ARTICLES 774-72 General Provisions
Objective Element
Article 774 Succession is a mode of acquisition by
virtue of which the property, rights and obligations
to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a
person are transmitted through his death to another
or others either by his will or by operation of law.
Basis of Succession
1. The right to dispose private property. The
will is merely a causal instrument for the
conveyance. This is the basis of testamentary
succession.
2. Family Co-ownership. The testator
recognizes that the family is the heart and
soul of the society. The idea of succession
must revolve around it. The is the basis of
intestate succession.
3. Eclectic Theory. The purpose of succession
is to perpetuate the testators patrimony
beyond his existence, giving greater stability
to his family and society.
Article 775
Decedent is the general term applied to the persons
whose property is transmitted through succession,
whether or not he left a will.
Testator how called if he left a will.
Article 776
Inheritance includes the following:
a. Property
b. Rights(not extinguished by death)
c. Obligations (not extinguished by death)
What is the difference between heirs and
devisees/legatees, as to the extent of the inheritance?
An heir inherits an aliquot part of the
indeterminate portion of the estate, while, the
inheritance of a devisee/legatee must be specified by
the testator.
What are the elements of Succession?
1. Subjective Elements
a. Testator
b. Heirs
c. Devisees or
d. Legatees
2.
a. Inheritance
3. Causal Element
The transmission of property by will and
death as the condition.
What is the distinction between Inheritance and
Succession?
Inheritance refers to the universality of all
the property, rights and obligations constituting the
partrimony of the decedent, which are not
extinguished by his death.
Succession is the legal mode by which such
property, rights and obligations are transmitted.
What is the extent of inheritance?
It refers to all the properties of the decedent
at the time of his death. They may be residual or
accrued properties.
*Corpse of the decedent is not included.
Are all the obligations of the deceased part of his
inheritance?
The inheritance includes all the property,
rights and obligations of a person which are not
extinguished by his death. Hence, not all obligations
shall be part of the decedents inheritance.
Example: Those obligations which are purely
personal.
Give examples of rights which are extinguished by
death, and which, therefore, are not part of the
estate?
1. Instransmissible personal rights because of their
nature (such as those appertaining to family rights,
marital and parental authority, support, action for
legal separation, partnership agency, life annuity)
2. Right to hold public/private office or job (Hu Niu
vs Collector of Customs, 36 Phil 433)
Given an example of rights not extinguished by death,
and which, therefore, are parts of the estate?
1. Right to bring or continue an action for forcible
entry or unlawful detainer
2. Right to compel the execution of a document
necessary for the convenience, provided that the
contract is valid and enforceable under the Statue of
Frauds.
*When asked for example about rights and obligations
which are transmissible and non-transmissible, be
particular whether it is an obligation or a right.
A father was a defendant in a civil case. During its
pendency, he died, and his children were substituted
as defendants. If judgment is rendered against the
defendant, can the children be held personally liable
with their own individual properties?
No. The children cannot be held personally liable,
despite the substitution. The remedy of the plaintiff-
creditor is to proceed against the estate of the
deceased. (Viardo vsBelmonte, 21 August 1962)
*While the debts of the deceased still remain unpaid, no
residue may be divided among the heirs, legatees and
devisees. Instead, the court may order the sale of sufficient
properties for the satisfaction of the debts and the heirs
cannot question this. Such a step is necessary for the
eventual partition of the estate. (Lao vs Dec, 23 January
1952)
*A creditor of an heir (who is not a creditor of the
deceased), who intervenes in the estate proceedings, cannot
ask the court to sell the properties, which the heir debtor
expects to receive. This is because the debts of the deceased
himself, must first be paid. Then and only then, we can
determine, if there is a sufficient residue left for the heirs or
for the heirs creditor. (Lintonjua vs Montilla, 31January
1952)
X died leaving debts amounting to P5M. Will the
heirs of
X, be answerable for such debts?
No. The remedy of the creditors would be to
proceed against the estate of X as a separate juridical
person. Monetary obligations are not part of the
deceased inheritance.
Is the body of the decedent part of the inheritance?
No. Because it is not a property (Jurado and
Paras). Refer to the special law on the matter.
Is an action to claim ones legitimacy transmissible?
(Article 173 Family Code)
The action to claim legitimacy may be
brought by the child during his or her lifetime and
shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die
during minority or in a state of insanity. In these
cases, the heirs shall have a period of five (5) years
within which to institute the action.
Is an action to claim ones illegitimacy
transmissible? (Article 175 Family Code)
Illegitimate children may establish their
illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same
evidence as legitimate children. The action must be
brought within the same period specified in Article
173, except when the action is based on the second
paragraph of Article 172 (An admission of legitimate
filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned.), in which case the action may be brought
during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
What is the restrictive nature of inheritance?
1. Before death, it is a mere hope
2. After death, it cannot be distributed
unless, all the claims against the estate of the decedent
are liquidated. The purpose of which is to determine,
what assets are left to be transmitted to the heirs.
*Under the Rules of Procedures, liquidation is necessary in
order to determine whether or not the decedent has left any
liquid assets which maybe transmitted to the heirs.
*Estate is a legal exigency created by law, so that the heirs
will not be bothered by the claims of other persons against
the decedent. Estate is the continuation of the decedents
personality.
Article 777 The rights to the succession are
transmitted from the moment of the death of the
decedent.
When is the right to succession transmitted?
It is transmitted at the moment of the death
of the decedent.
*Death is a condition that effects transmission of the
decedents assets. The express will of the decedents
presumed will as provided by law is the cause. Before death,
the heir only have a mere hope or expectancy. It is not a
vested right, for a will maybe changed, either because of:
1. Causes of disinheritance
2. Acts of incapacity/unworthiness
3. revocation of the will
What is the decisive moment, when the heirs acquire
a definite right to the inheritance?
The decisive moment is death. It is upon the
death of the decedent that the heirs acquire a definite
right over the inheritance, whether such right is pure,
conditional or with a term.
What is death?
Death is the permanent cessation of all the
bodily functions which terminates a persons judicial
capacity and capacity to act.
What does presumed will mean?
The will of the decedent to transfer the
properties to the heirs is presumed by law. The rule
laid down by law is based on human experience, as
may be gleaned from the order of those who may
inherit intestate succession.
What are the conditions before the rights of the heirs
are transmitted?
1. Death of the decedent/testator (either
actual or presumed)
2. The rights or properties are indeed
transmissible
3. Heirs must survive the decedent (no
predecease); be willing (no repudiation); be
capacitated to inherit
*These are also the requisites for succession mortis causa.
Can an heir sell his future inheritance?
No. Because the heir has no vested right over
the inheritance yet. Therefore, the object, which is the
inheritance, is not yet determined nor certain.
What are the cases when there is no transmission of
right?
1. Repudiation made by the heir
2. Heirs predeceased the decedent/testator
3. Incapacity of the heir to succeed
Upon the death of the testator, is it necessary to
deliver the properties to the heir in order to acquire
ownership?
No. Because the right to the inheritance is
transmitted from the moment of the death of the
decedent. Tradition or delivery is not essential for the
acquisition of properties of the decedent because
succession is an independent mode
. if the absentee is more than seventy-five (75) years old
If a decedent dies January 1, 1999 and the property is
actually delivered only on March 1, 1999, when does
the heir become an owner of the property?
