OUTLINE OF THE LAW OF

SUCCESSION

Prof. Ruben F. Balane

2015

With cases, as updated for use by

the Succession class of Atty. Divina G E Pedron

I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE LAW ON SUCCESSION

A. To provide a means whereby the property and

juridical relations of a person which are not
extinguished by death should be transmitted and
distributed.

B. Statutory definition in Article 774: Succession as a

mode of acquisition.

C. Succession as part of family law.

D. When does transmission take effect? Upon

decedent’s death – Art. 777

E. Definition of terms and General Concepts – Arts.

775 – 782.
Butte vs Manuel Uy and Sons, 4 SCRA 526 (1962)

Estate of Hemady vs Luzon Surety, 100 Phil 389 (1956)

Lau Hu Niu vs. Collector of Customs, 36 Phil 433 (1916)

Uson vs. Del Rosario, GR No. L-4693, 29 January 1953

92 Phil. 530 (1953)

 2

De Borja vs Vda de de Borja, 46 SCRA 577 (1972)

Bonilla vs Barcena, 71 SCRA 491 (1976)

Vitug vs CA, 183 SCRA 755 (1990)

NHA vs Almeida, 525 SCRA 383 (2007)

II. SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY UNDER

PHILIPPINE LAW: THE SYSTEM OF PARTIAL
RESERVATION

A. The Reserved Portion (Legitime) and the Free

Portion.

1. The concept of and reasoning behind legitime:

limitation upon the freedom of the testator to dispose
of his property by will

Spouses Joaquin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126376,

November 20, 2003

DIZON-RIVERA vs. DIZON, et al, G.R. No. L-24561 June

30, 1970 – 33 SCRA 554 (1970)

Arellano vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 189776, December 15,

2010 – 638 SCRA 826 (2010)

RE: Claims For Benefits Of The Heirs Of The Late Mario

V. Chanliongco, A.M. No. 190, October 18, 1977 – 79 SCRA 364
(1977)

Rosales v. Rosales, 148 SCRA 69 (1987)

Lapuz v. Eufemio – 43 SCRA 177 (1972)

Baritua v. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 565 (1990)

Solivio v. CA, 182 SCRA 119 (1990)

 3

Padura v. Baldovino, GR No. 11960, 27 December 1958 -

104 Phil. 1065 (1958)

Florentino v. Florentino, 40 Phil. 480 (1919)

Edroso v. Sablan, 25 Phil. 295 (1913)

Sienes v. Esparcia, 1 SCRA 750 (1961)

Gonzales v. CFI, 104 SCRA 479 (1981)

Cano v. Director, 105 Phil. 1 (1959)

Vizconde v. CA, 286 SCRA 217 (1998)

In re: Adoption of Stephanie Garcia, GR No. 148311, 31

March 2005 - 454 SCRA 541 (2005)

Francisco v. Francisco-Alfonso, GR No. 138774, 8 March

2001 – 354 SCRA 112 (2001)

Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 179922, 16 December 2008

– 574 SCRA 116 (2008)
h1

B. Kinds of Succession Under the System of Partial

Reservation.

1. Compulsory Succession (886 – 907)

Rosales v Rosales, 148 SCRA 69 (1987)

Francisco v Francisco-Alfonso, 354 SCRA 112 (2001)

Baritua v Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 565 (1990)

Testamentary Succession (779; 783 – 856)

 4

Vitug vs. CA, G.R. No. 82027 March 29, 1990 – 183 SCRA
755 (1990)

Garcia v Caparas, G.R. No. 180843, Apr 17, 2013 – 696

SCRA 649 (2013)

Solla V Ascueta, 49 Phil. 333 (1926)

Dizon-Rivera v Dizon, G.R. No. L-24561, 30 June 1970 –

33 SCRA 554 (1970)

Vda. De Villanueva v. Juico, G.R. No. L-15737, 28

February 1962 – 4 SCRA 550 (1962)

Baltazar v. Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012 – 669

SCRA 249 (2012)

Torres vs. Lopez, G.R. No. L-24569, February 26, 1926

2. Intestate Succession (960 – 1014)

Dela Puerta vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77867,

February 6, 1990 – 181 SCRA 861 (1990)

Corpuz vs. Corpuz, 85 SCRA 567 (1978)

Bicomong vs. Almanza, 80 SCRA 421 (1977)

