IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATES OF THE DECEASED JOSEFA

DELGADO AND GUILLERMO RUSTIA CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE LA ROSA

HEIRS OF MARCIANA RUSTIA VDA. DE DAMIAN
FACTS:
The deceased Josefa Delgado was the daughter of Felisa Delgado and Lucio Campo, both of
whom were never married. Five other children were born to the couple who are full-blood
siblings of Josefa and natural children of Felisa. Felisa also had another son with another man
(Ramon Osorio) named Luis Delgado. Josefa Delgado died on September 1972 without a
will. She was survived by Guillermo Rustia and some collateral relatives.
Sometime in 1917, Guillermo proposed marriage to Josefa but whether a marriage in fact took
place is disputed. According to petitioners, the two eventually lived together as husband and
wife but were never married. Petitioners point out that no record of the contested marriage
existed in the civil registry. Moreover, a baptismal certificate naming Josefa Delgado as one
of the sponsors referred to her as an unmarried woman. They never had any children but took
into their home Guillermina and Nanie. They were never legally adopted but was known in
the local dialect as ampun-ampunan. Guillermina was alleged to be the illegitimate child of
Guillermo with another woman.
Respondents, on the other hand, insist that the absence of a marriage certificate did not mean
that no marriage transpired and that Guillermina was never duly acknowledged as an
illegitimate child and such right had prescribed upon the death of Guillermo. They maintain
that Guillermo and Josefa were married on June 3, 1919 and from then on lived together as
husband and wife until the death of Josefa. During this period spanning more than half a
century, they were known among their relatives and friends to have in fact been married. To
support their proposition, they presented the following pieces of evidence:
1. Certificate of Identity dated December 1, 1944 issued to Mrs. Guillermo J. Rustia; 2.
Philippine Passport No. 4767 issued to Josefa D. Rustia on June 25, 1947; 3. Veterans
Application for Pension or Compensation filed with the Veterans Administration of the United
States of America by Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia wherein Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia himself swore
to his marriage to Josefa Delgado in Manila on 3 June 1919; 4. Titles to real properties in the
name of Guillermo Rustia indicated that he was married to Josefa Delgado.
Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao, the daughter of Luis Delgado, filed the original petition for
letters of administration of the intestate estates of the "spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo
Rustia" with the RTC of Manila. This petition was opposed by the following: (1) the sisters of
Guillermo Rustia; (2) the heirs of Guillermo Rustias late brother, Roman Rustia, Sr., and (3)
the ampun-ampunan Guillermina Rustia. The opposition was grounded on the theory that
Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao and the other claimants were barred under the law from
inheriting from their illegitimate half-blood relative Josefa Delgado. Guillerma Rustia filed a
motion to intervene in the proceedings, claiming she was the only surviving descendant in the
direct line of Guillermo Rustia. Despite the objections of the oppositors, the motion was
granted.
The RTC ruled that petitioner and her co-claimants are entitled to the estate of the late Josefa
Delgado and declared as the only legal heirs of the said Josefa Delgado. Similarly, the
intervenor Guillerma Rustia is hereby declared as the sole and only surviving heir of the late
Dr. Guillermo Rustia, and thus, entitled to the entire estate of the said decedent, to the
exclusion of the oppositors and the other parties hereto. As the estates of both decedents have
not as yet been settled, a single administrator was appointed in the petitioner Carlota Delgado
Vda. de dela Rosa. LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION were issued to CARLOTA
Page 1 of 17