He became an owner of the property
beginning January 1, 1999. This is because it is not
tradition (delivery) that transfer ownership here but
succession. The effects of an acceptance of the
inheritance retroacts to the moment of death.
If on the other hand, there is repudiation, it is as if, the
heir never owned the property. This is because of the
retroactive effect of repudiation.
*No matter when/what time the heir, devisee or legatee
enters into the possession of the inheritance, devise or
legacy, acquisition always retroact to the moment of death,
in accordance with Article 1042 (The effects of the
acceptance or repudiation shall always retroact to the
moment of death of the decedent.)
*After the death of the decedent, anyone of the heirs may
enter into a contract with respect to his share in the
inheritance, even before the partition has been effected the
right to the inheritance is already in the nature of a vested
right upon the death of the decedent. Thus, the heir may:
1. Sell his undivided share in the inheritance
2. Donate it
Before death, the heirs have only a mere hope of
expectancy absolutely inchoate in character, to their share
in the inheritance. Hence, any contract entered into with
respect to the inheritance, would have no object
whatsoever, therefore inexistent from the beginning.
Article 777 provides that the right to succession are
transmitted from the moment of death of the
decedent.
Does this principle apply only to actual death?
No. The principle under this Article applies
to both actual death and presumptive death. This is
clear from the provisions of Article 390 and 391.
What are the rules on presumptive death as to the
opening of succession?
1. ten (10) years absence, it being unknown,
whether or not the absentee still lives
2. five (5) years, if the absentee disappeared
after the age of seventy-five (75)
3. four (4) years, if the absentee disappeared
under any of the circumstances enumerated
in Article 391
When or at what precise moment will there be a
transmission of successional rights in case of a
presumptive death?
As to ordinary As absence of ten (10) or five (5) years
at the expiration of the period designated by law.
As to extra-ordinary absence under Article 391 at
the time of the disappearance, because the absentee
disappeared under the danger of death.
*Although the rule says, that there will be transmission of
successional rights at the time of the disappearance of the
absentee, we must still wait for a period of four (4) years
from the time the absentee disappeared. Thereafter, if the
absentee does not appear within four (4) years, there will be
transmission of successional rights and it will retroact
from the time the absentee disappeared. Reason: the
absentee disappeared under danger of death.
What are the kinds of death in succession?
1. Actual death
2. Presumptive death
a. ordinary
b. extra-ordinary
What are the rules used to determine the precise time
of death of a decedent in presumptive death?
Ordinary presumptive death:
1. Rules of evidence
 2. in the absence of evidence, expiration of
period provided for by law
Extra-ordinary presumptive death:
1. Rules of evidence
2. In the absence of evidence, at or about
time of disappearance
What is the effect in case a person presumed to be
dead returns?
There will be a recovery of properties, or a
return of their
value, if they were already alienated except for the
fruits.
*The exception lies in the case when prescription occurs
due to lack of title.
Can there be succession without death?
As a general rule, there can be no succession
without actual death. However, the law provides
succession in cases of presumptive death. In this case,
the death of a person is merely presumed and
conditioned on the fact of death
. It occurs when the testator makes a will but
X had two (2) children, Y and Z. X suffered a heart
attack on January 1, 2002 and was pronounced dead
on the same day. On January 2, 2002, X regained
consciousness.
Y and Z claimed to have succeeded X in his
properties, when he was pronounced dead on January
1, 2002. Is the claim valid?
No. There is no succession because there was
no death. Death must be permanent because a person
can only die once.
Article 778 Succession may be:
(1) Testamentary;
(2) Legal or
intestate; or
(3) Mixed.
*Contractual Succession has been omitted by the Family
Code.
What are the different modes of testamentary
succession?
1. will or codicil
2. will or codicil maybe:
a. notarial (ordinary attested)
b. holographic (handwritten by the testator
from the beginning to end, complete with date and
signature)
*In case of doubt, testamentary succession is preferred over
legal or intestate succession.
What are the kinds of testate and intestate
succession?
1. voluntary and compulsory
2. by right and representation
What is testamentary succession?
It is one, which results from the designation
of an heir, made in a will and executed in the form
prescribed by law.
When does intestate succession occur?
Intestate succession is effected by operation
of law, in default of a will. Intestate succession occurs
when the testator has not made a will or even if he
made one, such will has not been made in accordance
with the formalities prescribed by law. In this case,
the presumed will as provided by law, shall govern
the distribution of his hereditary estate after his death.
What is mixed succession?
It is one that is effected partly by will and partly by
operation of law.
When does mixed succession occur?
fails to dispose all of his properties by means of such
will. The succession partakes of the nature of both
testamentary and legal succession.
What is contractual succession?
It is the act of future spouse of giving or
donating to each other, in their marriage settlements,
their future property, which is to take effect, upon the
death of the donor and o the extent laid down by the
Civil Code relating to testamentary succession. This
succession is not allowed anymore, for it was not
expressly provided for in the Family Code.
What are the kinds of heirs in testamentary
succession? Define each.
Voluntary an heir is called to succeed to the whole
or an aliquot part of the disposable free portion of the
hereditary estate by virtue of the will of the testator.
Compulsory an heir is called to succeed to a portion
of the testators estate, known as legitime.
Article 779 Testamentary succession is that which
results from the
designation of an heir, made in a will executed in the
form prescribed by law.
Article 780 Mixed succession is that effected partly
by will and partly by operation of law.
Article 781 The inheritance of a person includes not
only the property and the transmissible rights and
obligations existing at the time of his death, but also
those which have accrued thereto since the opening
of the succession.
What does the inheritance of a person include? It
includes not only the property and the transmissible
rights and obligations existing at the time of his death,
but also those which have accrued thereto since the
opening of the succession.
Article 782 An heir is a person called to the
succession either by the provision of a will or by
operation of law. Devisees and legatees are persons
to whom gifts of real and personal property are
respectively given by virtue of a will.
Who is an heir?
An heir is a person called to the whole or an aliquot
portion of the inheritance, either by will or by
operation of law. An heir succeeds by universal title.
*Heirs may be compulsory (if entitled to the legitime) or
voluntary (like a friend).
Who is a devisee?
A devisee is a person to whom a gift of real
property is given, by virtue of a will.
What is legatee?
A legatee is a person to whom a gift of personal
property is given, by virtue of a will.
What are distinctions between heirs, devisees and
legatees?
As to the title:
1. Devisees or legatees are always called to succeed to
individual items of the property.
2. Heirs are always called to succeed to an
indeterminate or aliquot portion of the decedents
hereditary estate.
3. Devisees or legatees succeed by a particular title,
while heirs succeed by universal title.
As to the portion of the estate:
The devise or legacy which is given to the devisee or
to the legatee by means of a will, is, as a rule, a
charged against the free portion of the testators
property. However, if the testator is not survived by
compulsory heirs, his entire property is considered as
free property. In such case, the devise and legacy can
be charged against the entire property.
In the case of heirs, a distinction must be made
between heirs in the estate succession (compulsory
and voluntary) and heirs in intestate succession (legal
or intestate heirs).
As to the means of succession:
Devisee or legatee are always called to succeed by
means of a will.
Heir are called to succeed, either by means of a will
(voluntary) or by operation of law (compulsory and
legal).
May a person be compulsory and voluntary heir at
the same time, in the same will? Otherwise stated, is
there a possibility of a dual status of an heir?
Yes. If in a will a compulsory heir is given
more than his legitime, he is assumes a dual status.
