Succession Digests Part 1

(1)

NERI v AKUTIN

74 PHIL 185

MORAN; May 21, 1943

NATURE NATURE

Petition for review on certiorari Petition for review on certiorari FACTS

FACTS -

- TesTestattator Neri or Neri indindicaicated in ted in his will that he his will that he was leavwas leaving all ing all of his of his proproperpertieties s byby universal title to his children by

universal title to his children by his second marriage with preterition of his second marriage with preterition of his children byhis children by his first marriage.

his first marriage.

- Eleuterio, Agripino, Agapita, Getulia, Rosario and Celerina are all Neri’s children by - Eleuterio, Agripino, Agapita, Getulia, Rosario and Celerina are all Neri’s children by his first marriage.

his first marriage.

- The trial court annulled the

- The trial court annulled the institution of the heirs and declared total intestacy.institution of the heirs and declared total intestacy. -

- The childreThe children n by the by the seconsecond d marrimarriage filed a age filed a motiomotion for n for reconsreconsideraideration on thetion on the grounds that:

grounds that:

1) there is no preterition as to the children of the first marriage have received their 1) there is no preterition as to the children of the first marriage have received their shares in the property left by

shares in the property left by the testatorthe testator

2) assuming that there has been a preterition, the effect would not be the annulment 2) assuming that there has been a preterition, the effect would not be the annulment of the institution of heirs but simply the reduction of the bequest made to them. of the institution of heirs but simply the reduction of the bequest made to them. - The children by the second marriage anchor their argument on the concept of “heir” - The children by the second marriage anchor their argument on the concept of “heir” whose A814 definition is deemed repealed by that of the Code of Civil Procedure. whose A814 definition is deemed repealed by that of the Code of Civil Procedure. It isIt is maintained that the word "heredero" under the Civil Code, is not synonymous with the maintained that the word "heredero" under the Civil Code, is not synonymous with the term "heir" under the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the "heir" under the latter term "heir" under the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the "heir" under the latter Cod

Code e is no is no lonlonger persger personaonally liablly liable for le for the debts of the debts of the deceathe deceased as sed as was thewas the "heredero" under the Civil Code

"heredero" under the Civil Code ISSUES

ISSUES

1. WON there is preterition 1. WON there is preterition

2. WON there should be annulment of the institution of the heirs and open the estate 2. WON there should be annulment of the institution of the heirs and open the estate to total intestacy

to total intestacy HELD

HELD

1. YES, there is preterition 1. YES, there is preterition

- According to the court’s findings, none of the children by the first marriage received - According to the court’s findings, none of the children by the first marriage received their respective shares from the testator’s property

their respective shares from the testator’s property

- Even if clause 8 of the will is invoked (said clause states that the children by his first - Even if clause 8 of the will is invoked (said clause states that the children by his first marriage had already received their shares in his property excluding what he had marriage had already received their shares in his property excluding what he had given them as aid during their financial troubles and the money they had borrowed given them as aid during their financial troubles and the money they had borrowed from him) the Court can rely only on the findings of the trial court that the inventory from him) the Court can rely only on the findings of the trial court that the inventory indicates that the property of Neri has remained intact and that no portion has been indicates that the property of Neri has remained intact and that no portion has been given to the children of the first marriage.

given to the children of the first marriage.

- Neri left his property by universal title to the children by his second marriage and did - Neri left his property by universal title to the children by his second marriage and did not expressly disinherit his children by his first marriage but did not leave anything to not expressly disinherit his children by his first marriage but did not leave anything to them.

them. This fits the case of preteritThis fits the case of preterition according to A814, CC which provides tion according to A814, CC which provides that thehat the insti

institutiotution n of heirs of heirs shall be shall be annulannulled and led and intesintestate successitate succession should be on should be declardeclareded open.

open. 2. YES 2. YES

- The word "heir" as used in A814 of the Civil Code may not have the meaning that it - The word "heir" as used in A814 of the Civil Code may not have the meaning that it has under the Code of Civil Procedure, but this does prevent a bequest from being has under the Code of Civil Procedure, but this does prevent a bequest from being made by universal title as is in substance the subject-matter of A814 of the Civil Code. made by universal title as is in substance the subject-matter of A814 of the Civil Code. - It may also be true that heirs under the Code of Civil Procedure may receive the - It may also be true that heirs under the Code of Civil Procedure may receive the bequest only after payment of debts left by the deceased and not before as under the bequest only after payment of debts left by the deceased and not before as under the

Civil Code, but this may have a bearing only upon the question as to when succession Civil Code, but this may have a bearing only upon the question as to when succession becomes effective and can in no way destroy the fact that succession may still be by becomes effective and can in no way destroy the fact that succession may still be by universal or special title.

universal or special title.

- Since a bequest may still be made by universal title and with preterition of forced - Since a bequest may still be made by universal title and with preterition of forced heirs, its nullity as provided in article 814 still applies there b

heirs, its nullity as provided in article 814 still applies there b eing nothing inconsistenteing nothing inconsistent with it in the Code of Civil P

with it in the Code of Civil Procedure. rocedure. The basis for its nullity is The basis for its nullity is the nature and effectthe nature and effect of the bequest and not

of the bequest and not its possible name under the Code its possible name under the Code of Civil Procedure.of Civil Procedure.

- In addition, Secs. 755 and 756 of the Code of Civil Procedure affected A814 and A851 - In addition, Secs. 755 and 756 of the Code of Civil Procedure affected A814 and A851 of the Civil Code.

of the Civil Code. But these sections have been expressly repealed by Act No. 2141,But these sections have been expressly repealed by Act No. 2141, thus restoring force to A814 and A851.

thus restoring force to A814 and A851. OZAETA [concur]

OZAETA [concur]

- Whether or not there was preterition of the testator's surviving children by his first - Whether or not there was preterition of the testator's surviving children by his first marriage, may not be entirely beyond dispute, because it is not altogether improbable marriage, may not be entirely beyond dispute, because it is not altogether improbable that, before the testator made his will said children of his had received cash advances that, before the testator made his will said children of his had received cash advances from him.