DELGADO VDA. DE DE LA ROSA upon her filing of the requisite bond in the sum of
P500,000.00.
Upon appeal in the CA said court reversed the decision.
The issues for our resolution are:
1. whether there was a valid marriage between Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado; 2. who
the legal heirs of the decedents Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado are; 3. who should be
issued letters of administration.
First issue: The marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado
Rule 131, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(aa) That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a
lawful contract of marriage;
In this case, several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid marriage existed
between Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado. Their cohabitation of more than 50 years
cannot be doubted. Their family and friends knew them to be married. Their reputed status as
husband and wife was such that even the original petition for letters of administration filed by
Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao in 1975 referred to them as "spouses." These arguments are
very persuasive.
Although a marriage contract is considered a primary evidence of marriage, its absence is not
always proof that no marriage in fact took place. Once the presumption of marriage arises,
other evidence may be presented in support thereof. Here, the certificate of identity issued to
Josefa Delgado as Mrs. Guillermo Rustia, the passport issued to her as Josefa D. Rustia, the
declaration under oath of no less than Guillermo Rustia that he was married to Josefa Delgado
and the titles to the properties in the name of "Guillermo Rustia married to Josefa Delgado,"
more than adequately support the presumption of marriage. These are public documents
which are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. No clear and convincing evidence
sufficient to overcome the presumption of the truth of the recitals therein was presented by
petitioners. This is the usual order of things in society and, if the parties are not what they
hold themselves out to be, they would be living in constant violation of the common rules of
law and propriety. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. Always presume marriage.
Second Issue: The Lawful Heirs Of Josefa Delgado
Since Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio were never married. Hence, all the children born to
Felisa Delgado out of her relations with Ramon Osorio and Lucio Campo, namely, Luis and
his half-blood siblings Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, Gorgonio and the decedent Josefa, all
surnamed Delgado, were her natural children.
The SC ruled that succession should be allowed, even when the illegitimate brothers and
sisters are only of the half-blood. The reason impelling the prohibition on reciprocal
successions between legitimate and illegitimate families does not apply to the case under
consideration. That prohibition has for its basis the difference in category between illegitimate
and legitimate relatives. There is no such difference when all the children are illegitimate

Page 2 of 17

children of the same parent, even if begotten with different persons. They all stand on the
same footing before the law, just like legitimate children of half-blood relation. The court
ruled that the rules regarding succession of legitimate brothers and sisters should be
applicable to them.
The Lawful Heirs Of Guillermo Rustia
Intervenor Guillerma Rustia is an illegitimate child of Guillermo Rustia. As such, she may be
entitled to successional rights only upon proof of an admission or recognition of paternity.
She, however, claimed the status of an acknowledged illegitimate child of Guillermo Rustia
only after the death of the latter on February 28, 1974 at which time it was already the new
Civil Code that was in effect.
Under the new law, recognition may be compulsory or voluntary. Recognition is compulsory
in any of the following cases:
(2) when the child is in continuous possession of status of a child of the alleged father (or
mother) by the direct acts of the latter or of his family;
On the other hand, voluntary recognition may be made in the record of birth, a will, a
statement before a court of record or in any authentic writing.
Intervenor Guillerma sought recognition on two grounds: first, compulsory recognition
through the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child and second,
voluntary recognition through authentic writing. There was apparently no doubt that she
possessed the status of an illegitimate child from her birth until the death of her putative
father Guillermo Rustia. However, this did not constitute acknowledgment but a mere ground
by which she could have compelled acknowledgment through the courts. Furthermore, any
judicial action for compulsory acknowledgment has a dual limitation: the lifetime of the child
and the lifetime of the putative parent. On the death of either, the action for compulsory
recognition can no longer be filed. Therefore the right to claim compulsory acknowledgment
prescribed upon the death of Guillermo Rustia.
Third Issue: Entitlement To Letters Of Administration
An administrator is a person appointed by the court to administer the intestate estate of the
decedent. Rule 78, Section 6 of the Rules of Court prescribes an order of preference in the
appointment of an administrator:
Sec. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. If no executor is named in the
will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give a bond, or a
person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the
discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin,
requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person
selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow or next of kin,
neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to
request that the administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or
more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;

Page 3 of 17

(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other
person as the court may select.
In the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is the interest in the estate
of the one to be appointed. The order of preference does not rule out the appointment of coadministrators, specially in cases where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or
factions be represented in the management of the estates, a situation which obtains here.
The SC found it fit to appoint joint administrators, in the persons of Carlota Delgado vda. de
de la Rosa and a nominee of the nephews and nieces of Guillermo Rustia. They are the next
of kin of the deceased spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia, respectively.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED with the following modifications:
Letters of administration over the still unsettled intestate estates of Guillermo Rustia and
Josefa Delgado shall issue to Carlota Delgado vda. de de la Rosa and to a nominee from
among the heirs of Guillermo Rustia, as joint administrators, upon their qualification and
filing of the requisite bond in such amount as may be determined by the trial court.