Insofar as his legitime is concerned, he is a
compulsory heir. Insofar as the excess is concerned,
he is a voluntary heir.
*The aforementioned distinction is important because if a
compulsory heir dies ahead of the testator, his legitime is
inherited by his own child (by right of representation). On
the other hand, the child of a voluntary heir wh predeceases
or dies ahead the testator gets nothing from the said
testator (Article 856).
Suppose the only properties left by the decedent are
his three (3) cars. The decedent gave you 1/3 of his
estate, which is, one car. As a beneficiary, are you
considered as an heir?
Yes. Because an aliquot part (1/3 thereof) of
the estate was given to me, not a specific part thereof.
The answer would have been different if the decedent
had given me a specific car. In this case, I would have
been a legatee, having succeeded a personal property,
by a particular title.
X made a will designating A as heir of his entire
estate. However, since X was a gambler, the only
property left to him when he died was a Honda civic
car. Is A an heir or a legatee?
A is still an heir for the purpose of giving effect to Xs
will. The fact that the only personal property left by
the decedent is a personal property is immaterial. The
designation of A, as an heir, still controls.
Give the importance of the distinction between
voluntary heirs, devisees and legatees.
In case of preterition/permission in testators will of
one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct
line, the effect is to annul entirely the institution of
heirs. But legacies and devisees shall be valid insofar
as they are not inofficious (Article 854).
In case of imperfect or defective inheritance, the
effect is to annul the institution of heirs to the extent
that the legitime of the disinherited heir is prejudiced.
But devises and legacies shall be valid, insofar as they
are not
inofficious.
In case of properties acquired by the testator after
the execution of the will, such properties are not as a
rule, included among the property disposed of,
unless, it should expressly appear in the will itself
that such was the testators intention. This rule
applies only to legacies and devises and not to the
institution of heirs.
X designated A to of his estate. He also designated
B his car plate number GVG 101. Who is the heir or
legatee?
A is an heir because she will succeed an indeterminate
portion of the estate (1/2 of Xs estate). B is a legatee
because she will succeed to a specific property (a car
with plate number GVG 101).
X executed a will in 1985. He died in 1995. In his will
X have Y all of his cars. At the time of the execution
of the will, X only had two (2) cars. Assuming that in
1995, he already has 200 cars. How many cars will Y
inherit?
Y will only get two (2) cars, because the remaining are
after-acquired properties. Y is merely a legatee
because he does not succeed to a portion of the estate.
If in the will X stated to give of his estate to Y,
what is the effect?
Y is now an heir, because he is to succeed to
a portion of the estate. Therefore, in the preceding
problem. If the only estate is 200 cars, Y will get 100
cars.
What are the advantages and the disadvantages
between a devisee, legatee and heir? (see Jurado)
Effect of preteririon
Effect of imperfect disinheritance
Effect of self-acquired properties
How do you determine an heir from a legatee or
devisee?
If the property is a particular item of the estate, the
receiver is a devisee or legatee, as the case may be
(whether that particular item is personal or real).
Otherwise, he is an heir.
Article 783
JURISPRUDENCE
Alvarez vs IAC 185 SCRA 8
WAR KIDS"
Laura Alvarez v. IAC, Jesus Yanes, et al.
(grandchildren of the deadz sila) G.R. No. L-68053;
May 7, 1990
Facts: Aniceto was survived by his children Rufino,
Felipe and Teodora. The respondents are the children
of Rufino. Aniceto left his children lots 773 and 823.
Rufino and his children left the during WW2. After
liberation, they found out that lot 773 was in the
possession of Santiago, Fuentebella, and Alvarez.
Record shows that TCTs covering lot 773-A;B were
already issued to Santiago. Santiago sold the lots to
Fuentebella. When Fuentebella died, his wife sold the
lots to Rosendo Alvarez.
Petitioners filed a complaint against Santiago,
Fuentebella, Alvarez, and the Registry of Deed of
Negros for the return of the ownership and
possession of lots 773 and 823. During the pendency
of the case, Alvarez sold the lots to Dr. Siason.
Meanwhile, in 1962, Jesus executed a quitclaim in
favor of defendant. However, in 1963, the CFI
rendered a decision in favor of PRs.(Civil case 5022
Note: pets did not file an appeal in this decision)
Decision cannot be executed coz 733 was already
registered in the name of Siason. The cadastral court
initially ordered Siason to produce his TCTs.
Afterwards, the court nullified its previous order coz
Siason was in GF and without knowledge.
The PRs filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of
an alias writ of exec. The court ruled that the
judgment cannot be enforced bec. Siason was not a
party in the case.
Another action was filed by the PRs for the recovery
of the land plus damages and fruits. The pets raised
res judicata, prescription and estoppel in their answer.
The lower court ruled in favor of the PRs. It ruled that
equity demanded that the PRs recover the actual
value of the land bec. the sale was executed without
court approval. The appellate court affirmed the TCs
decision. MR also denied.
Wills Issue:
WON the obligation of deceased Alvarez(he died
already) to pay the PRs could be legally transmitted
and passed down to his legitimate children and heirs.
Ruling:
*Civil Case 5022 is already the law of the case because
pets failed to file an appeal. Said decision had long
become final and executory. SC is already powerless
to review the decision.
Yes. The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of
the deceased party is not altered by the provision of
our Rules of Court that money debts of a deceased
must be liquidated and paid from his estate before the
residue is distributed among said heirs (Rule 89). The
reason is that whatever payment is thus made from
the state is ultimately a payment by the heirs or
distributees, since the amount of the paid claim in fact
diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would
have been entitled to receive.( Estate of Hemady v.
Luzon Surety)
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 damages. That petitioners did not
inherit the property involved herein is of no moment
because by legal fiction, the monetary equivalent
thereof devolved into the mass of their father's
hereditary estate, and we have ruled that the
hereditary assets are always liable in their totality for
the payment of the debts of the estate. It must,
however, be made clear that petitioners are liable only
to the extent of the value of their inheritance.
Gevero vs IAC 189 SCRA 201
DEL MONTE
Bienvenido Gevero v. Intermediate Appellate Court
and Del Monte Development Corporation
(DELCOR) G.R. No. 77029; August 30, 1990
Facts:
DELCOR purchased a lot (lot 2476-A; 20,119 sq met)
from the late Luis Lancero. As per Deed of Absolute
Sale exec in favor of DELCOR, a TCT was issued. Luis
acquired the same parcel of land from Ricardo
Gevero(1952). The sale bet Luis and Ricardo waqs
annotated at the back of an OCT covering a mother
lot(lot no. 2476) in the names of Ricardo, his mother
Teodorica and his siblings.
Teodorica died long before WW2. In 1966, an extra-
judicial settlement and partition was executed by the
heirs of Teo. Lot 2476 was adjudicated in favor of
Ricardo who was then alive. DELCOR filed an action
with the CFI of Misamis Oriental to quiet title and/or
annul the partition made by the heirs insofar as the
same prejudices the land which it acquired. After trial
court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff
corporation. The appellate court affirmed the
decision.
Wills Issue:
WON the 1/2 share of interest of Teodorica in one of
the litigated lots is included in the deed of sale.