from him. But, to my mind, there can be But, to my mind, there can be no doubt that there was prno doubt that there was preterition of theeterition of the testa

testator's grandchtor's grandchildreildren n by by his daughter Getulia, who his daughter Getulia, who died long died long beforbefore e the testatorthe testator made his will. These lineal descendants of the testator, who are also forced heirs of made his will. These lineal descendants of the testator, who are also forced heirs of his, were completely ignored and omitted

his, were completely ignored and omitted in the will.in the will. -

- In the In the absabsencence e of proof it of proof it canncannot be ot be prepresumesumed d thathat t the testthe testatoator r made themade the declarations in bad faith - that he made them knowing that it was not true that he had declarations in bad faith - that he made them knowing that it was not true that he had given each of his surviving children by his first wife at least an equal if not a greater given each of his surviving children by his first wife at least an equal if not a greater share in his inheritance than what he

share in his inheritance than what he left to each of his left to each of his children by his second wife.children by his second wife. - But if he had made those declarations in bad faith or as a subterfuge to deprive his - But if he had made those declarations in bad faith or as a subterfuge to deprive his children and grandchildren by his first marriage of their legal share in his inheritance, children and grandchildren by his first marriage of their legal share in his inheritance, he could only have done so with the intention to frustrate their right. In that case the he could only have done so with the intention to frustrate their right. In that case the preterition would only assume a different form, voluntary instead of involuntary. But preterition would only assume a different form, voluntary instead of involuntary. But the result would be the same.

the result would be the same. BOCOBO [dissent]

BOCOBO [dissent]

- There is no preterition because the

- There is no preterition because the findings of both the Court of First Ifindings of both the Court of First I nstance and of nstance and of the Court of Appeals show that all the children of the first marriage have received, in the Court of Appeals show that all the children of the first marriage have received, in property and in cash, a part of their short legitime. One of the requisites of preterition property and in cash, a part of their short legitime. One of the requisites of preterition is that one or some of the heirs of the direct line be totally deprived of their legitime. is that one or some of the heirs of the direct line be totally deprived of their legitime. - The children of the first marriage not having been entirely forgotten, the will should - The children of the first marriage not having been entirely forgotten, the will should be respected and carried out, but the children of the first marriage should have their be respected and carried out, but the children of the first marriage should have their respe

respective shares in ctive shares in the strict legitime completethe strict legitime completed d after taking into after taking into accouaccount nt thethe amounts already received by them from their father.

amounts already received by them from their father.

- But granting that there was a preterition because one or some of the children of the - But granting that there was a preterition because one or some of the children of the first marriage never received, by donation inter vivos or by will, anything from their first marriage never received, by donation inter vivos or by will, anything from their father, it is clear from the will

father, it is clear from the will in question that the children of the second in question that the children of the second marriage aremarriage are entitled to the third for free disposal and to the third for mejora (in addition to their entitled to the third for free disposal and to the third for mejora (in addition to their share in the strict legitime.

share in the strict legitime.

- "Anulará la institución de heredero" does not mean that the whole will is of no effect. - "Anulará la institución de heredero" does not mean that the whole will is of no effect. It merely nullifies the clause designating the children of the second marriage. As the It merely nullifies the clause designating the children of the second marriage. As the only "herederos" or continuers of the testator's personality and in the place of such only "herederos" or continuers of the testator's personality and in the place of such claus

clause, article 814 e, article 814 orderorders that s that all the children, of both all the children, of both marriamarriages, shall be ges, shall be suchsuch continuers of Neri's personality. This does not mean that all the children shall divide continuers of Neri's personality. This does not mean that all the children shall divide the whole estate equally, by the rules of intestacy. It simply signifies that the children the whole estate equally, by the rules of intestacy. It simply signifies that the children of

of botboth h marmarriariages ges becbecome ome concontintinueruers s of of NerNeri's i's perpersonsonaliality, ty, and and as as sucsuch h lialiableble personally for all of Neri's obligations, so that, under the system of the Spanish Civil personally for all of Neri's obligations, so that, under the system of the Spanish Civil Code, which distinguishes "herederos" from "legatarios," all the children are liable Code, which distinguishes "herederos" from "legatarios," all the children are liable personally for the debts of their father, even beyond and in excess of the property personally for the debts of their father, even beyond and in excess of the property received by each of them.

(2)

ALVAREZ v IAC (YANES)

185 SCRA 8

FERNAN; May 7, 1990

NATURE NATURE

Petition for review on

Petition for review on certioraricertiorari FACTS

FACTS

- Two parcels of land were registered in the names of the heirs of Aniceto Yanes, - Two parcels of land were registered in the names of the heirs of Aniceto Yanes, under an Original Certificate of Title.

under an Original Certificate of Title.

- Fortunato D. Santiago was issued a Transfer Certificate of Title. Santiago then sold - Fortunato D. Santiago was issued a Transfer Certificate of Title. Santiago then sold the lots to Monico B.

the lots to Monico B. Fuentebella, Jr. The lots were sold thereafter Fuentebella, Jr. The lots were sold thereafter Rosendo Alvarez.Rosendo Alvarez. - The Yaneses filed a complaint against Santiago, Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella, Alvarez - The Yaneses filed a complaint against Santiago, Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella, Alvarez and the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental for the "return" of the ownership and and the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental for the "return" of the ownership and possession of the lots, and prayed for an accounting of the produce of the land from possession of the lots, and prayed for an accounting of the produce of the land from 1944 up to the filing of the complaint, and that the share or money equivalent due the 1944 up to the filing of the complaint, and that the share or money equivalent due the heirs be delivered to them, and damages.

heirs be delivered to them, and damages.

- During the pendency of the case, Alvarez sold the lots to Dr. Rodolfo Siason. - During the pendency of the case, Alvarez sold the lots to Dr. Rodolfo Siason.

--_{The CFI ordered Alvarez to reconvey and deliver the possessio}_{The CFI ordered Alvarez to reconvey and deliver the possession of}_{n of the lots to}_{the lots to the}_the

Yaneses. However, execution of said decision proved unsuccessful with

Yaneses. However, execution of said decision proved unsuccessful with respect to onerespect to one of the lots, as it had been subdivided into two and that that they were "in the name" of the lots, as it had been subdivided into two and that that they were "in the name" of Rodolfo Siason who had purchased them from Alvarez, and that the lot could not be of Rodolfo Siason who had purchased them from Alvarez, and that the lot could not be delivered to the plaintiffs as Siason was

delivered to the plaintiffs as Siason was "not a party per writ "not a party per writ of execution."of execution."