Page 4 of 17

TOMAS Corpus vs. RAFAEL Corpus

85 SCRA 567
FACTS:
RAMONA ARGUELLES and TOMAS CORPUS were married, blessed with 5
children: PABLO CORPUS, JOSE CORPUS and 3 others. When TOMAS CORPUS
DIED, RAMONA wed LUIS RAFAEL YANGCO and had 4 recognized
acknowledged natural children, one of them was the decedent TEORORO YANGCO.
TEODORO Yangco died on April 20, 1939. His will was dated August 29, 1934 and
was probated 1941. At the time of his death, he had no forced heirs. He only had his
half brother (LUIS YANGCO), half sister (PAZ YANGCO), wife of Miguel Ossorio
(AMALIA CORPUS), the children of his half brother Pablo Corpus (JOSE and
RAMON) and the daughter of his half brother Jose Corpus (JUANA/JUANITA
CORPUS). Juanita died in 1944.
Pursuant to the order of the probate court, a project of partition dated November 26,
1945 was submitted by the administrator and the legatees named in the will. The said
project was contested by the following, on the following grounds (oppositors):
> Estate of LUIS YANGCO: intestacy should be declared because the will does not
contain an institution of heir
> JUANITA Corpus, PEDRO MARTINEZ and JULIANA DE CASTO, through
ATTY. CRUZ: the proposed partition was not in conformity with the will as the
testator intended that the estate should be CONSERVED and not physically
parititoned.
Nevertheless, the project of partition was approved by the Probate court, in essence
holding that the testator did not really intend to a perpetual prohibition against
alienation when he stated that some of his estate be conserved.
Oppositors appealed to SC but appeal dismissed after the legatees and the appellants
entered into compromise agreements wherein the legatees agreed to pay P35k to
PEDRO MARTINEZ, the heirs of PIO CORPUS, the heirs of ISABEL CORPUS, and
the heir of JUANITA CORPUS her son TOMAS CORPUS. For the estate of Luis
Yangco, a similar compromise agreement was entered. The dismissal of the appeal
became final and executory.
Pursuant to the compromise agreement, Tomas Corpus signed a receipt
acknowledging that he received from the Yangco estate P2k as settlement in full of
my share of the compromise agreement as per understanding with Judge Roman Cruz,
our attorney in this case. The legatees executed an agreement for the settlement and
physical partition of the Yangco estate which was approved by the probate court in
1949. 1945 project of partition was pro tanto modified.
TOMAS CORPUS still filed action to recover JUANITAs supposed share in
Yangcos intestate estate, alleging that the dispositions in Yangcos will sing perpetual
Page 5 of 17

