond the parents.

ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS / SURVIVING SPOUSE the

sharing is for the parents collectively and for the spouse.

Illegitimate parents EXCLUDED by all kinds of children as

secondary compulsory heirs, the illegitimate parents are

inferior to legitimate parents. Whereas legitimate parents are

excluded only by legitimate children, illegitimate parents are

excluded by all kinds of children, legitimate or illegitimate.

Art. 904: As already laid down in Art886, the legitime is not

within the testators control. It passes to the compulsory heirsby strict operation of law.

Testator Devoid of Power to Deprive Compulsory Heirs of

Legitime

It is the law, not the testator, which determines the

transmission of the legitimes. Consequently, it is not

within the testators power to deprive the compulsoryheirs of their legitime.

EXCEPTION the only instance in which the law allows

the testator to deprive the compulsory heirs of their

legitimes is DISINHERITANCE under Arts915-923, the

grounds being set forth under Arts919-921.

Testator Devoid of Power to Impose Burdens on Legitime

As also reiterated in Art872, the testator cannot impairthe legitime, as a consequence of the principle that the

legitime passes by strict operation of law.

EXCEPTIONS When the Law grants the Testator Some

Power over the Legitime1. Article 1080 par2

A parent who, in the interest of his or her family,desires to keep any agricultural, industrial, or

manufacturing enterprise intact, may avail himself of

the right granted him in this article, by ordering thatthe legitime of the other children to whom the property

is not assigned, be paid in cash.

2. Article 1083 par1

Every co-heir has a right to demand the division

of the estate unless the testator should have expressly

forbidden its partition, in which case the period of

indivision shall not exceed 20 years as provided in

article 494. This power of the testator to prohibit

division applies to the legitime.

Restrictions on Legitime Imposed by Law

A. Article 159, Family Code

The Family Home shall continue despite the

death of one or both spouses or of the unmarried head

of the family for a period of 10 years or for as long as

there is a minor beneficiary, and the heirs cannot

partition the same unless the court finds compelling

reasons therefor. This rule shall apply regardless of

whoever owns the property or constituted the family

home.

B. The Reserva Troncal

Art. 905: Reason for the Rule

Before the predecessors death, the heirs right is simply

inchoate.

Duty to Collate


5/7

Any property which the compulsory heir may have

gratuitously received from his predecessor by virtue of

the renunciation or compromise will be considered an

advance on his legitime and must be duly credited.

Scope of Prohibition

This article applies only to transactions of compromise orrenunciation between the predecessor and the

prospective compulsory heir.

QUESTION Is a transaction between the prospective

compulsory heir and another prospective compulsory heir, or

between a prospective compulsory heir and a stranger,

interdicted?

YES under Article 1347 par2: No contract may be enteredinto upon future inheritance except in cases expressly

provided by law.

Art. 906: RIGHT OF COMPLETION OF LEGITIME

This rule applies only to transmissions bygratuitous title.

Cross-References, related articles

Art855 if the title by which the testator transmitted

property is intestate successionArt. 855. The share of a child or descendant omitted

in a will must first be taken from the part of the estate not

disposed of by the will, if any; if that is not sufficient, so

much as may be necessary must be taken proportionally

from the shares of the other compulsory heirs. In relation to Arts909 and 910

The principle underlying this rule on completion of

legitime is that anything that a compulsory heir receives by

gratuitous title from the predecessor is considered an

advance on legitimeand is deducted therefrom

EXCEPTIONS

1. Art1062 if the predecessor gave the compulsory

heir a donation inter vivos and provided that it

was not to be charged against the legitime.

2. Art1063 testamentary dispositions made by the

predecessor to the compulsory heir, unless the

testator provides that it should be considered

part of the legitime.

Art. 907 Based on the same principle as art904. If the

testamentary dispositions exceed the disposable portion, the

compulsory heirs may demand their reduction to the extent hatthe legitimes have been impaired. To allow the testator to make

testamentary dispositions that impair the legitime would in effect

allow him to deprive the compulsory heirs of part of their legitime

an act which is prohibited by Art904.

This article should be read together with Art911.

Art. 908: Based on the same principle as art904. If the

testamentary dispositions exceed the disposable portion, the

compulsory heirs may demand their reduction to the extent hatthe legitimes have been impaired. To allow the testator to make

testamentary dispositions that impair the legitime would in effect

allow him to deprive the compulsory heirs of part of their legitime

an act which is prohibited by Art904.