III. COMPULSORY SUCCESSION (886 – 907; 854; 915 – 923,

1032 – 1040; 970 – 977; 992; 891)

A. Why Compulsory?

B. The reserved portion – the legitime, defined in

Article 886; Article 904; Articles 905 – 907 & 855

Sienes vs. Esparcia, 1 SCRA 750 (1961)

 5

Cano vs. Director, 105 Phil. 1 (1959)

Francisco vs. Francisco-Alfonso, G.R. No. 138774,

March 8, 2001 – 354 SCRA 112 (2001)

Carlos vs. Sandoval, G.R. No. 179922, December 16,

2008 – 574 SCRA 116 (2008)

C. Kinds of Compulsory Heirs: Article 887

1. Primary
a. legitimate children and/or
b. legitimate descendants

2. Secondary
a. legitimate parents
b. other legitimate ascendants
c. illegitimate parents

3. Concurring
a. surviving spouse
b. illegitimate children

Santillon v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-19281, June 30, 1965 –

14 SCRA 563 (1965)

Solano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41971,

November 29, 1983 – 126 SCRA 122 (1983)

Republic vs. Manotoc, G.R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012

– 665 SCRA 367 (2012)

D. Legitimate shares of compulsory heirs.

1. Basic legitime – 1/2 of the estate. Three

exceptions:
 6

a. Marriage in articulo mortis – Art. 900,

par. 2.

b. Surviving spouse and illegitimate

children – Art. 894.

c. Surviving spouse and illegitimate

parents – Art. 903.

2. Legitimate children and/or Descendants.

a. 1/2 of the estate – Art. 888.

b. Principle: The nearer exclude the

farther, without prejudice to
representation.

c. Adopted children – same rights as

legitimate children – Sec. 18, R.A. 8552
(Domestic Adoption Act of 1998)

3. Legitimate Parents or Ascendants.

a. 1/2 of the estate – Arts. 889 –890.

b. Three rules:

1. The nearer exclude the farther.

2. Division by line.
3. Equal division within the line.

4. Surviving Spouse: Most variable share.

a. If alone: 1/2 of the estate. Exception:

marriage in articulo mortis: 1/3 of the
estate (Art. 900, par. 2).
 7

b. If concurring with illegitimate children:

1/3 of the estate (Art. 894).

c. If concurring with one legitimate child:

1/4 of the estate (Art. 892).

d. If concurring with legitimate parents or

ascendants: 1/4 of the estate (Art. 896).

e. If concurring with illegitimate parents:

1/4 of the estate (Art. 903).

f. If concurring with legitimate ascendants

and illegitimate children: 1/8 of the
estate (Art. 899).

g. If concurring with several legitimate

children: a share equal to that of one
legitimate child (Art. 892 and Art. 895,
par. 3)

Sayson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89224, January

23, 1992 – 205 SCRA 321 (1992)

5. Illegitimate Children and/or Descendants.

a. If they are the only compulsory heirs: 1/2

of the estate (Art. 901).

b. If concurring with the surviving spouse:

1/3 of the estate (Art. 894).

c. If concurring with legitimate parents or

ascendants: 1/4 of the estate (Art. 896).

d. If concurring with legitimate children or

descendants: ratio of 2:1. (Art. 176 [FC])
 8

[But if decedent died before effectivity of

FC – 10:5:4]. (Art. 895 [CC])

e. Descendants of Illegitimate Children

(Art. 902)

6. Illegitimate Parents.

a. If alone: 1/2 of the estate (Art. 903).

b. If concurring with spouse – 1/4 of the

estate (Art. 903).

7. Various combinations: found passim in

Articles 888 – 903. (333 – 335)

Rosales vs. Rosales, G.R. No. L-40789 February 27, 1987

– 148 SCRA 69 (1987)

Lapuz vs. Eufemio, G.R. No. L-30977 January 31, 1972 –

43 SCRA 177 (1972)

Baritua vs. CA, G.R. No. 82233 March 22, 1990 – 183
SCRA 565 (1990)

Tumbokon vs. Legaspi, G.R. No. 153736, August 12, 2010

– 626 SCRA 736 (2010)

F. Preterition (Art. 854) – Caution in drawing up will.

1. What is preterition?
2. Who can be preterited?

3. Effect of preterition.

Reyes vs. Datu, 19 SCRA 85 (1967)

