case is Article 777 of the NCC, which provides that the rights to succession

DELA MERCED vs. DELA MERCED

are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. Since Evarista
died ahead of her brother Francisco, the latter inherited a portion of the

February 25, 1999

estate of the former as one of her heirs. Subsequently, when Francisco

died, his heirs inherited his (Francisco's) share in the estate of Evarista.

FACTS:
Evarista M. dela Merced died intestate, without issue and left (5)
parcels of land. At the time of her death, Evarista was survived by three
sets of heirs.
On April 20, 1989, the three sets of heirs of the decedent, executed
an extrajudicial settlement, adjudicating the properties of Evarista to them,
each set with a share of (1/3) pro-indiviso. Joselito P. Dela Merced,
illegitimate son of the late Francisco, filed a "Petition for Annulment of the
Extrajudicial and prayed that he be included to share in the (1/3) proindiviso share in the estate of corresponding to the heirs of Francisco.

ISSUE:

Buhay De Roma v. CA (July 23, 1987)

Facts: Candeleria De Roma adopted two daughters, Buhay and Rosalinda.
She diedintestate. When administration proceedings was ongoing,
Buhay was appointedadministratrix and filed an inventory of the estate.
Opposed by Rosalinda on theground that certain properties donated by
their mother to Buhay and fruits thereof had not been included. The
Parcels of Land totaled P10,297.50 and the value is notdisputed. The TC
issued an order in favor of Buhay because when Candelariadonated the
properties to Buhay she said in the Deed of Donation sa pamamagitanng
pagbibigay na din a mababawing muli which the TC interpreted as a
prohibitionto collate and besides the legitimes of the two daughters were
not impaired. Onappeal, it was reversed as it merely described the
donation as irrevocable not anexpress prohibition to collate.

WON Joselito as an illegitimate child is barred from inheriting from

Evaristas estate.
HELD:
No. Article 992 of the NCC is not applicable because
involved here is not a situation where an illegitimate child would
inherit ab intestato from a legitimate sister of his father, which is
prohibited by the aforesaid provision of law. Rather, it is a scenario
where an illegitimate child inherits from his father, the latter's share in or
portion of, what the latter already inherited from the deceased sister,
Evarista. As opined by the Court of Appeals, the law in point in the present

Issue: Whether or not these lands are subject to collation.

Held: The pertinent Civil Code provisions are: Art. 1061. Every compulsory
heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass
of the estate any property or right which he may have received from the
decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other
gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the determination of
thelegitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition. (1035a)Art.
1062. Collation shall not take place among compulsory heirs if the donor
shouldhave so expressly provided, or if the donee should repudiate the
inheritance, unlessthe donation should be reduced as inofficious.
(1036) The SC affirmed the appellate courts decision and that it merely
described thedonation as irrevocable. The Fact that a donation is
irrevocable does not necessarilyexempt the donated properties from
collation as required under the provisions of the NCC. Given the precise

language of the deed of donation the decedent donorwould have included

an express prohibition to collate if that had been the donorsintention.
Absent such indication of that intention, the rule not the exemption should
be applied.

Verona kilario vs CA
DOCTRINE:It is not required that partition among heirs be in writing and
registered in order to be valid. The object of registration is to serve as
constructive notice to third persons who might have interest on the said
property. Thus, it follows that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed
with the prescribed formalities is not undermined when no creditors are
involved.
FACTS: Silverio Pada filed an ejectment case against the spouses Ricardo
and Verona Kilario. TheKilarios occupy a portion of the intestate estate of
Jacinto Pada, grandfather of Silverio and have been living there since 1960
by sheer tolerance. Upon the death of Jacinto Pada, his heirs entered into
extrajudicial partition of his estate in 1951. As a result thereof, Lot 5581
was allocated to Ananias and Marciano who became co-owners of the said
lot. Ananias died and his daughter succeeded in his right as co-owner.
Eventually, Juanita sold her right in the co-ownership to Engr. Paderes.
Maria, Marcianos heir, on the other hand, sold her share to her cousin
respondent Silverio Pada. The latter demanded spouses Kilario to vacate
the lot for their use but the spouses Kilario refused. On June 1995, a
complaint for ejectmentwas filed against the spouses Kilario. On July 1995
a deed of donation in their favor wasexecuted by heirs of Amador Pada.
ISSUE: Whether or not the partition was valid YES

HELD: The extrajudicial partition of the estate of Jacinto Pada among his
heirs made in 1951 is VALID, even if executed in an unregistered private
document. It is not required that partition among heirs be in writing and
registered in order to be valid. The object of registration is to serve as
constructive notice to third persons who might have interest on the said
property. Thus, it follows that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed
with the prescribed formalities is not undermined when no creditors are
involved. Without creditors to take into consideration, it is competent for
the heirs of an estate to enter into an agreement for distribution thereof in
a manner and upon a plan different from those provided by the rules from
which, in the first place, nothing can be inferred that a writing or other
formality is essential for the partition to be valid. The partition of inherited

property need not be embodied in a public document so as to be effective

as regards the heirs that participated therein. The extrajudicial partition
which the heirs of Jacinto Pada executed voluntarily and spontaneously in
1951 has produced a legal status. When they discussed and agreed on the
division of the estate of Jacinto Pada, it is presumed that they did so in
furtherance of their mutual interests. As such, their division is conclusive,
unless and until it is shown that there were debts existing against the
estate which had not been paid. No showing, however, has been made of
any unpaid charges against the estate of Jacinto Pada. Thus, there is no
reason why the heirs should not be bound by their voluntary acts.