This article should be read together with Art911.

MANNER OF COMPUTING THE

HEREDITARY ESTATE

Inventory all the Existing Assets

o This will involve appraisal/valuation of the

existing assets at the time of the decedents

death

o These assets include only those properties

that survive the decedent, i.e. those which

are not extinguished by his death [in

relation to articles 774 and 777].

o

The value determined by this inventory will

constitute the GROSS ASSETS.

Deduct Unpaid Debts and Charges

o All unpaid obligations of the decedent

should be deducted from the gross assets.

o Only those obligations with monetary value

which are not extinguished by death are

considered. Thus, those obligations which

are purely personal are not taken into

account.

o The difference between the gross assets and

the unpaid obligations will be the

AVAILABLE ASSETS.

Add the Value of Donations Inter Vivos

o To the available assets should be added all

the inter vivos donations made by the

decedent.

o The donations inter vivosshall be valued as

of the time they were respectively made.Any increase or decrease in value from the

time they were made to the time of the

decedents death shall be for the account of

the donee, since the donation transfers

ownership to the donee.

o The sum of the available assets and all the

donations inter vivos is the NET

HEREDITARY ESTATE.

COLLATION

Collation is the act by virtue of which descendants or

other forced heirs who intervene in the division of theinheritance of an ascendant bring into the common mass,

the property which they received from him, s that the

division may be made according to law and the will of the

testator.

Collation is only required of compulsory heirs succeeding

with other compulsory heirs and involves property or

rights received by donation or gratuitous title during the

lifetime of the decedent.

The purpose is to attain equality among the compulsory

heirs in so far as possible for it is presumed that the

intention of the testator or predecessor in interest in

making a donation or gratuitous transfer to a forced heir

is to give him something in advance on account of his

share in the estate, and that the predecessors will is totreat all his heirs equally, in the absence of any expression

to the contrary.

Collation does not impose any lien on the property or the

subject matter of collationable donation. What is brought

to collation is not the property donated itself, but rather

the value of such property at the time it was donated, the

rationale being that the donation is a real alienation which

conveys ownership upon its acceptance, hence any

increase in value or any deterioration or loss thereof is

for the account of the heir or donee. [Vizconde v CA]

MATEO V LAGUA

Sometime in 1917, the parents of Alejandro Lagua donated two

lots to him in consideration of his marriage to petitioner BonifaciaMateo. The marriage was celebrated on May 15, 1917 and

thereafter the couple took possession of the lots, but the

certificates of title remained in the donors name. In 1923,

Alejandro died, leaving behind his widow Bonifacia with their

infant daughter, who lived with the father-in-law Cipriano Lagua

who in turn undertook to farm on the donated lots. At first,

Cipriano gave to Bonifacia the share from the lots harvests, but in1926 he refused to deliver to petitioner the said share, which

reason prompted her to initiate an action and won for her

possession of the lots plus damages. On July 31, 1941, Ciprianoexecuted a deed of sale of the said lots in favor of his younger son,

herein respondent Gervacio. Petitioner learned of this only in

1956 when Cipriano stopped giving to petitioner her share to the

harvest. A Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued underrespondents name by the Registry of Deeds (ROD) of Pangasinan.

The CFI of Pangasinan declared the TCT issued to respondent null

and void and ordered cancelled by the ROD, and for respondent to

vacate and deliver the lots to petitioner. In 1957, Gervacio and

Cipriano filed with the CFI for the annulment of the donation of the

two lots. While the case was pending, Cipriano died in 1958. It

was dismissed for prescription, having been filed after the lapse of

41 years. When appealed, the CA in 1966 held that the donation to

Alejandro of the two lots with the combined area of 11,888 sq. m.

exceeded by 494.75 sq. m. his legitime and the disposable portion

that Cipriano could have freely given by will, and to the same

extent prejudiced the legitime of Ciprianos other heir, Gervacio.The donation was thus declared inofficious and herein petitioners

were ordered to reconvey to Gervacio a portion of 494.75 sq. m.

from any convenient part of the lots.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly reduced thedonation propter nuptias for being inofficious.