prohibitions upon alienation which rendered it void under A785, OCC and that 1949
partition is invalid. The decedents estate should have been distributed according to
the rules on intestacy.
TC: DISMISS: Res Judicata and laches.
-directly appealed to SC
-Petitioners contention: trial court erred in holding (1) Teodoro Yangco was a natural
child; (2) Teodoro Yangcos will had been duly legalized; (3) Plaintiffs action is
barred by res judicata and laches.
ISSUE:
WON JUANITA CORPUS, TOMAS CORPUS mom, was a legal heir of TEODORO
YANGCO so that his mom would have a cause of action to recover a supposed
intestate share in the estate.
(the court deemed it unnecessary to determine if the will has been duly legalized and
whether his action has already been barred by laches)
HELD: NO. JUANITA CORPUS, the petitioners mother, was NOT A LEGAL HEIR
of Yangco because there is NO RECIPROCAL SUCCESSION between legitimate
and illegitimate relatives.
NCC: An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestate from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives
inherit in the same manner from the legitimate child. A992 is based on the theory that
the illegitimate child is disgracefully looked upon by the legitimate family while the
legitimate family is, in turn, hated by the legitimate child. The Law does not recognize
blood tie and seeks to avoid further grounds of resentment.
TEODORO YANGCO, and 3 other children, was ACKNOWLEDGED NATURAL
CHILD and NOT A LEGITIMATE CHILD, of LUIS RAFAEL YANGCO and
RAMONA ARGUELLES. JOSE CORPUSwas the presumed legitimate child of
TOMAS CORPUS and RAMONA ARGUELLES. Therefore, TOMAS CORPUS
(Petitioner) had no cause of action for the recovery of the supposed hereditary share
of his mother, JUANITA CORPUS, as legal heir in YANGCOs estate.
-Legitimate relatives of the mother cannot succeed her illegitimate child.
-The natural child cannot represent his natural father in the succession to the estate of
the legitimate grandparent.
-The natural daughter cannot succeed to the estate of her deceased uncle, a legitimate
brother of her natural mother.
Disposition. WHEREFORE the lower court's judgment is affirmed. No costs. SO
ORDERED.
(Leonardo vs CA)

Page 6 of 17

Anselma Diaz v. IAC and Felisa Pamuti Jardin

GR No. L-66574
(150 SCRA 645)
June 17, 1987
Paras, J.
Nature: Petition for Review
Doctrine: Right of Representation is admitted only within the legitimate family
Facts:
Felisa is a niece of Simona who together with Felisas mother Juliana were the
only legitimate children of spouses Felipe and Petronilla;
Juliana married Simon and out of their union were born Felisa and another
child who died during infancy;
Simona is the widow of Pascual and mother of Pablo;
Pablo was the only legitimate son of his parents Pascual and Simona;
Pascual died in 1970; Pablo in 1973 and Simona in 1976;
Pablo at the time of his death was survived by his mother Simona and six
minor natural children: four minor children with Anselma Diaz and two minor
children with Felixberta.
1976 Judge Jose Raval declared Felisa as the sole legitimate heir of Simona
Petitioners Anselma and Felixberta as guardians of their minor children file for
opposition and motion to exclude Felisa from further taking part or
intervening in the settlement of the intestate estate of Simona
1980 Judge Bleza issued an order excluding Felisa from further taking part
or intervening and declared her to be not an heir of Simona
Felisas motion for recon was denied, and she filed her appeal to the
Intermediate Appellate Court declaring her as the sole heir of Simona
Issue: Who are the legal heirs of Simona, her niece Felisa or her grandchildren (the
natural children of Pablo)? Felisa
Ruling:
The 6 minor children cannot represent their father Pablo in the succession of
the latter to the intestate estate of his legitimate mother Simona because of the
barrier provided for under Art. 992 of the Civil Code
o Art 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from
the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall
such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the
illegitimate child.
Pablo is a legitimate child. However, his 6 minor children are illegitimate.
Art 992 provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a
succession ab intestate between the illegitimate child and the legitimate
children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. They
may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the
purposes of Art. 992.
JBL Reyes reflections on this which also finds full support from other
civilists:

Page 7 of 17

o In the Spanish Civil Code of 1989, the right of representation was

admitted only within the legitimate family.
o An illegitimate child cannot inherit ab intestate from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father and mother.
o The Civil Code of the Philippines adhered to this principle since it
reproduced Art 943 in its own Art 992, but with fine inconsistency in
subsequent articles (990, 995, 998) which allows the hereditary portion
of the illegitimate child to pass to his own descendants, whether
legitimate or illegitimate.