- The Yaneses filed a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title and for a - The Yaneses filed a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title and for a declar

declaration of ation of nullinullity of ty of the TCTs issued to the TCTs issued to RosenRosendo Alvarez.do Alvarez. TThe he court requirecourt requiredd Rodolfo Siason to produce the certificates of title covering the lots, which order was Rodolfo Siason to produce the certificates of title covering the lots, which order was later nullified by the court in view

later nullified by the court in view of a manifestation filed by Siason.of a manifestation filed by Siason.

- the lower court found Siason as a buyer in good faith, and ordered the heirs of - the lower court found Siason as a buyer in good faith, and ordered the heirs of Alvar

Alvarez to ez to pay the pay the YanesYaneses the es the actual value of the actual value of the lots, plus damageslots, plus damages. The . The IACIAC affirmed except as to damages.

affirmed except as to damages. - Petitioners

- Petitioners contend, among others, that the lcontend, among others, that the liability arising from the siability arising from the sale of the lotsale of the lots made by Rosendo Alvarez to Dr. Rodolfo Siason should be the sole liability of the late made by Rosendo Alvarez to Dr. Rodolfo Siason should be the sole liability of the late Rosendo Alvarez or of his estate,

Rosendo Alvarez or of his estate, after his death.after his death. ISSUE

ISSUE

WON the liability arising from the sale of the lots made by Rosendo Alvarez to Dr. WON the liability arising from the sale of the lots made by Rosendo Alvarez to Dr. Rodolfo Siason should be the sole liability of the late Rosendo Alvarez or of his estate, Rodolfo Siason should be the sole liability of the late Rosendo Alvarez or of his estate, after his death.

after his death. HELD

HELD NO. NO.

- It overlooks the doctrine obtaining in this jurisdiction on the general transmissibility - It overlooks the doctrine obtaining in this jurisdiction on the general transmissibility of the rights and obligations of the deceased to his legitimate children and heirs. of the rights and obligations of the deceased to his legitimate children and heirs. Under our law, the general rule is that a party's contractual rights and obligations are Under our law, the general rule is that a party's contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the successors.

transmissible to the successors. - The pertinent provisions of the

- The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code state:Civil Code state: Art. 774.

Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rightsSuccession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obli

and obligatgationions s to the to the extextent of ent of the value of the value of the inherthe inheritaitancence, , of of a a perperson areson are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.

law. Art. 776.

Art. 776. The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his

which are not extinguished by his death.death.

Art. 1311

Art. 1311. Contract stake effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs. Contract stake effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property received from the decedent.

liable beyond the value of the property received from the decedent. - Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety Co., Inc.:

- Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety Co., Inc.: The binding effect of contracts upon the The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased party is not altered by the provision of our Rules of Court that heirs of the deceased party is not altered by the provision of our Rules of Court that money debts of a

money debts of a deceasdeceased must be ed must be liquiliquidated and paid from dated and paid from his estate before thehis estate before the resid

residue is ue is distrdistributeibuted d among said heirs (Rule 89). among said heirs (Rule 89). The reason is The reason is that whatevethat whateverr pay

payment is ment is thuthus s madmade e frofrom m the statthe state e is ultimis ultimateately a ly a paypaymenment t by the by the heiheirs orrs or distributees, since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces the distributees, since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would have

shares that the heirs would have been entitled to receive.been entitled to receive.

- The general rule (above) is a consequence of the progressive "depersonalization" of - The general rule (above) is a consequence of the progressive "depersonalization" of patrimonial rights and duties that, as observed by Victorio Polacco, “has characterized patrimonial rights and duties that, as observed by Victorio Polacco, “has characterized the history of these institutions. From the Roman concept of a relation from person to the history of these institutions. From the Roman concept of a relation from person to person, the obligation has evolved into a relation from patrimony to patrimony with person, the obligation has evolved into a relation from patrimony to patrimony with the persons occupying only a representative position, barring those rare cases where the persons occupying only a representative position, barring those rare cases where the obligation is strictly personal,

the obligation is strictly personal, ii..ee., is contracted., is contracted intuitu personaeintuitu personae, in consideration, in consideration of its performance by a specific person and by no other.”

of its performance by a specific person and by no other.”

- Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez, they cannot escape the legal - Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez, they cannot escape the legal consequences of their father's transaction, which gave rise to the present claim for consequences of their father's transaction, which gave rise to the present claim for damage

damages. That s. That petitpetitionerioners s did not did not inherinherit the it the propeproperty involved is of rty involved is of no momentno moment because by legal fiction, the monetary equivalent thereof devolved into the mass of because by legal fiction, the monetary equivalent thereof devolved into the mass of their fath

their father's heredier's hereditary estatetary estate, and , and heredhereditary assetitary assets are always liable in theirs are always liable in their total

totality for ity for the payment of the payment of the debts of the debts of the estate.the estate.It must, It must, howevehowever, be r, be made clearmade clear that petitioners are liable only to the

that petitioners are liable only to the extent of the value of extent of the value of their inheritance.their inheritance.

VITUG v CA (ROWENA

VITUG v CA (ROWENA FAUSTINO-CORONA)

FAUSTINO-CORONA)

183 SCRA 755

SARMIENTO; March 29, 1990

NATURE NATURE This case is a

This case is a chaptchapter in er in an earlier suit involan earlier suit involving the probate of the ving the probate of the two wills of thetwo wills of the late Dolores

late Dolores LuchangLuchangco co Vitug naming Vitug naming privaprivate te resporespondent Rowena ndent Rowena FaustFaustino-Coino-Coronarona executrix. In that case, the appointment of Nenita Alonte as co-special administrator executrix. In that case, the appointment of Nenita Alonte as co-special administrator of Mrs. Vitug's estate with her (Mrs. Vitug's) widower, petitioner Romarico G. Vitug, of Mrs. Vitug's estate with her (Mrs. Vitug's) widower, petitioner Romarico G. Vitug, pending probate was upheld.

pending probate was upheld. FACTS

FACTS

- Jan.13, 1985, Romarico G. Vitug filed a motion asking for authority from the probate - Jan.13, 1985, Romarico G. Vitug filed a motion asking for authority from the probate court to sell certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to court to sell certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to cover allegedly his advances to the estate in the sum of P667,731.66, plus interests, cover allegedly his advances to the estate in the sum of P667,731.66, plus interests, whi

which ch he he claclaimeimed d werwere e perpersonsonal al funfunds ds (as found (as found by by CA, the CA, the allallegeeged d advadvanceancess con

consissisted ted of of P58P58,14,147.47.40 0 estestate ate taxtax, , P51P518,88,834.34.27 27 defdeficiiciencency y estestate ate taxtax, , andand P90,749.99 as increment thereto).

