You are on page 1of 3

1. MANONGSONG case. Navarro and/ the vendor is grandmother of the vendee?/ daughters of vendee questioned the transaction.

They claim that they should inherit all the property. VOID sales? Impairment of legitime? NO. the sale does not impair the legitimes of the compulsory heirs. Mere substitution of value took place. Other brothers and sisters of the vendee will not acquire anything by way of legitime, because it is a valid contract of sale executed. Is the money now part of the legitime? For lack of proof of filiation, cant claim the legitime. Assume, they prove, still no. substitution of the legtime. CAN the vendor spend the proceeds for himself? YES. I s there obligation to preserve it? NONE. Because the right to the legitime arises only after DEATh. 2. SPOUSES JOAQUIN. Vendors are the children?. 6 out of 11 are vendees? SC: petitioners were not deprived of their legitime, because before the death of parents, children only have inchoate right. Although there was reduction of the estate due to the saleTHE owner of the property sells it validly, the heirs can inherit from the cash lang or proceeds. GROSSLy inadequate consideration? Does not render the sale void. WHAT if theres no actual consideration, can the vendee children retain the property? It is tantamount to donation inter vivos, made by parent to the detriment of other children. THE PROPERTY may still be part of the estate through collation. What if the children already acquired TRANSFER CERTIFICATE of title. Can other children re acquire the property, YES. Thru collation. The registered property owners are only trustee. 3. JLT AGRO. don Julian contracted 2 marriages. 2 children from 1st, 4 from 2nd marriage. Compromise agreement with the 2 children from 1st marriage, upon his death will be adjudicated to the 2nd wife and 4 children. 1st M children, rights over the hacienda. // deed of assignment in favor of JLT agro. case of partition of the estate. //lands for JLT are part of the compromise agreement. 2nd M, begun to occupy the land. 2nd wife entered to lease agreement with spouses, . then deed of sale. Spouses discovered the land is already registered in favor of JLTs name. spouses assailed the title. //compromise agreement is a partition inter vivos, GEN RULE.no future inheritance can be object of a present contract.//avoid because of preterition.// 4. BLAS. Won the subject of agreement is a future inheritance. The subject property is not future inheritance. Simeon blas married his second wife. There was co-mingling of the properties in the 1st and 2nd marriage. Agreement, that the 2nd wife will give of her share. Other free disposition. NOT A CONTRACT of future inheritance. Can be acquired by the person in the future, not yet in existence. The agreement Is a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT. That the property is already present and existing. IN this case, it is a SHARE as SPOUSE, not share as HEIR. 5. FERRER. Elements: 1. Succession is not yet open. Mean: parents are still alive. 2. The object subject of the contract forms part of the inheritance. 3. The promisor has expectancy of the right. //CONTRACT of future inheritance. Cant be cured of its defect by the subsequent death, because at the time of execution of the contract, the parents are still alive. 6. IMPERIAL. No impairment. Inofficious donation. Even if there was consideration. Done was illegitimate child of leoncio. Death of donor. Adopted children are entitled to legitime. Best proof. Decree of adption. Was there proof? It was not disputed. INOFFICOUS because leoncio died without any other property. The court nullified the action. PRESCRIPTION. It took them 24 years. Revocation of inofficious donation, (art 1144)10 years computed from the death of the donor.