Aznar vs. Duncan, 17 SCRA 590 (1966)

 9

Seangio vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 140372, November 27, 2006

– 508 SCRA 177 (2006)

Acain vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-72706, October 27, 1987 – 155
SCRA 100 (1987)

Nuguid v. Nuguid, G.R. No. L-23445, 23 June 1966 – 175

SCA 449 (1966)

Palacios vs. Ramirez, 111 SCRA 704 (1982)

PCIB vs. Escolin, G.R. No. L-50402 August 19, 1982 – 115
SCRA 873 (1982)

F. Disinheritance (Arts. 915 – 923).

Ching vs. Hon. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 192828, November 28,

2011 – 661 SCRA 449 (2011)

G. Unworthiness (Arts. 1032 – 1040).

H. Representation – (Arts. 970 – 977).

Teotico v. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406 (1965)

Bicomong v. Almanza, 80 SCRA 421 (1977)

I. The Successional Bar – (Art. 992).

Aguinaldo-Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No.

183053, June 16, 2010 – 621 SCRA 142 (2010)

J. Special Rule:

1. The Reserva Troncal – (Art. 891).

 10

Balane, R., “The Reserva Troncal: Prospect & Restrospect”,

58 Philippine Law Journal, 387 (1983).

a. Purpose – pp. 329 – 330

b. Requisites –p. 330

Chua v. CFI, G.R. No. L-29901, August 31, 1977 – 78

SCRA 412 (1977)

c. Process

d. Parties

1. Two Basic Rules

2. Sibling as mediate source

3. Should Origin and Reservista

belong to different lines?

Solivio vs. CA, G.R. No. 83484 February 12, 1990 – 182
SCRA 119 (1990)

4. Must reservatario be related to

Origin?
Florentino vs. Florentino, G.R. No. L-
14856 November 15, 1919

e. Juridical Nature

Edroso vs. Sablan, G.R. No. 6878, September 13, 1913 –

25 Phil. 295 (1913)

f. Property Reserved
 11

1. Not part of the reservista’s estate

Cano vs. Director, G.R. No. L-10701, January 16, 1959 –

105 Phil. 1 (1959)

g. Rights and Obligations – 378

h. Extinguishment - 379

IV. TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION (783 – 885; 915 – 923; 924

– 959)

A. Statutory definition: Art. 779.

B. Testamentary succession subsidiary to

compulsory succession.

1. Will operates only to the extent that legitimes

are not impaired.

2. Wills can dispose only of free portion.

C. Wills – defined in Art. 783.

Vitug vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82027, March 29,

1990 – 183 SCRA 755 (1990)

Herreros vs. Gil, 88 Phil. 260 (1951)

Rabadilla vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113725, June

29, 2000 – 334 SCRA 522 (2000)

Testate Estate of Catalina dela Cruz vs. Dela Cruz, G.R.

No. L-24819, May 30, 1969 – 28 SCRA 42 (1969)

Bellis vs. Bellis, G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967 – 20

SCRA 358 (1967)
 12

1. Two kinds of wills.

a. Attested
b. Holographic

Cruz vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 31 (1973)

Garcia vs. Gatchalian, G.R. No. L-20357, November

25, 1967 – 21 SCRA 1056 (1967)

Neyra vs. Neyra, 76 Phil 333 (1946)

Ortega vs. Valmonte, 478 SCRA 247 (2005)

Garcia vs. Vasquez, 32 SCRA 489 (1970)

Alvarado vs. Gaviola, G.R. No. 74695, September

14, 1993 – 226 SCRA 347 (1993)

Lopez vs. Lopez, 685 SCRA 209 (2012)

Cagro vs. Cagro, 92 Phil 1032 (1953)

2. Common requirements:

a. As to testamentary capacity – Arts. 796

– 803.

Ortega vs. Valmonte, 478 SCRA 247 (2005)

Baltazar vs. Laxa, 669 SCRA 249 (2012)

b. As to form – Art. 804.