P90,749.99 as increment thereto). - April 12,

- April 12, 1985, Rowena Coron1985, Rowena Corona opposed the motion to a opposed the motion to sell on the sell on the grounground that d that thethe same funds withdrawn from one of the savings account were conjugal partnership same funds withdrawn from one of the savings account were conjugal partnership prope

properties and part of rties and part of the estate, and hence, there was the estate, and hence, there was allegallegedly no ground foredly no ground for reimbursement. She also sought his ouster for failure to include the sums in question reimbursement. She also sought his ouster for failure to include the sums in question for inventory and for "concealment of

for inventory and for "concealment of funds belonging to the estate."funds belonging to the estate."

- Vitug insists that the said funds are his exclusive property having acquired the same - Vitug insists that the said funds are his exclusive property having acquired the same through a survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the bank on June through a survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the bank on June 19, 1970, where it was stipulated that all the money that will be deposited by either of 19, 1970, where it was stipulated that all the money that will be deposited by either of them (Romarico and Dolores) in their joint savings current account shall be their them (Romarico and Dolores) in their joint savings current account shall be their

(3)

proper

property, and after the death of ty, and after the death of eitheeither of r of them shall belonthem shall belong to g to and be the and be the solesole property of the survivor.

property of the survivor.

- The trial courts upheld the validity of this agreement and granted "the motion to sell - The trial courts upheld the validity of this agreement and granted "the motion to sell some of the estate of Dolores, the proceeds of which shall be used to pay the personal some of the estate of Dolores, the proceeds of which shall be used to pay the personal funds of Romarico Vitug in the

funds of Romarico Vitug in the total sum of P667,731.66 ... ."total sum of P667,731.66 ... ."

- On the other hand, the CA, in the petition for certiorari filed by Rowena, held that the - On the other hand, the CA, in the petition for certiorari filed by Rowena, held that the above-quoted survivorship agreement constitutes a conveyance mortis causa which above-quoted survivorship agreement constitutes a conveyance mortis causa which "did not comply with the formalities of a valid will as prescribed by Article 805 of the "did not comply with the formalities of a valid will as prescribed by Article 805 of the Civil Code," and secondly, assuming that it is a mere donation inter vivos, it is a Civil Code," and secondly, assuming that it is a mere donation inter vivos, it is a prohibited donation under the provisions of Article 133 of the Civil Code, setting aside prohibited donation under the provisions of Article 133 of the Civil Code, setting aside the order granting Romarico’s motion to sell properties of Dolores for reimbursement the order granting Romarico’s motion to sell properties of Dolores for reimbursement of his alleged advances to the estate.

of his alleged advances to the estate.

- Romarico assails CA’s ruling on the strength of Rivera v. People's Bank and Trust Co. - Romarico assails CA’s ruling on the strength of Rivera v. People's Bank and Trust Co. and Macam

and Macam v. v. GatmaiGatmaitan sustainintan sustaining g the validity of the validity of "surv"survivorsivorship agreementship agreements" " andand considering them as aleatory contracts.

considering them as aleatory contracts. ISSUE

ISSUE

WON the survivorship agreement constitutes a conveyance

WON the survivorship agreement constitutes a conveyance mortis causa.mortis causa. HELD

HELD NO. NO.

- The conveyance in question is not, first of all, one of mortis causa, which should be - The conveyance in question is not, first of all, one of mortis causa, which should be embodied in a will. A will has been defined as "a personal, solemn, revocable and free embodied in a will. A will has been defined as "a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which a capacitated person disposes of his property and rights and declares or act by which a capacitated person disposes of his property and rights and declares or complies with duties to take effect after his death." In other words, the bequest or complies with duties to take effect after his death." In other words, the bequest or device must pertain to the testator. In this case, the monies subject of the savings device must pertain to the testator. In this case, the monies subject of the savings account were in the nature of conjugal funds.

account were in the nature of conjugal funds.

- In the Rivera case, the court rejected claims that a survivorship agreement purports - In the Rivera case, the court rejected claims that a survivorship agreement purports to deliver one party's separate properties in favor of the other, but simply, their joint to deliver one party's separate properties in favor of the other, but simply, their joint holdings

holdings

- In the Macam case, it was held that the agreement is an aleatory contract whereby, - In the Macam case, it was held that the agreement is an aleatory contract whereby, according to article 1790 of the Civil Code, one of the parties or both reciprocally bind according to article 1790 of the Civil Code, one of the parties or both reciprocally bind themselves to give or do something as an equivalent for that which the other party is themselves to give or do something as an equivalent for that which the other party is to give or do in case of the occurrence of an event which is uncertain or will happen at to give or do in case of the occurrence of an event which is uncertain or will happen at an indeterminate time.

an indeterminate time.

- There is no showing that the funds exclusively belonged to one party, and hence it - There is no showing that the funds exclusively belonged to one party, and hence it must be presumed to be conjugal, having been acquired during the existence of the must be presumed to be conjugal, having been acquired during the existence of the marital relations.

marital relations. -

- NeithNeither is er is the survivorthe survivorship agreemenship agreement t a a donatidonation inter on inter vivosvivos, for , for obvioobvious reasons,us reasons, bec

becausause e it was it was to take to take effeffect after the death of ect after the death of one partone party. Secony. Secondlydly, , it is it is not anot a donation between the spouses because it involved no conveyance of a spouse's own donation between the spouses because it involved no conveyance of a spouse's own properties to the other.

properties to the other.

- Also, the agreement involves no modification petition of the conjugal partnership, as - Also, the agreement involves no modification petition of the conjugal partnership, as held by the CA, by "mere stipulation" and that it is no "cloak" to circumvent the law on held by the CA, by "mere stipulation" and that it is no "cloak" to circumvent the law on conjugal property relations as the spouses are not prohibited by law to invest conjugal conjugal property relations as the spouses are not prohibited by law to invest conjugal pro

properperty, say, by ty, say, by way of way of a a joijoint nt and severand several al banbank k accaccounount, t, mormore e comcommonlmonlyy denominated in banking parlance as an "and/or" account. In the case at bar, the denominated in banking parlance as an "and/or" account. In the case at bar, the spouses Vitug did not dispose of property in favor of the other, which would have spouses Vitug did not dispose of property in favor of the other, which would have argua

arguably been bly been sanctsanctionablionable e as a as a prohibprohibited donatioited donation. And n. And since the funds since the funds werewere conjugal, it can not be said that one spouse could have pressured the other in placing conjugal, it can not be said that one spouse could have pressured the other in placing his or her deposits in the money pool.

his or her deposits in the money pool.