HELD: decision of CA based on unsupported assumptions set

aside; trial courts order of dismissal sustained. Before the legal

share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, the net estate of

the decedent must be ascertained, by deducting all payable

obligations and charges from the value of the property owned bythe deceased at the time of his death; then, all donations subject to

collation would be added to it. With the partible estate thus

determined, the legitimes of the compulsory heirs can be

established, and only thereafter can it be ascertained whether or

not a donation had prejudiced the legitimes. Certainly, in order

that a donation may be reduced for being inofficious, there must

be proof that the value of the donated property exceeds that of the

disposable free portion plus the donees share as legitime in theproperties of the donor. In the present case, it can hardly be seen

that, with the evidence then before the court, it was in any position


6/7

to rule on the inofficiousness of the donation involved here, and to

order its reduction and reconveyance of the deducted portion to

the respondents.

Article 908. To determine the legitime, the value of the property

left at the death of the testator shall be considered, deducting all

debts and charges, which shall not include those imposed in the

will. To the value of the hereditary estate, shall be added the value

of all donations by the testator that are subject to collation, at the

time he made them

VDA. De Tupas v. RTC

- The petition is brought by Paternza Lucerna, wife of EpifanioTupas, as the sole heir to the estate of the latter.

- It was found that a year before Epifanios death, he donatedsome three parcels of land in favor of Tupas Foundation, Inc.

- The wife is contending that the donationw as inofficious as it

left her destitute of any i nheritance.

- Hence, she prayed to have the donation declared inofficious

insofar as it prejudiced her legitime, therefore reducible by

such proportion as might be deemed justified and the

resulting deduction delivered to her.

- The lower court contended that a) Article 900 relied upon byplaintiff is not applicable because the properties which were

disposed of by way of donation were no longer part of his

hereditary estate at the time of his death b) the donated

properties were Epifanio's capital or separate estate; and (3)Tupas Foundation, Inc. being a stranger and not a compulsory

heir, the donation inter vivosmade in its favor was not subject

to collation under Art. 106 1.

Whether or not the lower court decided correctly.

- SC held in the negative.

- First, although the court recognized the right of individuals to

donate, the same is subject to certain limitations, one of which

is that he cannot give by donation more than he can give by

will

- If he does, so much of what is donated as exceeds what he can

give by will is deemed inofficious and the donation is reducibleto the extent of such excess, though without prejudice to its

taking effect in the donor's lifetime or the donee's

appropriating the fruits of the thing donated

-Second, such a donation is, moreover, collationable. The valueof the thing donated is imputable into the hereditary estate of

the donor at the time of his death for the purpose of

determining the legitime of the forced or compulsory heirs

and the freely disposable portion of the estate. (This is true

likewise with respect to donations made to strangers as in gifts

made to compulsory heirs, although the language of Article1061 of the Civil Code would seem to limit collation to the latter

class of donations.)

- The said properties being collationable, the SC ordered the

case remanded for further determination as to whether the

donation is inofficious insofar as it is in excess of the

disposable free portion of the deceaseds estate and should

thereby be reduced to the amount of such excess.

- A person's prerogative to make donations is subject to certain

limitations, one of which is that he cannot give by donation

more than he can give by will.

- If he does, so much of what is donated as exceeds what he can

give by will is deemed inofficious and the donation is reducible

to the extent of such excess, though without prejudice to its

taking effect in the donor's lifetime or the donee's

appropriating the fruits of the thing donated.

art. 909 to 910:Donations Inter Vivos to Compulsory Heirs

Donations inter vivos to a compulsory heir shall be

imputed to his legitime, i.e. considered as an advance on

his legitime.

Coverage of Rule

o Applies to ALL compulsory heirs

o Note that these 2 articles omit [inadvertently]

ascendants who succeed as compulsory heirs. This

rule applies to them as well.

o For obvious reasons, this rule has no application to a

surviving spouse.

Exception

o This rule of imputation to the legitime will not apply

if the donor provided otherwise [in relation toArticle 1062], in which case the donation will be

imputed to the disposable portion of the estate.

Donations Inter Vivos to Strangers A stranger is anyone who does not succeed as a

compulsory heir.

Donations inter vivos to strangers are necessarily

imputed to the DISPOSABLE PORTION.

Art. 911: This provision implements the principle laid down inArticles 872, 886 and 904 - the inviolability of the legitime.

Thus, if the legitimes are impaired, the gratuitous dispositions

of the testator [either inter vivosor mortis causa] have to be set

aside or reduced as may be required to cover the legitimes.

Method of Reduction

There is an order of priorities to be observed in the

reduction of the testators gratuitous dispositions, thus

A. First, reducepro ratathe non-preferred legacies and

devises [Art911 (2)], and the testamentarydispositions [Art907]. Among these legacies, devises

and testamentary dispositions, there is no

preference.