Page 8 of 17

Diaz vs IAC (1990)

Facts:
Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero who together with
Felisa's mother Juliana were the only legitimate children of the spouses Felipe Pamuti
and Petronila Asuncion; that Juliana married Simon Jardin and out of their union were
born Felisa Pamuti and another child who died during infancy; that Simona Pamuti
Vda. de Santero is the widow of Pascual Santero and the mother of Pablo Santero;
that Pablo Santero was the only legitimate son of his parents Pascual Santero and
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero; that Pascual Santero died in 1970; Pablo Santero in
1973 and Simona Santero in 1976; that Pablo Santero, at the time of his death was
survived by his mother Simona Santero and his six minor natural children to wit: four
minor children with Anselma Diaz and two minor children with Felixberta Pacursa.
Issue: who are the legal heirs of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero her niece Felisa
Pamuti-Jardin or her grandchildren (the natural children of Pablo Santero)?
Ruling:
Petitioners claim that the amendment of Articles 941 and 943 of the old Civil Code
(Civil Code of Spain) by Articles 990 and 992 of the new Civil Code (Civil Code of
the Philippines) constitute a substantial and not merely a formal change, which grants
illegitimate children certain successional rights. A careful evaluation of the New Civil
Code provisions, especially Articles 902, 982, 989, and 990, claimed by petitioners to
have conferred illegitimate children the right to represent their parents in the
inheritance of their legitimate grandparents, would in point of fact reveal that such
right to this time does not exist.
Article 982 is inapplicable to instant case because Article 992 prohibits absolutely a
succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and
relatives of the father or mother. It may not be amiss to state that Article 982 is the
general rule and Article 992 the exception. Articles 902, 989, and 990 clearly speak of
successional rights of illegitimate children, which rights are transmitted to their
descendants upon their death. The descendants (of these illegitimate children) who
may inherit by virtue of the right of representation may be legitimate or illegitimate.
In whatever manner, one should not overlook the fact that the persons to be
represented are themselves illegitimate.
Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits
absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate
children and relatives of the father or mother of said illegitimate child. They may have
a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purpose of Article 992.
Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family there is presumed to be an
intervening antagonism and incompatibility. The illegitimate child is disgracefully
looked down upon by the legitimate family; and the family is in turn, hated by the
illegitimate child; the latter considers the privileged condition of the former, and the
resources of which it is thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the illegitimate
child nothing but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life; the
law does no more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further ground of resentment.
It is therefore clear from Article 992 of the New Civil Code that the phrase "legitimate
children and relatives of his father or mother" includes Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero as the word "relative" is broad enough to comprehend all the kindred of the
person spoken of. (Comment, p. 139 Rollo citing p. 2862 Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Page 9 of 17

vol. 11, Third Revision, Eight Edition) The record reveals that from the
commencement of this case the only parties who claimed to be the legitimate heirs of
the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero are Felisa Pamuti Jardin and the six minor
natural or illegitimate children of Pablo Santero. Since petitioners herein are barred by
the provisions of Article 992, the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court did not
commit any error in holding Felisa Pamuti Jardin to be the sole legitimate heir to the
intestate estate of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
The word "relatives" is a general term and when used in a statute it embraces not only
collateral relatives but also all the kindred of the person spoken of, unless the context
indicates that it was used in a more restrictive or limited sense which as already
discussed earlier, is not so in the case at bar.
In the light of the foregoing, We conclude that until Article 992 is suppressed or at
least amended to clarify the term "relatives" there is no other alternative but to apply
the law literally. Thus, We hereby reiterate the decision of June 17, 1987 and
declare Felisa Pamuti-Jardin to be the sole heir to the intestate estate of Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero, to the exclusion of petitioners.