- The validity of the contract seems debatable by reason of its "survivor-take-all" - The validity of the contract seems debatable by reason of its "survivor-take-all" feature, but in reality, that contract imposed a mere obligation with a term, the term feature, but in reality, that contract imposed a mere obligation with a term, the term being death. Such agreements are permitted by the Civil Code under Article 2010 being death. Such agreements are permitted by the Civil Code under Article 201011

- While the court has warned that although the survivorship agreement is per se not - While the court has warned that although the survivorship agreement is per se not contrary to law its operation or effect may be violative of the law. For instance, if it be contrary to law its operation or effect may be violative of the law. For instance, if it be shown in a given case that such agreement is a mere cloak to hide an inofficious shown in a given case that such agreement is a mere cloak to hide an inofficious donation, to transfer property in fraud of creditors, or to defeat the legitime of a donation, to transfer property in fraud of creditors, or to defeat the legitime of a for

forced heir, it ced heir, it may be may be assassailailed ed and annuland annulled upon led upon sucsuch h grogroundunds, s, thethere re is is nono demonstration in this case that the survivorship agreement had been executed for demonstration in this case that the survivorship agreement had been executed for such unlawful purposes.

such unlawful purposes.

MONTINOLA v HERBOSA

CA REP 2ND 377

CAPISTRANO; 1963

NATURE NATURE

Appeal from a judgment of the CFI Manila Appeal from a judgment of the CFI Manila FACTS

FACTS

Montinola filed this action against the heirs of Jose Rizal for the recovery of possession Montinola filed this action against the heirs of Jose Rizal for the recovery of possession of personal property (the RIZAL RELICS) allegedly sold to him by Dona Trinidad Rizal. of personal property (the RIZAL RELICS) allegedly sold to him by Dona Trinidad Rizal. The trial court

The trial court held that neither party held that neither party is entitled to is entitled to possepossession of ssion of properproperty, relyingty, relying principally on the fact that in Rizal’s MI ULTIMO ADIOS, there was a stanza where Rizal principally on the fact that in Rizal’s MI ULTIMO ADIOS, there was a stanza where Rizal allegedly bequeathed all his property to

allegedly bequeathed all his property to the Filipino people:the Filipino people: “Sintang Pilipinas, lupa“Sintang Pilipinas, lupa kong hinira

kong hinirang…Hng…Huling paalam ko’t uling paalam ko’t sayo’sayo’y y iiwaiiwan. n. Ang lahat Ang lahat at at madlmadlangang iniwan sa buhay.”

iniwan sa buhay.” The handwritten work of Rizal to the mind of the trial court The handwritten work of Rizal to the mind of the trial court constitutes a holographic will giving to the State

constitutes a holographic will giving to the State all his property.all his property.

(The Court also relied on the enforceability of Spanish judgment convicting Rizal and (The Court also relied on the enforceability of Spanish judgment convicting Rizal and adjudging in favor of the state P100,000 as indemnity as another basis for holding adjudging in favor of the state P100,000 as indemnity as another basis for holding that it is the State that had superior lien over Rizal’s property but for our purposes, that it is the State that had superior lien over Rizal’s property but for our purposes, only the issue of succession is herein

only the issue of succession is herein discussed)discussed) ISSUE

ISSUE WON Rizal’

WON Rizal’s MI s MI ULTIMU ADIOS which was ULTIMU ADIOS which was handwhandwritteritten by n by Rizal is a Rizal is a hologrholographic willaphic will,, which bequeaths to the State all

which bequeaths to the State all his property (the Rizal relics).his property (the Rizal relics). HELD

HELD

- An instrument which merely expresses a last wish as a thought or advice but does - An instrument which merely expresses a last wish as a thought or advice but does not contain a disposition of property and was not executed with ANIMUS TESTANDI not contain a disposition of property and was not executed with ANIMUS TESTANDI cannot be legally considered a will.

cannot be legally considered a will. - Rizal’s MI ULTIMO ADIOS is a

- Rizal’s MI ULTIMO ADIOS is a literliterary piece of work and was ary piece of work and was so intendedso intended. It may . It may bebe con

considsidereered d a a wilwill l in in a a gragrammatmmaticaical l sensense, but se, but not in not in a a leglegal al or or jurjuridiidical sensecal sense.. Assumi

Assuming ng arguearguendo that ndo that the concerned 13the concerned 13thth _sta_{stanza in}_{nza in the said writ}_{the said writing was}_{ing was a}_a

holographic will, the fact remains that it is still worthless for noncompliance with the holographic will, the fact remains that it is still worthless for noncompliance with the mandatory provisions of the Spanish Civil Code.

mandatory provisions of the Spanish Civil Code.

- Art 688 requires that it be drawn on stamped paper corresponding to the year of its - Art 688 requires that it be drawn on stamped paper corresponding to the year of its execution, written in its entirety by the testator and signed by him and must contain a execution, written in its entirety by the testator and signed by him and must contain a

1 1

ART. 2010. By an aleatory contract, one of the parties or both reciprocally bind themselves to give or to do ART. 2010. By an aleatory contract, one of the parties or both reciprocally bind themselves to give or to do something in consideration of what the other shall give or do

something in consideration of what the other shall give or do upon the happening of an event which is uncertain, orupon the happening of an event which is uncertain, or which is to occur at an

(4)

sta

statemtement of ent of the yearthe year, month and day , month and day of execuof executiotion. n. ArtArt. 689 . 689 reqrequiruires thates that holographic wills be protocoled and shall be presented for this purpose to the judge of holographic wills be protocoled and shall be presented for this purpose to the judge of first inst

first instance of the ance of the last domicilast domicile of le of the testatthe testator or or or to the one to the one of the place where heof the place where he died within 5 years from the day of the testator’s death. Without these requisites, the died within 5 years from the day of the testator’s death. Without these requisites, the holographic will shall not be valid.

holographic will shall not be valid.