Ruling:
Yezz. The hereditary share in a decedents' estate is
transmitted or vested immediately from the moment
of the death of the "causante" or predecessor in
interest (Art. 777), and there is no legal bar to a
successor disposing of his hereditary share
immediately after such death, even if the actual extent
of such share is not determined until the subsequent
liquidation of the estate. Teodorica Babangha died
long before World War II, hence, the rights to the
succession were transmitted from the moment of her
death. It is therefore incorrect to state that it was only
in 1966, the date of extrajudicial partition, when
Ricardo received his share in the lot as inheritance
from his mother Teodorica. Thus, when Ricardo sold
his share over lot 2476 that share which he inherited
from Teodorica was also included unless expressly
excluded in the deed of sale.
Locsin vs CA 206 SCRA 383
BICOLANONG HACIENDERO
Mariano B. Locsin v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 89783; February 19, 1992
Facts:
Mariano inherited extensive property from his father
Getulio. He brought his inheritance into his marriage
with Catalina Jaucian. Catalina, for her part, brought
into the marriage untitled properties which she had
inherited form her parents.
Mariano Locsin executed a last will and testament
instituting his wife as the sole and universal heir of all
his properties. The spouses being childless, they had
agreed that their properties, after both of them shall
have died should revert to their respective sides of the
family. After Mariano's death, (1948) his will was
probated without opposition from both sides of the
family. Nine years after the death of Don Mariano,
Catalina began transferring, by sale, donation or
assignment, Mariano's as well as her own, props to
their respective nephews and nieces.
Catalina died in 1977. Four years before her death, she
made a will affirming the transfers she made. Six
years after her demise, some of Catalina's nephews
and nieces filed an action in the RTC of Legaspi to
recover the properties which she had conveyed to the
Locsins, alleging that the conveyances were
innoficious, without consideration, and intended
solely to circumvent the laws on succession. After the
trial, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's
decision.
Issue: WON the PRs are entitled to inherit the
properties which Catalina had already disposed of
more than 10 yrs before her death.
Ruling:
No. The properties did not form part of her hereditaty
estate. The rights to a person's succession are
transmitted from the moment of his death, and do not
vest in his heirs until such time. 11 Property which
Doa Catalina had transferred or conveyed to other
persons during her lifetime no longer formed part of
her estate at the time of her death to which her heirs
may lay claim. Had she died intestate, only the
property that remained in her estate at the time of her
death devolved to her legal heirs; and even if those
transfers were, one and all, treated as donations, the
right arising under certain circumstances to impugn
and compel the reduction or revocation of a
decedent's gifts inter vivos does not inure to the
respondents since neither they nor the donees are
compulsory (or forced) heirs.
There is thus no basis for assuming an intention on
the part of Doa Catalina, in transferring the
properties she had received from her late husband to
his nephews and nieces, an intent to circumvent the
law in violation of the private respondents' rights to
her succession. Said respondents are not her
compulsory heirs, and it is not pretended that she had
any such, hence there were no legitimes that could
conceivably be impaired by any transfer of her
property during her lifetime. All that the respondents
had was an expectancy that in nowise restricted her
freedom to dispose of even her entire estate subject
only to the limitation set forth in Art. 750, Civil Code
which, even if it were breached, the respondents may
not invoke.
Emnace vs CA 37 SCRA 431
FISHING PARTNERSHIP
Emilio Emnace v. Court of Appeals and the Estate of
Vicente Tabanao (plus heirs)
G.R. No. 126334; November 23, 2001
Facts:
Pets Emnace, Tabanao and Divigranacia were
partners in a business known as Ma. Nelma Fishing
Industry. Sometime in January 1986, they decided to
dissolve their partnership and exec an agreement of
partition and distribution. Throughout the existence
of the partnership, and even after Tabanao's death,
pet failed to submit to Taba's heirs any financial
statements. Pet also reneged on his promise to turn
over the 1/3 share in the total assets of the
partnership to the heirs. PRs(heris) filed an action for
accounting, payment of shares, division of assets and
damages.
Pet filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds of improp venue, lack of juris and lack of
capacity of the estate of Tabano to sue. The trial court
denied the motion to dismiss. The trial court held that
the heirs of Tabano had a right to sue in their own
names, in view of the provision of Art. 777 of the CC.
Issue:
Legal capacity of the surviving spouse of Tabano to
sue.
Ruling:
Yezz naman. petitioner asserts that the surviving
spouse of Vicente Tabanao has no legal capacity to
sue since she was never appointed as administratrix
or executrix of his estate. Petitioners objection in this
regard is misplaced. The surviving spouse does not
need to be appointed as executrix or administratrix of
the estate before she can file the action. She and her
children are complainants in their own right as
successors of Vicente Tabanao. From the very
moment of Vicente Tabanaos death, his rights insofar
as the partnership was concerned were transmitted to
his heirs, for rights to the succession are transmitted
from the moment of death of the decedent.
Whatever claims and rights Vicente Tabanao had
against the partnership and petitioner were
transmitted to respondents by operation of law, more
particularly by succession, which is a mode of
acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights
and obligations to the extent of the value of the
inheritance of a person are transmitted. Moreover,
respondents became owners of their respective
hereditary shares from the moment Vicente Tabanao
died.
A prior settlement of the estate, or even the
appointment of Salvacion Tabanao as executrix or
administratrix, is not necessary for any of the heirs to
acquire legal capacity to sue. As successors who
stepped into the shoes of their decedent upon his
death, they can commence any action originally
pertaining to the decedent. From the moment of his
death, his rights as a partner and to demand
fulfillment of petitioners obligations as outlined in
their dissolution agreement were transmitted to
respondents. They, therefore, had the capacity to sue
and seek the courts intervention to compel petitioner
to fulfill his obligations.
Rabadilla vs CA 334 SCRA 522
CODICIL
Johny Rabadilla v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No, 113725; June 29, 2000
Facts:
Testator Aleja Belleza appended a codicil to his last
will and testament wherein he instituted Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla as a devisee of 511, 855 sq meters of a parcel
of land in Bacolod. Devisee herein is the predecessor-
in-interest of the petitioner. The codicil was duly
probated and admitted before the CFI of Negros
Occidental.
The codicil stated that should the devisee die ahead of
the testator, the property and rights shall be inherited
by his children and spouse. The codicil also required
Rabadilla to deliver 75 piculs of export sugar and 25
piculs of domestic sugar to Maria Marlina Cosculuella
y Belleza, and should he die, his heir shall have the
same obligation. Lastly, in the event that the devisee
or his heir shall later sell, lease, mortgage the said lot,
the buyer, lessee, mortgagee shall also have the
obligation to deliver the piculs.
Dr. Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his
wife and children (pet).
In 1989, Maria Marlena brought a complaint against
the heirs to enforce the provisions of the codicil and to
revert the ownership to the heirs of the testator. The
RTC dismissed the complaint. The appellate court
reversed the decision of the trial court..
Ruling:
Yes. Petitioner maintains that Article 882 does not
find application as there was no modal institution and
the testatrix intended a mere simple substitution.
Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code, inheritance
includes all the property, rights and obligations of a
person, not extinguished by his death. Conformably,
whatever rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue of
subject Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs, at
the time of his death. And since obligations not
extinguished by death also form part of the estate of
the decedent; corollarily, the obligations imposed by
the Codicil on the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were
likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his
death.
In the said Codicil, testatrix Aleja Belleza devised Lot
No. 1392 to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, subject to the
condition that the usufruct thereof would be
delivered to the herein private respondent every year.