Page 10 of 17

In the Matter of the Instestate Estate of Pedro Santillon,Claro SANTILLON,

petitioner-appellant,
vs.
Perfecta MIRANDA, Benito MIRANDA and RosarioCORRALES,
oppositors-appellees.
G.R. No. L-19281, June 30, 1965
FACTS:
Pedro Santillon died without testament leaving his wife, Perfecta Miranda and
one son, Claro.
Four years after Pedros death, Claro filed a petition for letters of administration
which was opposed by his mother and spouses Benito Miranda and Rosario Corrales.
The court appointed commissioners to draft a project of partition and distribution of
all properties of Pedro. Claro then filed a motion to declare share of heirs and to
resolve conflicting claims of the parties invoking Art.892 of the New Civil Code
insisting that after deducting from the conjugal properties (conjugal share of
Perfecta), the remaining must be divided as follows: for her and for him. On
the other hand, Perfecta claimed besides her conjugal half, she was entitled under Art.
996 of the NCC to another of the remaining half. After due notice and hearing, the
court held that Perfecta is entitled to shares and the remaining share for Claro
after deducting the share of the widow as co-owner of the conjugal properties. Hence,
this appeal.
ISSUE:
The manner of division of share of the estate of an intestate decedent when the only
survivors are the spouse and one legitimate child.
RULING:
Intestate proceedings in the New Civil Codes chapter on legal or intestate
succession, the only article applicable is Art. 996. Our conclusion (equal shares)
seems a logical inference from the circumstance that whereas Article 834 of the
Spanish Civil Code form which Art. 996 was taken, contained two paragraphs
governing two contingencies, the first, where the widow or widower survives with
legitimate children (general rule), and the second, where the widow or widower
survives with only one child (exception), Art. 996 omitted to provide for the second
situation, thereby indicating the legislators desire to promulgate just one general rule
applicable to both situations.

Surviving spouse concurring with a legitimate child entitled to one-half of the

intestate estate.
When an intestacy occurs, a surviving spouse concurring with only one
legitimate child of the deceased is entitled to one-half of the estate of
the deceased spouse under Art. 996 of the Civil Code.

Page 11 of 17

Bicomong vs Almanza
(Note: This is a case of half-blood nephews and nieces claiming from the estate of a
half-blood aunt. Greens vs Yellows; all those in white are dead.)
Guerrero, J.
Facts:

Simeon Bagsic was married twice.

His first marriage was to Sisenanda Barcenas with whom he had 3 children:
Perpetua, Igmedia and Ignacio. Sisenanda Barcenas died ahead of Simeon
Bagsic.

His second marriage was to Silvestria Glorioso with whom he had 2 children:
Felipa and Maura. Silvestria and Simeon both died.

From first marriage:

o Ignacio Bagsic died and leaving plaintiff Francisca Bagsic as his only
heir. Igmedia Bagsic also died survived by plaintiffs Dionisio, Maria
and Petra, all Tolentino. Perpetua Bagsic died survived by the plaintiffs
Gaudencio, Felicidad, Salome, and Gervacio, all Bicomong.

From second marriage:

o Maura Bagsic died leaving no heir. Felipa Bagsic married Geronimo
Almanza. She died and was survived by her husband defendant

Page 12 of 17

Geronimo Almanza, her daughter Cristeta Almanza. Cristeta died

survived by her husband defendant Engracio Manese.

The subject matter of the complaint concerns the one-half undivided share of
Maura Bagsic in five (5) parcels of land which she inherited from her
deceased mother, Silvestra Glorioso (second marriage).

After the death of Maura, the subject properties were administered by her
niece Cristeta. The plaintiffs requested the partition of the properties but
Cristeta convinced them to wait until the expenses for Mauras illness and
burial have been paid. After all the debts have been paid, Cristeta agreed to the
request but she died before the partition was effected.

The possession and administration of the properties were left to Cristetas

father and Cristetas husband, defendants Geronimo Almanza and Engracio
Manese, respectively. Defendant Geronimo Almanza died and was substituted
by Florentino Cartena.

The grandchildren from the first marriage brought suit for the recovery of their
lawful shares in the properties left by Maura Bagsic.

The trail court found for the plaintiffs awarding them 10/24 share on the five
parcels of land. (Guys, the case says there are 10 half-nephews/nieces but only
8 were named. Sorry.)