ENRIQUEZ v ABADIA

95 Phil 927

MONTEMAYOR; August 9, 1954

FACTS FACTS

- September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia, parish priest of Talisay, Cebu, executed a - September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia, parish priest of Talisay, Cebu, executed a document purporting to be his Last Will and Testament. He died on January 14, 1943 . document purporting to be his Last Will and Testament. He died on January 14, 1943 . Andres Enriquez, one of the legatees

Andres Enriquez, one of the legatees filed a petition for its probate which filed a petition for its probate which was opposedwas opposed by some cousins and nephews who would inherit the estate of the deceased if he left by some cousins and nephews who would inherit the estate of the deceased if he left no will.

no will. -

- One of One of the attestinthe attesting g witnewitnesses testifisses testified ed withowithout contradictut contradiction that ion that in his in his presepresencence and in the presence of his co-witnesses, Father Sancho wrote out in longhand said will and in the presence of his co-witnesses, Father Sancho wrote out in longhand said will in Spanish which the testator spoke and understood; that he (testator) signed on he in Spanish which the testator spoke and understood; that he (testator) signed on he left hand margin of the front page of each of

left hand margin of the front page of each of the three foliothe three folios or s or sheetsheets of s of which thewhich the document is composed, and numbered the same with Arabic numerals, and finally document is composed, and numbered the same with Arabic numerals, and finally signed his name at the end of his writing at the last page, all this, in the presence of signed his name at the end of his writing at the last page, all this, in the presence of the three attesting witnesses after telling that it was his last will and that the said the three attesting witnesses after telling that it was his last will and that the said three witnesses signed their names on the last page after the attestation clause in his three witnesses signed their names on the last page after the attestation clause in his presen

presence and in the presence of each othece and in the presence of each other. r. The opposiThe oppositors did not submitors did not submit anyt any evidence.

evidence. - The

- The trial courtrial court found said will to t found said will to be a be a hologholographic willraphic will. Although at the . Although at the time it wastime it was executed and at the time of the testator's death, holographic wills were not permitted executed and at the time of the testator's death, holographic wills were not permitted by law , the trial court still admitted to probate the Last Will and Testament of Father by law , the trial court still admitted to probate the Last Will and Testament of Father Sancho Abadia. The TC did so because at the time of the hearing and when the case Sancho Abadia. The TC did so because at the time of the hearing and when the case was to be decided the new Civil Code was already in force, which permitted the was to be decided the new Civil Code was already in force, which permitted the execution of holographic wills. According to the trial court, to carry out the intention of execution of holographic wills. According to the trial court, to carry out the intention of the testator is the controlling factor and may override any defect in form.

the testator is the controlling factor and may override any defect in form. ISSUE

ISSUE

WON The New Civil Code may be applied to the probate of Father Abadia’s will WON The New Civil Code may be applied to the probate of Father Abadia’s will HELD

HELD No. No. Artic

Article 795 le 795 of the new of the new Civil Code expresCivil Code expressly providesly provides: "The s: "The valivalidity of a dity of a will as to will as to itsits form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made."

form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made." The validity of a will is to be judged not by the law in force at the time of the testator's The validity of a will is to be judged not by the law in force at the time of the testator's death or at the time the supposed will is presented in court for probate or when the death or at the time the supposed will is presented in court for probate or when the petition is decided by the court but at the time the instrument was executed.

petition is decided by the court but at the time the instrument was executed.

One reason in support of the rule is that although the will operates upon and after the One reason in support of the rule is that although the will operates upon and after the death of the testator, the wishes of the testator about the disposition of his estate death of the testator, the wishes of the testator about the disposition of his estate among his heirs and among the legatees is given solemn expression at the time the among his heirs and among the legatees is given solemn expression at the time the will is executed, and in reality, the. legacy or bequest then becomes a completed act. will is executed, and in reality, the. legacy or bequest then becomes a completed act. From the day of the death of the testator, if he leaves a will, the title of the legatees From the day of the death of the testator, if he leaves a will, the title of the legatees and devisees under it becomes a vested right, protected under the due process clause and devisees under it becomes a vested right, protected under the due process clause of the

of the consticonstitutiotution n againagainst a st a subsesubsequent change in quent change in the statute adding new the statute adding new legallegal requirements of execution of wills which would invalidate such a will. By parity of requirements of execution of wills which would invalidate such a will. By parity of reasoning, when one executes a will which is invalid for failure to observe and follow reasoning, when one executes a will which is invalid for failure to observe and follow

the legal requirements at the time of its execution then upon his death he should be the legal requirements at the time of its execution then upon his death he should be regarded and declared as having died intestate, and his heirs will then inherit by regarded and declared as having died intestate, and his heirs will then inherit by intestate sucession, and no subsequent law with more liberal requirements or which intestate sucession, and no subsequent law with more liberal requirements or which dispenses with such requirements as to execution should be allowed to validate a dispenses with such requirements as to execution should be allowed to validate a defec

defective will and tive will and therebthereby divest the y divest the heirs of their vested rights in heirs of their vested rights in the estate bythe estate by intes

intestate successitate succession. The on. The genergeneral rule al rule is that is that the Legislatuthe Legislature re can not can not validvalidate voidate void wills.

wills.

IN RE: PROBATE OF WILL OF JOSE RIOSA

GR L-14074

MALCOLM; November 7, 1918

NATURE NATURE

Appeal from decision of CFI Albay which disallowed the will of RIosa Appeal from decision of CFI Albay which disallowed the will of RIosa FACTS

FACTS

- Jose Riosa made a will in January 1908, disposing of his entire estate. The will was - Jose Riosa made a will in January 1908, disposing of his entire estate. The will was executed according to the law in force at that time, complying with all the requisites executed according to the law in force at that time, complying with all the requisites then required. He died April 17, 1917. However, between the execution of the will and then required. He died April 17, 1917. However, between the execution of the will and his death, the law on formalities on execution of wills was amended by Act No. 2645 his death, the law on formalities on execution of wills was amended by Act No. 2645 (July 1, 1916; it added formalities required such as signatures on each page of the (July 1, 1916; it added formalities required such as signatures on each page of the will). The new law, therefore, went into effect after the making of the will and before will). The new law, therefore, went into effect after the making of the will and before the death of the testator, without the testator having left a will that conforms to the the death of the testator, without the testator having left a will that conforms to the new requirements.

new requirements. ISSUE

ISSUE

WON the will is valid WON the will is valid HELD

HELD 1. YES 1. YES The valid

The validity of the ity of the execuexecution of a tion of a will must be tested by the statutes in force at thewill must be tested by the statutes in force at the time of its execution and

time of its execution and statutes subsequently enacted have no retrospective effect.statutes subsequently enacted have no retrospective effect. All statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation unless the All statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation unless the purpo

purpose and se and intenintention of tion of the Legislatthe Legislature to ure to give them a give them a retroretrospectspective effect ive effect isis expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used. In every case of expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used. In every case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved

doubt, the doubt must be resolved against the restrospective effect.against the restrospective effect. -The language of Act

-The language of Act No. 2645 No. 2645 gives no indicatiogives no indication n of retrospecof retrospective effect. Such,tive effect. Such, likewise, has been the uniform tendency of the SC on cases having special application likewise, has been the uniform tendency of the SC on cases having special application to testamentary succession.

to testamentary succession.