1) In writing

2) In a language known to the

testator.
 13

Suroza vs. Honrado, A.M. No. 2026-CFI December 19,

1981 – 110 SCRA 388 (1981)

Abangan vs. Abangan, G.R. No. L013431, November 12,

1919 – 40 Phil. 476 (1919)

De Roma vs. Court of Appeals, 152 SCRA 205 (1987)

Vda. De Villanueva vs. Juico, 4 SCRA 550 (1962)

Salla vs. Ascueta, 49 Phil 333 (1926)

Balanay vs. Martinez, 64 SCRA 454 (1975)

Garcia vs. Vasquez, 32 SCRA 489 (1975)

Lopez vs. Liboro, 81 Phil 429 (1948)

Reyes vs. Vda. De Vidal, G.R. No. L-2862, April 21, 1952 –
91 Phil. 909 (1952)

3. Special requirements for attested wills – Arts.

805 – 806; 820 – 824.

a. Signed by testator or his agent in his

presence and by his express direction at
the end thereof in witnesses’ presence.

Payad vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. 42258, September 5, 1936

– 63 Phil. 395 (1936

Garcia vs. Lacuesta, G.R. No. L-4067, November 29,

1951- 90 Phil. 489 (1951)

Barut vs. Cabacungan, G.R. No. L-6285, February 15,

1912

Nera vs Rimando, G.R. No. L-5971, February 27, 1911

 14

b. Attested and signed by at least 3

credible witnesses in testator’s
presence and of one another.

c. Testator must sign each and every page

except the last on left margin and in
witnesses’ presence.

Icasiano vs. Icasiano, G.R. No. L-18979, June 30, 1964 –

11 SCRA 422 (1964)

d. Witnesses must sign each and every

page on left margin, in testator’s
presence and of one another.

Lee vs. Tambago, A.C. No. 5281, February 12, 2008 – 544
SCRA 393 (2008)

e. All pages numbered in letters on upper

part.

Cagro vs. Cagro, G.R. No. L-5826, April 29, 1953 – 92 Phil.
1032 (1953)

f. Attestation clause.

f.1 Stating number of pages of will.

f.2 Stating fact that testator or agent

signed as required by law in
witnesses’ presence.
 15

f.3 Stating that witnesses witnessed

and signed as required by law in
testator’s and one another’s
presence.

Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, 90 SCRA 183 (1979)

Vda. De Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-40804

January 31, 1978 – 81 SCRA 393 (1978)

g. Notarization.

Cruz vs. Villasor, G.R. No. L-32213 November 26, 1973 –

54 SCRA 31 (1973)

Guerrero vs. Bihis, G.R. No. 211972, July 22, 2015 – 763
SCRA 632 (2015)

Ortega vs. Valmonte, G.R. No. 157451, December 16,

2005 – 478 SCRA 247 (2005)

h. If testator is deaf or a deaf-mute – Art.

807.

Alvarado vs. Gaviola, G.R. No. 74695 September 14, 1993

– 226 SCRA 347 (1993)

i. If testator is blind – Art. 808.

j. Witnesses – Arts. 820 – 824.

k. Substantial COmpliance

Caneda vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103554, May 28,

1993 – 222 SCRA 781 (1993)

Azuela vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122880, April 12,

2006 – 487 SCRA 119 (2006)
 16

Lopez vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 189984, November 12, 2012 –

685 SCRA 209 (2012)

4. Special requirements for holographic wills –

Arts. 810 – 814.

(Azaola vs. Singson) Azuela vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.

No. 122880, April 12, 2006 – 487 SCRA 119 (2006)

Codoy vs. Calugay, G.R. No. 123486, August 12, 1999 –

312 SCRA 333 (1999)

Gan vs. Yap, G.R. No. L-12190, August 30, 1958 – 104
Phil. 509 (1958)

Rodelas vs. Aranza, G.R. No. L-58509, December 7, 1982

– 119 SCRA 16 (1982)

a. Entirely written, dated and signed by

testator.

Roxas vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-38338, January 28, 1985

– 134 SCRA 245 (1985)

Labrador vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 58168,

December 19, 1989 – 180 SCRA 266 (1989)

Kalaw vs. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984 –

132 SCRA 237 (1984)

5. Purpose of requirements – to close the door

to bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of
wills, and to guarantee their truth and
authenticity.

Bagtas vs. Paguio, G.R. No. L-6801, March 14, 1912

 17

Torres vs. Torres, 48 Phil 77

De Guzman vs. Estate of Benitez, 169 SCRA 284 (1989)

6. Formal Validity of Wills executed by Filipinos

abroad, or an alien abroad, or an alien in the
Philippines (Arts. 815-817)

7. Joint wills (Arts. 818-819)

Codicils and Incorporation – Arts. 825 – 827.