Upon the death of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, his
compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and title
over the said property, and they also assumed his
(decedent's) obligation to deliver the fruits of the lot
involved to herein private respondent. Such
obligation of the instituted heir reciprocally
corresponds to the right of private respondent over
the usufruct, the fulfillment or performance of which
is now being demanded by the latter through the
institution of the case at bar. Therefore, private
respondent has a cause of action against petitioner
and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint
below.
Modal Institutions::*Petitioner also theorizes that
Article 882 of the New Civil Code on modal
institutions is not applicable because what the
testatrix intended was a substitution - the contention
is without merit. In simple substitutions, the second
heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir by
reason of incapacity, predecease or renunciation. [14]
In the case under consideration, the provisions of
subject Codicil do not provide that should Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla default due to predecease, incapacity or
renunciation, the testatrix's near descendants would
substitute him. What the Codicil provides is that,
should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the
conditions imposed in the Codicil, the property
referred to shall be seized and turned over to the
testatrix's near descendants.
Tanedo vs CA 252 SCRA 80
Belinda Taredo v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 104482; January 22, 1996
Facts:
On October 20, 1962, Lazardo Tanedo executed a
notarized deed of absolute sale of one hectare of
whatever share I shall have over Lot No. 191" in favor
of his eldest brother and his wife (Ricardo and
Teresita PRs). Upon hte death of his father, Lazaro
executed an "Affidavit of Conformity" to reaffirm,
respect and acknowledge the sale in favor or PRs.
Lazaro executed another notarized deed of sale on
favor of PRs covering 1/12 of a Lot 191. Ricardo
learned taht Lazaro sold the same lot to his children.
PRs recorded the deed in the RD. Pets filed a
complaint for rescission executed by Lazardo in favor
of the PRs. The trial court decided in favor of PRs. The
CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Issue:
WON the sale of future inheritance is valid.
Ruling:
Yez syempre duh! Read Art. 1347..
A second deed of sale was executed in favor of
private respondents covering Lazaro's undivided
inheritance dated 1982, so nevermind the previous
deed ya know. The deed of sale in favor of
respondents was executed in 1980. However,
according to Art. 1544 of the CC: Art. 1544. If the
same thing should have been sold to different
vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the
person who may have first taken possession thereof in
good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall
belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith
first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
The property in question is land, an immovable, and
following the above-quoted law, ownership shall
belong to the buyer who in good faith registers it first
in the registry of property. Thus, although the deed of
sale in favor of private respondents was later than the
one in favor of petitioners, ownership would vest in the
former because of the undisputed fact of registration. On
the other hand, petitioners have not registered the
sale to them at all.
Santos vs Lambao
Octaviano, Clarence 1932 BILIHAN NG LUPA
Sps Virgilio Santos and Esperanza Lati Santos v.
Sps. Jose Lumbao and Proserfina Lumbao; G.R. No.
169129; March 28, 2007
Facts:
Herein pets are the legitimate and surviving heirs of
the late Rita Catoc Santos, who died on October 20,
195. The other pets are the daughters-in-law of Rita.
The respondents are the alleged owners of a lot,
which they purportedly bought from on two
occasions. On the first occasion, Rita sold 100 square
meters of her inchoate share in her mothers estate
through a document denominated as "Bilihan ng
Lupa, Before her death, Rita allegedly informed the
respondents that she could not deliver the title to the
subject prop because the entire property inherited by
her had not yet been partitioned. The PRs claimed
that pets adjudicated and partitioned the subject
property already sold to them. They filed a formal
demand letter but pets still failed and refused to
reconvey the subject property. The trial court denied
the complaint. The CA reversed the decision. MR
denied.
Issue:
WON herein pets are legally bound to comply with
the "Bilihan ng Lupa" and consequently, reconvey the
subject property to herein respondents.
Ruling:
The general rule that heirs are bound by contracts
entered into by their predecessors-in-interest applies
in the present case. Article 131132 of the NCC is the
basis of this rule. It is clear from the said provision
that whatever rights and obligations the decedent
have over the property were transmitted to the heirs
by way of succession, a mode of acquiring the
property, rights and obligations of the decedent to the
extent of the value of the inheritance of the heirs.
Thus, the heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of
a transaction entered into by their predecessor-in-
interest because they have inherited the property
subject to the liability affecting their common
ancestor. Being heirs, there is privity of interest
between them and their deceased mother. They only
succeed to what rights their mother had and what is
valid and binding against her is also valid and
binding as against them. The death of a party does
not excuse nonperformance of a contract which
involves a property right and the rights and
obligations thereunder pass to the personal
representatives of the deceased. Similarly,
nonperformance is not excused by the death of the
party when the other party has a property interest in
the subject matter of the contract. In the end, despite
the death of the petitioners mother, they are still
bound to comply with the provisions of the "Bilihan
ng Lupa,".
NHA vs Almeida 252 SCRA 383
SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY
NHA v. Segunda Almeida, CA
G.R. No. 162784; June 22, 2007
Facts:
The Land Tenure Administration awarded to
Margarita Herrera several portions of land in San
Pedro, Laguna. She had two children, Francisca and
Beatriz(she died before her mom; mother of PR).
When Margarita passed away, Francisca executed a
deed of self-adjudication claiming that she was the
only remaining relative of Margarita. The deed of was
based on a 'Sinumpaang Salaysay' allegedly executed
by Margarita. The surviving heirs of Beatriz filed a
case for annulment of the deed. A decision was
rendered and the deed was declared null and void.
During the trial, Francisca filed an application with
the NHA to purchase the same lots. The NHA
granted the application.
The PR appealed to the Office of the President. The
NHA reso was affirmed.
When Francisca died, her heirs executed an
extrajudicial settlement of her estate which they
submitted to the NHA. The transfer of rights was
approved by the NHA. The heirs of Francisca directed
PR to leave the premises that she was occupying.
Feeling aggrieved, PR sought the cancellation of the
titles issued in favor of the heirs of Francisca. She filed
a complaint in the RTC of San Pedro, Laguna. She
invoked her 40 year occupation of the property and
re-raised the fact that Francisca's declaration is a
nullity because the other heirs were disregarded. The
RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The
CA reversed the decision and remanded the case for
further hearing.
The RTC rendered a decision setting aside the
resolution of the NHA and the decision of the Office
of the President. The Regional Trial Court ruled that
the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" was not an assignment of
rights but a disposition of property which shall take
effect upon death. It then held that the said document
must first be submitted to probate before it can
transfer property.
The NHA and the heirs of Francisca filed their
respective motions which were both denied. The CA
affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Issue:
WON the decision of NHA is arbitrary.
Ruling:
Yes. The NHA gave due course to the application
made by Francisca Herrera without considering that
the initial applicant's death would transfer all her
property, rights and obligations to the estate
including whatever interest she has or may have had
over the disputed properties. To the extent of the
interest that the original owner had over the property,
the same should go to her estate. Margarita Herrera
had an interest in the property and that interest
should go to her estate upon her demise so as to be
able to properly distribute them later to her heirsin
accordance with a will or by operation of law.
When the original buyer died, the NHA should have
considered the estate of the decedent as the next
"person" likely to stand in to fulfill the obligation to
pay the rest of the purchase price. The opposition of
other heirs to the repurchase by Francisca Herrera
should have put the NHA on guard as to the award of
the lots. Further, the Decision in the said Civil Case
No. B-1263 (questioning the Deed of Self-
Adjudication) which rendered the deed therein null
and void should have alerted the NHA that there are
other heirs to the interests and properties of the
decedent who may claim the property after a testate
or intestate proceeding is concluded. The NHA
therefore acted arbitrarily in the award of the lots.