- Our statute announces a positive rule for the transference of property which must be - Our statute announces a positive rule for the transference of property which must be complied with as a completed act at the time of the execution, so far as the act of the complied with as a completed act at the time of the execution, so far as the act of the testator is concerned, as to all testaments made subsequent to the enactment of Act testator is concerned, as to all testaments made subsequent to the enactment of Act No. 2645, but is not effective as to testaments made antecedent to that date.

No. 2645, but is not effective as to testaments made antecedent to that date. - the court considered 3

- the court considered 3 views in addressing the issue:views in addressing the issue:

(1) validity of wills are tested by the laws in force at the time of death of the testator (1) validity of wills are tested by the laws in force at the time of death of the testator (cons

(considereidered the d the right of one right of one to make to make a will as a will as an inchoate rightan inchoate right). This view ). This view waswas rejected by the court. “The act of bequeathing or devising is something more than rejected by the court. “The act of bequeathing or devising is something more than incho

inchoate or ate or ambulaambulatory. In tory. In realireality, it ty, it becomes a completed act when becomes a completed act when the will isthe will is execu

executed and attested accordited and attested according to ng to the law, although it does not take the law, although it does not take effect on theeffect on the property until a future time.”

property until a future time.”

(2) validity of wills must be tested by statutes in force at time of execution. This view (2) validity of wills must be tested by statutes in force at time of execution. This view is the one adopted by SC

(5)

(3) statutes relati

(3) statutes relating to ng to the executiothe execution n of wills, when of wills, when they increasthey increase e the necessarthe necessaryy formalities, should be construed so as not to impair the validity of a will already made formalities, should be construed so as not to impair the validity of a will already made and, when they lessen the formalities required, should be construed so as to aid wills and, when they lessen the formalities required, should be construed so as to aid wills defectively executed according to the law in force at the time of their making. The defectively executed according to the law in force at the time of their making. The court did not directly address this view, but clearly stated that they are adopting the court did not directly address this view, but clearly stated that they are adopting the 2 2ndnd_rule_rule

JIMENEZ v FERNANDEZ

184 SCR 190

PARAS; April 6, 1990

NATURE NATURE

Petition for review on certiorari Petition for review on certiorari FACTS

FACTS

- land in question is the Eastern portion of parcel of residential land with an area of - land in question is the Eastern portion of parcel of residential land with an area of 436 sqm

436 sqm situasituated in ted in Barrio Dulig, LabradBarrio Dulig, Labrador, Pangasior, Pangasinan in nan in the name the name of Sulpiciaof Sulpicia Jimene

Jimenez. z. The entire parceThe entire parcel of l of land with area of 2,932 sqm, formerland with area of 2,932 sqm, formerly belongely belonged tod to Fermin Jimenez

Fermin Jimenez. Fermin . Fermin has 2 has 2 sons named Fortunato and Carlos Jimenez. Fortunasons named Fortunato and Carlos Jimenez. Fortunatoto who predeceased his father has only one child, the petitioner Sulpicia. After the death who predeceased his father has only one child, the petitioner Sulpicia. After the death of Fermin, the entire parcel of land was registered under Act 496 in the name of of Fermin, the entire parcel of land was registered under Act 496 in the name of Carlos Jimenez and Sulpicia Jimenez

Carlos Jimenez and Sulpicia Jimenez (uncle and niece) in equal shares pro-indiviso with(uncle and niece) in equal shares pro-indiviso with respec

respective OCTs issutive OCTs issued on February 28, 1933. ed on February 28, 1933. CarloCarlos died on July 9, 1936 and hiss died on July 9, 1936 and his illeg

illegitimaitimate te daughtdaughter, Melecia Cayabyab, also er, Melecia Cayabyab, also known as known as MelecMelecia ia JimenezJimenez, , tooktook possession of the eastern portion of the

possession of the eastern portion of the property consisting of 436 sqm.property consisting of 436 sqm. -

- JanJanuaruary y 20, 20, 1941944, 4, MelMeleciecia a solsold d saisaid d 436 sqm 436 sqm porportiotion n to to EdiEdilbelberto rto CagCagampampan.an. Defendant Teodora Grado executed a contract entitled "Exchange of Real Properties" Defendant Teodora Grado executed a contract entitled "Exchange of Real Properties" whereby the Edilberto transferred said 436 sqm portion to the Teodora, who has been whereby the Edilberto transferred said 436 sqm portion to the Teodora, who has been in occupation since.

in occupation since. - August 29, 1969,

- August 29, 1969, Sulpicia executed an affidavit adjudicatSulpicia executed an affidavit adjudicating unto herself the othering unto herself the other half of

half of the property appertathe property appertaining to ining to CarloCarlos, upon s, upon manifemanifestatistation that on that she is she is the onlythe only heir of her deceased uncle. Consequently, TCT was issued on October 1, 1969 in heir of her deceased uncle. Consequently, TCT was issued on October 1, 1969 in Sulipicia’s name alone over the entire 2,932

Sulipicia’s name alone over the entire 2,932 sqm property.sqm property.

- April 1, 1970, Sulpicia, joined by her husband, instituted the present action for the - April 1, 1970, Sulpicia, joined by her husband, instituted the present action for the recove

recovery of ry of the eastern portion consistithe eastern portion consisting 436 ng 436 sqm occupied by sqm occupied by defenddefendant Teodoraant Teodora and her son.

and her son.