Engracio Manese did not appeal so the ruling became final as to him.
Florentino Cartena, substitute of Geronimo Almanza appealed to the CA. The
CA referred the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not the heirs of the half blood brothers and sisters are able to inherit
from the estate left by a half-sister.
Held: Yes. They inherit in their own right and not by representation.
Articles 975, 1006 and 1008 are applicable in this case.
By virtue of said provision, the aforementioned nephews and nieces are entitled to
inherit in their own right. Nephews and nieces alone do not inherit by right of
representation (that is per stirpes) unless concurring with brothers or sisters of the
deceased."
Art. 975. When children of one or more brothers or sisters of tile deceased
survive, they shall inherit from the latter by representation, if they survive with
Page 13 of 17

their uncles or aunts. But if they alone survive, they shall inherit in equal
portions."
Felipa, the full-blood sister predeceased the decedent Maura which means that only
nephews and nieces are claiming inheritance in this case. In Art 975, the sole niece of
whole blood (Cristeta) of the deceased does not exclude the ten nephews and nieces of
half blood.
The only difference between the whole and half blood relatives is in the amount of
their shares provided in Arts 1006 and 1008:
Art. 1006. Should brothers and sisters of the full blood survive together with
brothers and sisters of the half blood, the former shall be entitled to a share
double that of the latter.
Art. 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per
capita or per stirpes, in accordance with the rules laid down for brothers and
sisters of the full blood.

Bacayo v. Borromeo
G.R. No. L-19382 | August 31, 1965 | J. JBL Reyes
Petitioner: Filomena Abellana De Bacayo
Respondents: Gaudencia Ferraris De Borromeo, Catalina Feraris De Villegas, Juanito
Ferraris & Conchita Ferraris
Summary:
Melodia Ferraris left properties in Cebu City consisting of 1/3 share in the estate of
her aunt Rosa Ferraris. Ten years have elapsed since the last time she was known to be
alive, she was declared presumptively dead for purposes of opening her succession
and distribute her estate among heirs. Hence, a petition for the summary settlement of
her estate was filed. Melodia left no surviving descendant, ascendant or spouse, but
was survived only by collateral relatives: 1) Filomena, an aunt and half-sister of her
father; and 2) her nieces and nephews who were children of her only brother of full
blood who predeceased her. In the settlement proceeding, Filomena was excluded as
an heir pursuant to a resolution issued by the CFI of Cebu. MR was also denied hence
this action.
The SC held that the trial court was correct in ruling that under articles 1001, 1004,
1005, and 1009 of the Civil Code, in case of intestacy, nephews and nieces exclude all
other collaterals (aunts and uncles, first cousins, etc.) from the succession. Thus, it is
the nieces and nephews of Melodia, not Filomena, who should inherit the intestate
estate of Melodia.
FACTS:
Refer to the family tree:

Page 14 of 17

Gaudencia

Anacleto
Ferraris

Melodia
Ferraris
Catalina
Arturo Ferraris

Grandfather/Gr
andmother

Rosa Ferraris

Conchita

Filomena
Abellana de
Bacayo

Juanito

Melodia Ferraris was a resident of Cebu City until 1937 when she transferred to
Intramuros, Manila. She was known to have resided there continuously until 1944.
Up to the filing on December 22, 1960 of the petition for the summary settlement
of her estate, she has not been heard of and her whereabouts are still unknown.
More than ten (10) years having elapsed since the last time she was known to be
alive, she was declared presumptively dead for purposes of opening her
succession and distributing her estate among her heirs.
Melodia left properties in Cebu City, consisting of 1/3 share in the estate of her
aunt, Rosa, valued at P6,000.
Melodia left no surviving direct descendant, ascendant, or spouse, but was
survived only by collateral relatives, Filomena Abellana de Bacayo, an aunt and
half-sister of her father, Anacleto Ferraris; and by Gaudencia, Catalina, Conchita,
and Juanito, all surnamed Ferraris, her nieces and nephew, who were the children
of Melodia's only brother of full blood, Arturo, who pre-deceased her. These two
classes of heirs claim to be the nearest intestate heirs and seek to participate in her
estate.
CFI Cebu: in favor of the nieces and nephew. They are nearer in degree (two
degrees) than Filomena since nieces and nephews succeed by right of
representation, while Filomena is three degrees distant from Melodia, and that
other collateral relatives are excluded by brothers or sisters or children of brothers
or sisters of the decedent in accordance with Art. 1009 of the NCC.
Melodias contention: Under Art. 9751 of the NCC, no right of representation
could take place when the nieces and nephew of the decedent do not concur with
an uncle or aunt, but rather the former succeed in their own right.