7. DOROTEO. Will. Executed by doroteo. Provided that part of the estate will go to heirs. One heir, Lourdes doroteo, is the partner common law wife. Previous wife, represented by legitimate children. Illegitimate children. VALID WILL? No. because it resulted to impairment of legitimes. The court accepted it for probate. Seems valid? But intrinsically void. Because he gave part of the legitime to Lourdes, impaired legitime. According to her, its due her because she took care of the decedent prior to his death. MAY BE VALID reason. RULE: mere probate court has no authority to go to the intrinsic validity. INVALID bec it gave part of the legitime to a stranger. 8. FRANCISCO. There was impairment. Simulated sale. Void sale. Thus tantamount to donation inter vivos, void further because it had encroached the legitime of the only legitimate child of the decedent. 9. RAMIREZ. Will. Maricel French 1/3 of the land, widow. Wanda Austrian-companion 2/3 usufruct of the whole land. Roberto and Jorge, grand nephew of he testator, naked ownership of the land. IMPAIRMENT of legitime of maricel. Because she is entitled to of the land. free disposable portion can only go to Jorge and Roberto. The testator cannot IMPOSE ANY BURDEN ON THE LEGITIME of the compulsory heir. Is wanda qualified? She can retain usufruct of the land. Valid. Does not confer ownership to wanda, only the enjoyment of the land. / MARCEL can retain ownership?yes. The legitime is the entitlement, but the heir can get more than from the FREE DISPOSABLE portion. IF decided today, NO. the foreigners may acquire lands, by hereditary succession. Dapat former Filipino citizen ka. 10. CONCEPCION. No impairment. Fictitious consideration. Question, because he is the only compulsory heir. Simulated sale=void. Monico cant bring the action for nullification, because he is devoid of legal personality. He is not a compulsory, because he is only the brother of the deceased. Only collateral heir. 11. TUMBOKON. Sale of land. not a valid transaction because the son in law is not a compulsory heir. He sold the property as heir, but wrong. He claimed that he is the only surviving heir of the decedent. His wife (daughter of decedent) died. INVALID. He cannot represent his wife. ART 887. Compulsory heirs are LCDs. Spouses are not included. 12.**VIZCONDE. children died. Wife died. Price during the time it was sold. Are they entitled as compulsory heirs of the deceased father of estelita. Although it was a gratuitous transfer. Impairment is only removed by the fact that estelta died first, after her death, part of the property went to the father. Is lauro vizconde liable for collation. ART 1061. 13. **RIVERA. Adoption? None. If raymund is really adopted, only the adopted child can question. No proof of adoption. What led him to believe? There was separate record showing that hes adopted but it was not presented to the court. Remedy, prove that he is adopted child. 14. Babiera. 15. Benitez. 16.Joaquin 17. Concepcion. 18. Bolanos. One co-owner sold property. Valid, only as to the aliquot share of the vendor. But does not bind the other co-owners. First wide flavia, died. So the property is already a paraphernal property, belongs to the husband. Who should be entitled? All his children. In equal shares. 11 parts dapat. Walang illegit dito. Any co-owner may demand partition. 19. sayson. Petitioners are siblings, of teodoro, the father of the respondent. Was there adoption? It was not seasonably impugned by the petitioner. Under old civil code, if you already have legit child, cant adopt. 20. TEOTICO. My case. 21. LIM. She does not belong to those classes allowed by law to inherit.

22. IN RE GRACIA: at time of birth, illegit child of the adopter, who is her biological father. No law or juris granting the right to use middle names to illegit child. Use bbiological mothers name, as middle name. to maintain biological lineage. If adopter dies, can she inherit? Yes. If biological mother dies, yes she can inherit? The mother gave her up for adoption, can she inherit. If adopted dies, the adopters and the biological parents can inherit from her. 23. NUGUID. LPA. Will-sister will inherit all her properties. Testator had no legit and illegit. In the absence of LCDs, the descendants will inherit. PRETERITION. When theres omission of the compulsory heirs in the will, or even if mentioned in the will, are not given anything. CAN ONLY AFFECT RELATIVES in the DIRECT LINE. 24.CATALAN. absolute and relative divorce-marriage still subsists. At best, the 2nd wifes claim is as creditor or as co-owner. 25. ENRICO. Court must pass upon the validity of the marriage. Thus if marriage is void, no surviving spouse.-exclude. If valid, reinclude, surviving spouse. 26. DIZON. Action to impugn is only applicable to the father and the heirs? Public policy, the law prefers legitimacy over illegitimacy. Thus a c hild can be legit or ilegit. Not both. 27. Other means-corroborative evidence. Establish filiation. How? 28. Maramag.-cayat. With a paramour. Cant designate as beneficiary. 29. AGLibot. Dies, wife, daughter. 30. GONZALES. All in the third degree? Follow rule of proximity. 31. SOLIVIO. Theres no reserve troncal here, because theres no descendant who inherited from an ascendant. No will. No RT, collateral relatives shall get share, regardless of half blood or whole. Both aunts are entitled. Pursuant to their agreement, they cant retain the same agreement.

You might also like