People vs Umali193 SCRA493
Articles 783-795Wills
Article 783 A will is an act whereby a person is
permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to
control to a certain degree the disposition of this
estate, to take effect after his death.
What are the different modes of testamentary
succession?
1. will or codicil
2. will or codicil maybe:
a. notarial (ordinary attested)
b. holographic (handwritten by thetestator
from the beginning to end,complete with
date and signature)
* In case of doubt, testamentary succession is preferred to
legal or intestate succession.
What is a will?
A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with
the formalities prescribed by law, to control a certain
degree the disposition of his estate, to take care after
his death (Article 783)
Is the right to make a will a natural right?
The act of making a will is not a natural right
because not all persons can make a will. It is not a
statutory right. Simply means, that not all persons are
qualified to make a will.
If the will does not dispose of property, such as when
a person is merely named as executor, or when a
natural child is recognized, can it still be considered
as a will?
If we follow the strict legal definition of the
will, it would seem that it does not contain a
disposition of property, it cannot be considered a will.
But in some jurisdiction and jurisprudence, it may
still be called a will.
Paras: It may still be called a will, although such will
need not be probated for under our law it would seem
that the probate is needed only if the property is to be
conveyed by a testamentary succession (see Article
838). Furthermore, it has been held that for purposes
of recognizing a natural child by virtue of a will, the
will need not be probated, thought it must of course
still be a valid will.
In Xs will, A was given a house, effective
immediately. Is the disposition by virtue of a will?
No. Since it is supposed to take effect
immediately. There was therefore no animus testandi
insofar as this provision is concerned.
Is he entitled to get the house now or immediately?
No. Unless, he signifies his acceptance in the
form prescribed by law for donations and unless the
instrument be notarized as a public instrument
(Article 749).
How will the house be disposed of?
In accordance with the rules on legal
succession, in case the donation is not effective
(Article 960).
What are the characteristics of a will? (PIFF-DARM)
1. Strictly personal act
2. An individual and unilateral act
3. Free and voluntary act
4. A formal and solemn act
5. A disposition of property
6. Ambulatory
7. Revocable during the lifetime of the testator
8. An act of mortis causa
Why a personal act? Because its execution cannot be
left to the discretion of third person.
Why unilateral? Because it does not need the
approval of any other person.
Why a formal and solemn act? Because it must
comply with the formalities prescribed by law.
Why an act mortis causa? Because it takes effect only
after the death of the testator.
Why ambulatory? Because the testator can revoke it
at any time before his death.
Article 784 The making of a will is a strictly
personal act; it cannot be left in whole or in part of
the discretion of a third person, or accomplished
through the instrumentality of an agent or attorney.
X made his last will and testament and authorize
you to execute it. Is it valid?
No. The making of a will is strictly a personal act. It
cannot be left in whole or in part to the discretion of a
third person or accomplished through the
instrumentality of an agent or attorney.

Can a testator designate to a third person the typing
of his last will and testament?
Yes. The mechanical act of drafting may be
entrusted to another, as long as the disposition itself
expresses the testators desire and all the formalities
of the law are complied with.
What is the meaning of the expression a strict
personal act?
It means that, it cannot be left in whole or in part to
the discretion of a 3rd person or accomplished
through the instrumentality of an agent or attorney.
However, the mere act of drafting/writing a will does
not fall within the purview of the prohibition. Thus, it
has been held that he who does the mechanical work
of writing the will, is a matter of indifference.
The fact therefore that the will was typewritten in the
office of a lawyer is of no consequence (Castaneda vs
Alemmany, 3 Phil 426; Bagtas vs Paguio 22 Phil 227).
Is it advisable to employ an attorney in making a
will. What are its advantages?
In making a will it is advisable to employ an attorney,
for if we employ an attorney in so many cases
involving little money, it should be wiser to employ
one whenever the whole estate is involved (57
Am.Jur., Sec 21).
Moreover, if an attorney drafts a will and is present at
the time of its execution, there is a strong
presumption that the will was regularly made.
Is a lawyer prohibited from assisting a person
making a will?
If the lawyer does only a mechanical act of writing the
will, then, he is not prohibited. Otherwise, the will
would be invalid.
Article 785 The duration or efficacy of the
designation of heirs, devisees or legatees, or the
determination of the portions which they are to
take, when referred to by name, cannot be left to the
discretion of a third person.
Article 786
The testator may entrust to a third person the
distribution of specific property or sums of money
that he may leave in general to specified classes or
causes, and also the designation of the persons,
institutions or establishments to which such
property or sums are to be given or applied.
What are the acts in making a will that cannot be
designated to a third person?
1. The duration or efficacy of the designation
of heirs, devisees and legatees
2. Determination of the portions of which
they are to take, provided that they are referred to by
Name.
Why is that the acts provided for under Article 785
cannot be designated by testator to 3rd persons?
1. Those acts are testamentary in character,
and therefore, they cannot be designated,
in whole or in part, to 3rd persons
(making of a will is a strictly personal act)
2. To prevent 3rd persons from substituting
his own intentions to that of the testator
X executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
authorizing his lawyer to make a will. Is the SPA
valid?
No. Because the making of the will is purely a
personal act.
X ordered his lawyer to execute the distribution of
the properties in his will in favor of the heirs. Is the
act/will valid?
No. Because the determination of the portions to be
given lies in the 3rd person. The properties to be
distributed and the receivers must already be
specified. The lawyer must only execute the
distribution, without the possibility of substituting his
own intentions over that of the testator.
X stated in his will I give P1M to be distributed to
charitable institutions devoted to unwed mothers,
and, I hereby designate Y to take care of the
distribution of the said amount. Is the act valid?
Yes. The testator may entrust to a 3rd
person; the may distribution of specific property or
sums of money that he may leave in general to
specified classes or caused and also the designation of
the persons, institutions or establishments to which
such property or sums of money are to be given or
applied.
X, testator said to his lawyer, you may take
whatever amount from my estate to be distributed to
the street children of Manila. Is this valid?
No. because although there is a specified
class (the street children of Manila), the amount to be
given is not specified. The amount is termed as
whatever amount
.
In the preceding question, what if X said to his
lawyer, I give P10M to be given to the street
children of Manila and I hereby designate you to take
care of the distribution of the said amount. Is this
valid?
Yes. Article 786 applies:
Street children (specified class);
P10M (specific sum of money).

What if X said, I hereby make the children of
Hospicio de San Jose as my legal heirs and declare
my lawyer to determine the amount which they are to
receive. Is the will valid?
No. Article 785 applies. Because the heirs
were referred to by name: the children of the Hospicio
de San Jose. Furthermore, the amount was not
specified by the testator. It is the lawyer who
determines the amount.
In the preceding question, what if the testator said, I
hereby make the 2002 graduating class of SBC as my
legal heirs in the amount of P10M and declare my
lawyer to determine the amount which they are to
receive. I this valid?
Yes. The beneficiary was a specified class the
graduating class of 2002.
Under Article 786, the property or the amount of money to
given must be specified by the testator, in addition to the
requirement that it must be for a specified class or cause.
X ordered Y to distribute P50T from his estate, for
whatever good cause he may think. Is the act valid?