ISSUE: WON the aunt concur with the children of the decedent's brother in the
inheritance. NO. The aunt will be excluded.
RATIO
Filomena is correct in her contention that nephews and nieces alone do not inherit
by right of representation (i.e., per stripes) unless concurring with brothers or
sisters of the deceased, as provided expressly by Article 975. Nevertheless, in case
of intestacy, nephews and nieces of the de cujus exclude all other collaterals (aunts
and uncles, first cousins, etc.) from the succession. This is readily apparent from
articles 1001, 1004, 1005, and 1009 of the Civil Code.
1 ART. 975. When children of one or more brothers or sisters of the deceased survive, they shall inherit from the
latter by representation, if they survive with their uncles or aunts. But if they alone survive, they shall inherit in equal
portions.

Page 15 of 17

o ART. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the
widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance
and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half.
o ART. 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of the full blood,
they shall inherit in equal shares.
o ART. 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together with nephews and
nieces, who are the children of the decedent's brothers and sisters of the full
blood, the former shall inherit per capita, and the latter per stripes.
o ART. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sister nor children of brothers
or sisters, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate. The latter
shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by reason
of relationship by the whole blood.
Note that under Art. 1009, the absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of
the decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles, cousins, etc.) being
called to the succession.
Moreover, Tolentino's commentaries to Article 1009 expressly states that:
o The last of the relatives of the decedent to succeed in intestate succession are
the collaterals other than brothers or sisters or children of brothers or sisters.
They are, however, limited to relatives within the fifth degree Article 1009
does not state any order of preference. However, this article should be
understood in connection with the general rule that the nearest relatives
exclude the farther. Collaterals of the same degree inherit in equal parts, there
being no right of representation. They succeed without distinction of lines or
preference among them on account of the whole blood relationship.
Teotico vs Del Val
GR No. L18753, March 26, 1965
FACTS:
Maria Mortera died on July 1955 leaving properties worth P600,000. She
executed a will written in Spanish, affixed her signature and acknowledged before
Notary Public by her and the witnesses. Among the legacies made in the will was
the P20,000 for Rene Teotico who was married to the testatrixs niece, Josefina
Mortera. The usufruct of Marias interest in the Calvo Building were left to the
said spouses and the ownership thereof was left in equal parts to her
grandchildren, the legitimate children of said spouses. Josefina was likewise
instituted, as sole and universal heir to all the remainder of her properties not
otherwise disposed by will. Vicente Teotico filed a petition for the probate of the
will but was opposed by Ana del Val Chan, claiming that she was an adopted child
of Francisca (deceased sister of Maria) and an acknowledged natural child of Jose
(deceased brother of Maria), that said will was not executed as required by law
and that Maria as physically and mentally incapable to execute the will at the
time of its execution and was executed under duress, threat, or influence of fear.
ISSUE: WON defendant has right to intervene in this proceeding.
Ruling:
It is a well-settled rule that in order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a
probate proceeding is that he must have an interest in the estate, will or in the
property to be affected by either as executor or as a claimant of the estate and be

Page 16 of 17

benefited by such as an heir or one who has a claim against it as creditor. Under
the terms of the will, defendant has no right to intervene because she has no such
interest in the estate either as heir, executor or administrator because it did not
appear therein any provision designating her as heir/ legatee in any portion of the
estate. She could have acquired such right if she was a legal heir of the deceased
but she is not under the CIVIL CODE. Even if her allegations were true, the law
does not give her any right to succeed the estate of the deceased sister of both Jose
and Francisca because being an illegitimate child she is prohibited by law from
succeeding to the legitimate relatives of her natural father and that relationship
established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter and adopted and does not
extend to the relatives of the adopting parents except only as expressly provided
by law. As a consequence, she is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of
the adopter.
Hence, defendant has no right to intervene either as testamentary or as legal heir
in the probate proceeding.

Page 17 of 17