-- TRIAL COURT:TRIAL COURT: dismissed the complaint and held defendant Teodora the absolutedismissed the complaint and held defendant Teodora the absolute owner of the land in question

owner of the land in question -- CA:CA: affirmed in toto, MFR deined.affirmed in toto, MFR deined. ISSUE

ISSUE

WON Melecia Cayabyab (aka Melecia Jimenez) has

WON Melecia Cayabyab (aka Melecia Jimenez) has right to right to transtransfer (Melecia tofer (Melecia to Edilberto) (and consequent transfer (Edilberto to Teodora)) over the said property Edilberto) (and consequent transfer (Edilberto to Teodora)) over the said property given that she is illegitimate child of

given that she is illegitimate child of Carlos JimenezCarlos Jimenez HELD HELD NO NO Reasoning Reasoning

- Melecia is not the daughter of Carlos Jimenez and therefore, had no right over the - Melecia is not the daughter of Carlos Jimenez and therefore, had no right over the property in question. Teodora et al failed to present concrete evidence to prove that property in question. Teodora et al failed to present concrete evidence to prove that Melecia Cayabyab was really the daughter of Carlos Jimenez. Assuming that Melecia Melecia Cayabyab was really the daughter of Carlos Jimenez. Assuming that Melecia was the illegitimate daughter of Carlos Jimenez there can be no question that Melecia was the illegitimate daughter of Carlos Jimenez there can be no question that Melecia had no right to succeed to the estate of Carlos Jimenez and could not have validly had no right to succeed to the estate of Carlos Jimenez and could not have validly

acquired, nor legally transferred to Edilberto Cagampan that portion of the property acquired, nor legally transferred to Edilberto Cagampan that portion of the property subject of this petition.

subject of this petition.

-- It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that the rights to the succession are transmittedIt is well-settled in this jurisdiction that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent (A777 CC). Moreover, A2263 CC from the moment of the death of the decedent (A777 CC). Moreover, A2263 CC sayssays “Rights to the inheritance of a person who died with or without a will, before the “Rights to the inheritance of a person who died with or without a will, before the effectivity of this Code, shall be governed by

effectivity of this Code, shall be governed by the Civil Code of 1889, by the Civil Code of 1889, by other previousother previous law

laws, and s, and by the by the RulRules of es of CouCourt . rt . . . ." Since Car." Since Carlos died on July 9, los died on July 9, 1931936, the6, the successional rights pertaining to his estate must be determined in accordance with successional rights pertaining to his estate must be determined in accordance with the Civil Code of 1889.

the Civil Code of 1889. Cid v. Burnaman

Cid v. Burnaman: : To be an heir under the rules of To be an heir under the rules of Civil Code of 1889, a child mustCivil Code of 1889, a child must be either a child legitimate, legitimated, or adopted, or else an acknowledged natural be either a child legitimate, legitimated, or adopted, or else an acknowledged natural child for illegitim

child for illegitimate ate not natural are not natural are disqudisqualifialified to ed to inherinherit. (Civil Code it. (Civil Code of 1889, of 1889, Art.Art. 807, 935)

807, 935)

- Even assuming that Melecia was born out of the common-law-relationship between - Even assuming that Melecia was born out of the common-law-relationship between her mother (Maria Cayabyab) and Carlos Jimenez, she could not even be considered her mother (Maria Cayabyab) and Carlos Jimenez, she could not even be considered an acknowledged natural child because Carlos Jimenez was then legally married to an acknowledged natural child because Carlos Jimenez was then legally married to Susana Abalos and therefore not qualified to

Susana Abalos and therefore not qualified to marry Maria Cayabyab and consequentlymarry Maria Cayabyab and consequently Mel

Meleciecia a CayCayabyabyab ab was was an an illillegiegitimtimate ate spuspuriorious us chichild ld and and not not ententitlitled ed to to anyany successional rights in so far as the estate

successional rights in so far as the estate of Carlos Jimenez was concerned.of Carlos Jimenez was concerned. -

- MelMeleciecia a coucould ld not even not even leglegallally y tratransfnsfer er the parcethe parcel l of of lanland d to to EdiEdilbelberto whorto who accordingly, could not also legally transfer the same

accordingly, could not also legally transfer the same to Teodora.to Teodora.

- Melecia’s possession or of her predecessors-in-interest would be unavailing against - Melecia’s possession or of her predecessors-in-interest would be unavailing against Sulpicia who was the holder pro-indiviso with Carlos Jimenez of the Torrens Certificate Sulpicia who was the holder pro-indiviso with Carlos Jimenez of the Torrens Certificate of Title covering a tract of land which includes the portion now in question, from of Title covering a tract of land which includes the portion now in question, from February 28, 1933, when the OCT was issued.

February 28, 1933, when the OCT was issued. Benin v. Tuason:

Benin v. Tuason: No possession by any person of any portion of the land covered byNo possession by any person of any portion of the land covered by said original certificate of titles, could defeat the title of the registered owner of the said original certificate of titles, could defeat the title of the registered owner of the land covered by the certificate of

land covered by the certificate of title.title.

MICIANO v BRIMO

50 Phil 867

ROMUALDEZ

NATURE NATURE

Appeal from various Manila CFI orders Appeal from various Manila CFI orders FACTS

FACTS

- Joseph Brimo. a Turkish national but a long time resident of the Philippines, died and - Joseph Brimo. a Turkish national but a long time resident of the Philippines, died and left behind a testamentary will with Andre Brimo, one the decedent’s brother as a left behind a testamentary will with Andre Brimo, one the decedent’s brother as a legatee.

legatee. -

- Andre Brimo opposed the will Andre Brimo opposed the will on the ground that the provon the ground that the provisions therein are not inisions therein are not in accord with Turkish law and thus a violation of the Philippine Civil Code, Article 10 accord with Turkish law and thus a violation of the Philippine Civil Code, Article 10 which states:

which states: "Neverthe

"Nevertheless, legal a less, legal a testamentary successions, in respect to the testamentary successions, in respect to the order of successionorder of succession as well as to the amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their as well as to the amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of

provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is inthe person whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property or the country in which it may question, whatever may be the nature of the property or the country in which it may be situated."

be situated."

- He was also excluded from the will in view of the provision therein that the testator - He was also excluded from the will in view of the provision therein that the testator annuls and cancels the disposition found in the will favorable to persons who do not annuls and cancels the disposition found in the will favorable to persons who do not respect the provisions of the said will.

respect the provisions of the said will.

- The lower court also dismissed the opposition to the will as the oppositor did not - The lower court also dismissed the opposition to the will as the oppositor did not prove that said testamentary dispositions are not in accordance with