No. Because the recipient of the act is not a specified
group or class. Article 786 does not apply.
X bequeaths the amount of P5M for Metro Manila.
He authorized his executor, Y, to distribution the
amount. Is the act valid?
Yes. The testator may entrust to a 3rd person the
distribution of specific property or sums of money,
that he may leave in general to specified classes or
causes, and, also the designation of the persons,
institutions or establishments to which such property
or sums of money are to be given or applied (Article
786).
In this case, X has already completed the testamentary
act of making a will. What he delegated to Y was
merely the details thereof, on order to make the
devise or the legacy more effective.
*The determination of the amount which the heirs, devisees
and legacies are to take is a testamentary act which cannot
be delegated to a 3rd person, which such heirs, devisees or
legatees are referred to by name. This prohibition is
intended to discourage the illegal delegation of
testamentary powers (Article 785).
Take note however, that the prohibition provided for under
Article 785 is different from the rule enunciated under
Article 786. Under Article 786, it involves beneficiaries,
who are not referred to by name, but are referred to by
specific classes or causes.
X stated in his will, I give the amount of P50M, for
the benefit of SBC, CEU, LCC and PHS schools and I
leave the distribution of the amount thereof to my
lawyer. Is the provision valid.
No. Although they belong to a specified class, the
heirs were referred to by name. So Article 785 applies
and not Article 786. The heirs were specifically named
and were not merely a particular class.
Suppose the testator stated in his will that I will
give the amount of P50M to all the college schools in
Manila and I leave the distribution of the amount
thereof to my lawyer. Is the provision valid?
Yes. Because the schools are of a particular class. The
third person can distribute the amount by himself.
*While Article 785, enumerates in absolute terms, the
different things which the testator cannot do, Article 786
enumerates by way of exception the different things which
the testator may do.
Thus, the testator is allowed to entrust to a 3rd person:
1. the power to distribute specific property or sums
of money, which he may have left in general to
specific classes or causes
2. the power to designated the persons, institutions,
to which such property or sums of money are to
be given or applied
What is contemplated under Article 786 is that, the
testator has already completed the testamentary act of
making a will. What is entrusted to a 3rd person are
merely the details thereof, in order to make the devise or
legacy more effective.
Example: A testator may bequeath P1M to a specified
class, such as, the different charitable institutions of
Manila, or to a specified cause, such as, the cause of
labor, entrusting the same time, to the executor of his
estate, the power to designate the different
institutions or organizations to whom the said
amount shall be given.
Article 787 The testator may not make a
testamentary disposition in such manner that
another person has to determine whether or not it is
to be operative.
*The act determining whether a testamentary disposition is
to be operative or not, is not exactly testamentary in
character. But the delegation of such act to a 3rd person
would be tantamount to allowing the testator to substitute
the will of a 3rd person, for his own, which precisely, what
the law intends to prevent, when it states that the making
of a will cannot be left, in whole or in part, to the discretion
of a 3rd person.
Suppose it is stated in Mr Xs will I will give my
house and lot to F, if my wife will agree. Is the
provision valid?

No. Because it is subject to the 3rd persons
determination. Under Article 787, the testator may not
make a testamentary disposition in such a manner
that another person has to determine whether or not it
is to be operative.
In the preceding, is the entire will invalid?
No. The only provisions whose effectivity depend
upon the determination of the 3rd peson (Xs wife)
will be invalidated.
What are the aspects of a will governed by the law of
the decedent?(A OIC)
1. Order of succession
2. Amount of succession
3. Intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions
4. Capacity to succeed (Article 1039)
*Article 1039 Civil Code: Capacity to succeed is governed
by the law of the nation of the decent.
What is the Rule on the interpretation and
construction with respect to testate succession?
The rule is to ascertain and give effect to the
intention and desires of the testator, provided, they
are not contrary to law.
Article 788 If a testamentary disposition admits of
different interpretations, in case of doubt, that
interpretation by which the disposition is to be
operative shall be preferred.
What if the provision of the will admits of different
interpretations, which shall be preferred?
If a testamentary disposition admits of different
interpretations, in case of doubt, that interpretation by
which the disposition is to be operative shall be
preferred.
The reason is that, testate succession, provided the
will is valid, is preferred to intestacy. If no doubt exist
and the disposition is clearly illegal, the same should
not be given effect.
Article 789 When there is an imperfect description,
or when no person or property exactly answers the
description, mistakes and omissions must be
corrected, if the error appears from the context of the
will or from extrinsic evidence, excluding the oral
declarations of the testator as to his intention; and
when an uncertainty arises upoN the face of the
will, as to the application of any of its provisions,
the testator's intention is to be ascertained from the
words of the will, taking into consideration the
circumstances under which it was made, excluding
such oral declarations.
What are the kinds of ambiguities/validities in the
formalities of the will?
1. Latent or intrinsic ambiguities
2. Patent or extrinsic ambiguities
What is latent or intrinsic ambiguities?
That which does not appear on the face of the will and
is discovered only the extrinsic evidence.
Example: I institute my brother-in-law.
When it is discovered, that there are 2
brothers-in-law. This ambiguity is not found in the
will itself. The doubt arises only because of the things
outside the will.
In a will, this kind of ambiguity arises:
1. When there is an imperfect description of the
heir, legatee or devisee
2. When there is an imperfect description of the
gift being given
3. When only one recipient is designated, but it
turns out that there are two or more, who fit
the description
What is patent or extrinsic ambiguity?
That which appears on the face of the will itself, in
other words, by examining the provision itself, it is
evident that it is not clear.
Example: I hereby institute some of my 7 brothers.
It is evident here, that we do not know how many of
the brothers are being instituted.
In this case, extrinsic evidence, as well as the will
itself may be examined (but not the oral declarations
of the testator) to ascertain the testators intent, but if
after everything has been done, the doubt still
remains, not one of the seven brothers will inherit as
instituted heirs, because then, the heirs will be
considered as unknown persons under Article 844,
2nd paragraph.
What is the remedy if there is a latent/intrinsic
ambiguity in the provisions of the will?
Ascertain the testatorial intention by using either or
both:
1. Intrinsic evidence
2. Extrinsic evidence
The oral declarations of the testator as to his
intentions must be excluded.
Example: X, owns a two (2) parcels of land in a certain
province, has devised one of them to his cousin, Marc.
During the testate proceedings, a question arouse as
to the identity of the land devised because of the
imperfect description of the property in the will.

How can the identity of the property devised be
determined?
Under Article 789, Marc may avail himself of either
intrinsic or extrinsic evidence or of both, in order to
ascertain the testatorial intention.
Can Marc testify or present witnesses, who will
testify to the effect that during his lifetime, the
testator, X, verbally declared or revealed the identity
of the property he intended to devise?
No. Such testimony would be hearsay, and
therefore, inadmissible as evidence.
Suppose that the will states I give to my first cousin
Anne Ekaterina Navarro my house and lot in Quezon
City. But three (3) first cousins are named Anne
Ekaterina Navarro. What kind of defect is this? What
is the remedy?
Latent. Same as patent.
What is the remedy if there is a patent/extrinsic
ambiguity in the provision of the will?
The same as lantent/intrinsic ambiguity. Ascertain
the testatorial intention by using either or both:
1. intrinsic evidence
2. extrinsic evidence
The oral declarations of the testator as to his
intentions must be excluded.