B. Second, reduce pro rata the preferred legacies and

devises [Art911, last par.]C. Third, reduce the donations inter vivosaccording to

the inverse order of their dates [i.e. the oldest is the

most preferred] [Art773].

These reductions shall be to the extent required to

complete the legitimes, even if in the process the

disposition is reduced to nothing.

An apparent c onflict exists between this article and

Art950, regarding the order of preference among

legacies and devises, should reductions be necessary.

[See discussions under Art950]

DEVISES/LEGACIES OF USUFRUCT/ LIFE ANNUITIES/

PENSIONS UNDER PAR. 3

The following principles shall be borne in mind:A. If, upon being capitalized according to actuarial

standards, the value of the grant exceeds the free

portion [i.e. it impairs the legitime], it has to be

reduced, because the legitime cannot be impaired.

B.

The testator can impose no usufruct or any other

encumbrance on the part that passes as legitime.

C. Subject to the 2 rules stated, the compulsory heirs

may elect between:

i. Ceding to the devisee/legatee the free

portion[or the proportional part thereof

corresponding to the said legacy/devise, incase there are other dispositions], or

ii. Complying with the terms of the usufruct or

life annuity or pension.

Art. 912This rule covers cases where:1) The devise has to be reduced, and

2) The thing given as a devise is indivisible

RULES

1.

If the extent of reduction is LESS THAN of thevalue of the thing it should be given to the devisee.

2.

If the extent of reduction is OR MORE of the

value of the thing it should be given to the

compulsory heir.

In either case, there should be pecuniary reimbursement to the

party who did not get his

Art. 913: This article applies if neither party [the compulsory

heir/s and the devisee] elects to exercise his right under Art912.

How the Thing Devised Should be Disposed Of:

A. Any other heir or devisee, who elects to do so, may

acquire the thing and pay the parties [the compulsory

heir and the devisee in question] their respective

shares in money.

B.

If no heir or devisee elects to acquire it, it shall be soldat public auction and the net proceeds accordingly

divided between the parties concerned.

Note this rule of constructive partition is similar to that in c o-

ownership [Art498] and in partition of the decedents estate

[Art1086], except that, in these two latter cases, the acquisition

by one of the co-owners or co-heirs can be done only if all the

co-owners or co-heirs agree to such acquisition.


7/7

Legitimate Children

Alone

of estate divided

equally [Art888]

One Legitimate

Child and SurvivingSpouse

of the estate to the

legitimate child of the estate to the

surviving spouse

[taken from the free

disposable portion of

the estate]

[Art892 par1]

Legitimate Children

and Surviving

Spouse

of estate to

legitimate children

Share equal to that of

1 child for the

surviving spouse

[taken from the free

disposable portion of

the estate][Art892par2]

Legitimate Children

and IllegitimateChildren

of estate to the

legitimate children of the share of 1

legitimate child to the

illegitimate children

[Art176 FC]

One legitimate child,


and surviving

spouse

of estate to

legitimate children

Each illegitimate child

will get of the share

of a legitimate child

of estate to the

surviving spouse,

whose share is

preferred over thoseof the illegitimate

children, which shall

be reduced if

necessary [Art895]

Legitimate children,


and survivingspouse

of estate to

legitimate children

Each illegitimate childwill get of the share

of one legitimate child

A share equal to that

of 1 legitimate child

for the surviving

spouse, whose share is

preferred over thoseof the illegitimate

children which shall

be reduced if

necessary. [Art895]

Legitimate parents

alone

of estate [Art889]

Legitimate parents

and illegitimate

children

of estate to

legitimate parents

of estate to


Legitimate parents

and surviving

spouse

of estate to

legitimate parents

of estate tosurviving spouse

Legitimate parents

illegitimate childrenand surviving

spouse

of estate to the

legitimate parents of estate to the


1/8 of estate to the

surviving spouse

Surviving spouse

alone

of the estate or 1/3

if the marriage, being

in articulo mortis, falls

under Art900 par 2

[Art900par1]

Surviving spouse

and illegitimate

children

1/3 of estate to

surviving spouse

1/3 of estate toillegitimate children

Surviving spouse

and illegitimate

parents

of estate to

surviving spouse

of estate toillegitimate parents

[Art903]

Illegitimate childrenalone

of estate [Art901]

Illegitimate parents

alone

of estate [Art903]

succession 7

Documents