Alsua-Betts vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-46430-31,

July 30, 1979 – 92 SCRA 332 (1979)

D. Two modes of testamentary succession.

1. Institution of heir – Arts. 840 – 856.

Seangio vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 140372, November 27, 2006

– 508 SCRA 177 (2006)

Austria vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-23079 February 27, 1970 –

31 SCRA 754 (1970)

2. Legacies and devises – Arts. 924 – 959.

3. Distinction between heirs, legatees and

devisees – Art. 782.

4. Rules common to both.

a. Capacity to succeed – Arts. 1024 – 1040.

 18

a.1 Incapacity and Unworthiness –

Arts. 823, 1027, 1028, 1032.

b. Subsidiary Institution (substitutions) –

Arts. 857 – 870.

PCI Bank vs. Escolin, 56 SCRA 266 – 56 SCRA 265

(1974)

Ramirez vs. Vda. De Ramirez, G.R. No. 27952, February

15, 1982 – 111 SCRA 704 (1982)

Vda. De Mapa vs. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 294

(1987)

Crisologo vs. Singson, 4 SCRA 491 (1962)

c. Conditions, terms, and modes – Arts.

871 – 885.

d. Accretion – Arts 1015 – 1023.

E. Revocability of Wills – Ways of Revoking:

Arts. 828 – 834.

Testate Estate of the Late Adriana Maloto vs. Court of

Appeals, G.R. No. 76464, February 29, 1988 – 158 SCRA 451
(1988)

Gago vs. Mamuyac, G.R. No. L-26317, January 29, 1927 –

49 Phil. 902 (1927)

Molo vs. Molo, G.R. No. L-2538, September 21, 1951 – 90

Phil. 37 (1951)

Diaz vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 17714, May 31, 1922 – 43 Phil.
413 (1922)
 19

F. Republication and Revival – Arts. 835 – 837.

G. Executors and Administrators – Arts. 1058 –

1060.

H. Formal and Intrinsic Validity.

1. Probate – Arts. 838 – 839.

Guevarra vs. Guevarra, G.R. No. L-48840 December 29,

1943

Dela Cerna vs. Rebaca-Potot, - 12 SCRA 676 (1964)

Gallanosa vs. Arcangel, G.R. No. L-29300 June 21, 1978 -

83 SCRA 676 (1978)

Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62952

October 9, 1985 – 139 SCRA 206 (1985)

Baltazar vs Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012 – 669

SCRA 249 (2012)

1.a. Special rule for probate of

holographic will – Art. 811

2. Formal Validity – Arts. 795, 815 – 819,

820 – 824.

a. As to the will itself.

b. As to testamentary capacity.

c. As to capacity of witnesses.
 20

Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, 90 SCRA 183 (1979)

Roxas vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-38338, January 28, 1985

– 134 SCRA 245 (1985)

Labrador vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 83843-44, April

5, 1990 – 184 SCRA 170 (1990)

Gan vs. Yap, 104 Phil 509 (1958)

Ajero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106720 September

15, 1994 – 236 SCRA 488 (1994)

3. Intrinsic validity – the efficacy of the

dispositions themselves.

a. For Filipino citizens – Art. 2263.

b. For aliens – Arts. 16, par. 2 & 1039.

V. INTESTATE SUCCESSION (960 – 1014)

A. Definition: That which takes place by operation of

law in default of a valid will.

1. Specific instances – Art. 960.

Sayson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89224, 23 June

1992 – 205 SCRA 321 (1992)

B. Basic principle: Same as compulsory succession –

exclusion and concurrence.

C. Four Basic Rules of Intestate Succession:

1. Intestate heir must be related to deceased,

either by:
 21

a. jus familiae

b. jus sanguinis

c. jus conjugis

d. jus imperii

2. Rule of preference of lines. (978 / 985)

3. Rule of proximity of degree, subject to right of

representation (962).

4. Rule of equality, subject to 5 exceptions; (962)

a. Preference of lines.

b. Limitation as to kind of heir in

descending line.

c. Rule of division by line in ascending line

– Art. 987.

d. Full-and half-blood relationship in

collateral line – Arts. 1006 & 1008.

e. Representation.