MANG-OY VS CA
G.R. 144 SCRA 35
FACTS:
Old Tumpao begot 3 children (respondents) with his first wife. Upon her
death, he took himself a second wife but without issues. However she had
adopted 2 children according to the practice of Igorots. On September 4,
1937, Old Tumpao executed what he called last will and testament which
were read to and thumb mark affixed by all of the beneficiaries who at the
time were already occupying the portions respectively allotted to them.
After the death of Old Tumpao, the parties remained to be in possession of
the lots assign to them which was in accordance of the wishes of old
Tumpao which was also agreed upon by the parties in a public document.
On November 4, 1960, respondents executed an extra-judicial partition in
which they divided the property of Old Tumpao among the three of them
only. Petitioners sued for reconveyance , sustained by trial court but
reversed by CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will and testament of Old Tumpao be duly
allowed even without being proved in the court
RULING:
In accordance with the rules of court, no will shall pass either real or
personal property unless it is proved or allowed in court.
However the document maybe sustained by art 1056 of the Old Civil Code
which was the law in force at the time the document was made. The law
says: If the testator should make a partition of his properties by an act

inter vivors, or by will such partition shall stand in so far as it does not
prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs.
Such partition is not governed by the rules of wills or donation inter vivos,
which is a consequence of its special nature. Thus, the last will and
testament of Old Tumpao is sustained by the provision of Art 1056, Old
Civil Code, which became a binding law when the beneficiaries, parties
herein, agreed and confirmed with the disposition made by Old Tumpao.
CHAVEZ v. IAC
GR No. L-68282, November 8, 1990

FACTS: Manuela Buenavista assigned her paraphernal property in equal

pro-diviso among her 6 children, while possession of such property still
remains with her. Three of her children sold each their share to private
respondent Concepcion, consolidating 4/6 portion thereof. Deeds of sale
were therefor executed with the conformity of Manuela. Despite such
transfers, the latter sold the entire property to one of the siblings, herein
petitioner Raquel Chavez. Respondent sued for the annulment of the later
sale to Raquel which was denied by the trail court but which later decision
overturned by the Court of Appeals. On appeal, petitioner also contends
that their mother has left a last will and this will supercedes the earlier
transfers.

ISSUE: Is partition inter-vivos, and sale based on such partition valid? Does
a last will supercede that of the partition inter-vivos?

HELD: Yes. When a person makes a partition by will, it is imperative that

such partition must be executed in accordance with the provisions of the
law on wills; however, when a person makes the partition of his estate by
an act inter vivos, such partition may even be oral or written, and need not
be in the form of a will, provided that the partition does not prejudice the
legitime of compulsory heirs. xxx The Deeds of Sale are not contracts
entered into with respect to future inheritance but a contract perfected and
consummated during the lifetime of Manuela Buenavista who signed the
same and gave her consent thereto. Such partition inter vivos, executed by
the property owner herself, is valid.
It would be unjust and inequitable to allow Manuela Buenavista Vda. de
Chavez to revoke the sales she herself authorized as well as the sale she

herself executed in favor of her son only to execute a simulated sale in

favor of her daughter Raquel who had already profited from the sale she
made of the property she had received in the partition inter vivos.

Viado Non vs. CA (2000)

Petition: 45 certiorari
Petitioner: Rebecca Viado Non
Respondent: Court of Appeals,
Ponente: Vitug
DOCTRINES:

When preterition is not attended by bad faith, the remedy is

provided by Art. 1104 of the Civil Code which is to account for her
share and to pay her such.
FACTS:
1. Julian and Virginia owned parcels of land. When Virginia died, half of
the land went to Julian and the other half to the children: Nilo, Leah,
Rebecca and Delia. Julian died. Leah and Rebecca later on waived their
rights and interest over the land in favor of Nilo. Julian also donated his
share of the land to Nilo.
2.

The Heirs of Nilo and Rebecca lived on such property until they had a
dispute on how such land should be divided to accomodate the
growing kids.

3.

Heirs of Nilo won in RTC and CA, even though Rebecca contested the
document's registration only after 5 years after execution. Rebecca
also said that since the Extrajudicial settlement did not include Delia, a
retardant, it should be void for preterition.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not such preterition makes the extrajudicial settlement void.
RULING + RATIO:
1. No. It does not avoid it.
The Court held that absent any fraud or bad faith, preterition of their
sister Delia does not avoid the otherwise valid extrajudicial settlement,
since such extrajudicial settlement already lead to the issuance of TCT
in favor of the Heirs of Nilo.

DISPOSITION: Petition denied