D. Intestate Heirs.

1. Legitimate children and/or descendants.

2. Illegitimate children and/or descendants.

3. Legitimate parents and/or ascendants.

4. Illegitimate parents.
 22

5. Surviving spouse.

6. Brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces.

[Exclude uncles / aunts] [1009]

Bacayo v. Borromeo, 145 SCRA 986 – 14 SCRA 986

(1965)

7. Other collaterals – up to the 5th degree.

8. State.

D.a. Rules on Computation of Degrees of

Relationship – Arts. 963 – 969.

E. Various combinations: Found passim in Arts. 978 –

1014. [443-446]

Various combinations are possible because of

simultaneous operation of rules of exclusion and
concurrence.

E.a. Succession to estate of adopted – Sec. 18,

R.A. 8552.

F. Intestate Succession in Relation to Compulsory

Succession.

1. Note that with the exception of Par. D, nos. 6,

7 and 8, intestate heirs are also compulsory
heirs. Ergo, there will be overlapping of
compulsory and intestate succession.

2. Compulsory succession is supreme. The

rules of intestate succession can operate only
to the extent that the legitimes are not
impaired.
 23

3. General Rule: Observe the portions given by

the rules on intestacy. There will be no
conflict with legitimes.

Exception: Concurrence in intestacy of

legitimate and illegitimate descend-ants:

a. Get legitimes first.

b. Distribute excess in pro-portion of 2:1

[Note: if under the Civil Code – 10:5:4]

G. Intestate Succession in Relation to Testamentary

Succession:

1. If will disposes of part of the free portion: The

problem of Partial Intestacy

a. Rule: Trace where the intestate portion

went in case of total intestacy and let
recipient thereof suffer the reduction.

b. Apply in Articles 991, 994, 997, 998, 1000

and 1001.

H. Special Rules.

1. The Successional Bar – Art. 992.

Corpus vs. Corpus - 85 SCRA 567 (1978)

Leonardo vs. Court of Appeals, 120 SCRA 890 (1983)

Diaz vs. IAC, 150 SCRA 645 (1987)

Diaz vs. IAC, 182 SCRA 427 (1990)

 24

2. Accretion – Arts. 1015 –1023.

3. Capacity and Unworthiness – Arts. 1024 –

1025; 1032 – 1040.

Parish Priest vs. Rigor, 89 SCRA 493 (1979)

4. Representation – Arts. 970 – 977.

Teotico vs. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406 (1965)

VI. ACCEPTANCE AND REPUDIATION – Articles 1041 – 1057

Imperial vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112483, October

8, 1999 – 316 SCRA 393 (1999)

Intestate Estate of Borromeo vs. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-

41171, July 23, 1987 – 152 SCRA 171 (1987)

Heirs of Sandejas vs. Lina, G.R. No. 141634, February 5,

2011 – 351 SCRA 183 (2001)

VII. PARTITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE:

SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS

A. If compulsory succession takes place-

1. Net hereditary estate must be determined.

Purpose: To be able to compute legitimes.

2. Method of determination (collation) (Art. 908).

a. Determine value of property left at the

death of the testator.

b. Deduct all debts and obligations.

 25

c. Add the value of all donations inter

vivos.

3. Donations are included in legitime but

testamentary dispositions are excluded –
Arts. 909 – 910, 1061 – 1062, 1063.

4. If legitimes impaired – first reduce

testamentary dispositions pro rata (907, 911,
but cf. 950), 912 – 914, then reduce donations
in inverse order of dates (911, 773).

A.1 Collation – Three Concepts: Arts. 1061 – 1077.

B. If testamentary succession takes place -

1. Will must be probated.

2. Two kinds of probate:

a. Ante Mortem
b. Post Mortem

3. Probate determinative only of formal validity.

C. Actual Partition (Arts. 1078 – 1105).

1. Before partition – co-ownership among heirs.

2. Partition – Separation, division and

assignment of a thing held in common among
those to whom it may belong (Art. 1079).

3. Kinds of Partition:

a. Extra-judicial
b. Judicial
 26

Santos vs. Dela Cruz, 37 SCR 555 (71) (1971)

Chavez vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-68282 November 8, 1990 –

191 SCRA 211 (1990)

Fajardo vs. Fajardo, G.R. No. L-32195, August 19, 1930

Neri vs. Uy, G.R. No. 194366, October 10, 2012 – 683
SCRA 553 (2012)

Basa vs. Aguilar, G.R. No. L-30994, September 30, 1982 –

117 SCRA 128 (1982)