Why is oral declaration of the testator in determining
the ambiguities in the will not allowed?
1. It is merely a hearsay, and therefore,
inadmissible as evidence
2. The testator is already dead by the time the
ambiguities of the will are questioned, and
therefore, he can no longer refute the
testimonies of lying witnesses
Testator will give his house and lot to two (2) of his
five (5) brothers. What king of ambiguity is this? Is
the disposition valid?
Patent/Extrinsic. It is evident from the face of the will
itself. It depends. Yes, if the identity of the two (2)
brothers referred to in the will can be ascertained by
extrinsic or intrinsic evidence. No, if the identity
cannot be determined. In this case, the law on
intestate succession shall apply.
Principal Rule in Interpretation of Wills
1. D etermine the testatorial intention
2. C onsider the provisions altogether
3. Avoid provisions which shall render the will
ineffective
4. Testacy is always preferred
Article 790 The words of a will are to be taken in
their ordinary and grammatical sense, unless a clear
intention to use them in another sense can be
gathered, and that other can be ascertained.
Technical words in a will are to be taken in their
technical sense, unless the context clearly indicates a
contrary intention, or unless it satisfactorily appears
that he was unacquainted with such technical sense.
Article 791 The words of a will are to receive an
interpretation which will give to every expression
some effect, rather than one which will render any
of the expressions inoperative; and of two modes of
interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will
prevent intestacy.
What is the effect if the will of the testator is not
followed? Or if the will is void?
Intestate succession occurs.
*Intestacy is not preferred because it is merely presumed.
Testate succession is the general rule because it the express
will of the testator. Exception: if the will not valid or when
the will is void.
Article 792 The invalidity of one of several
dispositions contained in a will does not result in
the invalidity of the other dispositions, unless it is
to be presumed that the testator would not have
made such other dispositions if the first invalid
disposition had not been made.
Will the invalidity of one of several dispositions
contained in a will result in the invalidity of the
other dispositions?
No. It will not result in the invalidity of the other
dispositions, which are otherwise valid, unless, it is to
be presumed that the testator would not have made
such dispositions, if the first invalid disposition had
not been made.
*Even if one disposition or provision is invalid, it does not
necessarily follow that all the others are also invalid. The
exception occurs when the various dispositions are
indivisible in intent or nature.
Article 793 Property acquired after the making of a
will shall only pass thereby, as if the testator had
possessed it at the time of making the will, should it
expressly appear by the will that such was his
intention.
After Acquired Properties
Under Article 793, property acquired during the
interval between the execution of the will and the
death of the testator, are not as a rule, included
among the properties disposed of, unless, it should
expressly appear in the will itself, that such is the
intention of the testator.
Example: If the testator made a will in 1980, disposing
his properties in the form of gifts or bequests of
specific or determinate real and personal properties,
and subsequently, during the period from 1980 to the
time of his death in 1990, he is able to acquire other
properties.
According to Article 793, the will shall only pass to
those properties, which he had at the time of its
execution in 1980, but not those, which he had
acquired subsequent thereto.
It is clear however, that Article 793 applies only to
devises and legacies and not to the institution of heirs.
This can be inferred from the provisions of Article 776
and 781 regarding the extent of inheritance.
X executed a will in 1980 instituting his three (3)
children, A, B and C, as his universal heirs. A shall be
entitled to , B to and C the remainder. X died in
1990, leaving considerable properties, most of which
were acquired during the period between 1980 and
1990. How will the estate be distributed? Or what
part of the estate will be distributed?
The division of the estate as dictated in the will shall
be applied not only to those properties existing at the
time of the execution of the will on 1980, but even to
those that were acquired subsequent thereto, because
A, B and C are instituted heirs.
Why does the provision of after acquired properties
apply only to legatees and devisees?
It does not apply to heirs, because the heirs inherit
everything at the time of the testators death. The
extent of the inheritance includes those properties
acquired even after the execution of the will. The time
of death is the determining point of the properties,
which the heirs will inherit, not the making of the
will.
The provision applies only to the legatees and
devisees because the intention of the will is a
complete act.
*Do not confuse Article 793 with Article 781. Taje note of
the difference between after acquired property (those
acquired between the making of the will and the testators
death) and the property accruing since the opening of the
succession (or the property added after the death of the
decendent, referred to under Article 781).
Article 794
Every devise or legacy shall cover all the interest
which
the testator could device or bequeath in the property
disposed of, unless it clearly appears from the will
that he
intended to convey a less interest.
What is the general rule as to the interest may be
disposed of?
The entire interest of the testator in the property is
given
not more or less.
Example: The owner of the house who devises the
same,
transfers ownership over the entire house. If he
(owner)
were a mere co-owner or a usufructuary, he conveys
his
share in the co-ownership, or his usufructuary rights,
no
more, no less.
What are the exceptions to the aforestated rule?
See Paras discussion under Article 792.
Article 795
The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the
observance of the law in force at the time it is made.
What law governs the intrinsic validity of a will?
The law at the time of the death of the decedent.
Kinds of validity with respect to wills:
1. extrinsic validity
refers to the forms and solemnities needed
maybe seen from the viewpoint of time and
place
2. intrinsic validity
refers to the legality of the provisions in an
instrument, contract or will
may be seen from the viewpoint of time
and place
The formal validity of the will is to be judged not by
the
law in force at the time of (a) the testators death, or
(b)
the supposed will is presented in the court for
probate, or
(c) when the petition is decided by court, but at the
time
the instrument was made.
Reason: The testators wishes regarding the
disposition of
his estate among his heirs, devisees and legatees are
given
solemn expression at the time the will is executed,
and
thus becomes a complete act (Enriquez vs Abadia, 50
OG
4185; In re: Will of Riosa, 39 Phil 23). Furthermore, a
testator cannot be expected to know the future, hence,
it
is enough that he follows the law in force at the time
he
makes the will.
What is the effect of a new law changing the
formalities
of a will?
1. after the death of the testator, the rules have no
effect because the heirs already have a vested
right
2. before the death of the testator, the rules have
no effect
Exception: if a new law expressly provides for a
retroactive application
Exception to the exception: when the heirs
already have a vested right
In the preceding problem, does the exception (with
respect to retroactive application of the Law) violate
the constitutional prohibition regarding the
deprivation of property without due process of law?
No. It does not violate the constitutional prohibition
regarding the deprivation of property, because:
1. the statute is enacted before the death of the
testator, and as a consequence
2. no rights are yet vested in the persons called to
the inheritance either as heirs, devisees or
legatees
Furthermore, the will is still revocable. Thus, if the
testator
has made a will and a new law is passed affecting the
will,
the testator may still changed the will to conform to
the
new law.
What then is the rule under Article 795?
A will perfectly valid at the time of its execution
cannot be
invalidated by a law enacted after the death of the
testator; neither can a will totally void at the time of
its
execution be validated by such subsequent legislation.
Suppose X executed his last will and testament in
September 13, 1999. The law at the time it was
executed,
requires three (3) witnesses. But the time X executed
his
last will and testament, only two (2) were present. A
month thereafter, a new law was passed requiring
only
one (1) witness. Should Xs will be given effect?
No. Because the validity of the will as to its form
depends
upon the observance of the law in force at the time it
is
made. The formal validity of the will is to be judged,
not
only by the law in force at the time of the supposed
will is
presented in court for probate, or when the petition is
decided by court, but also at the time the instrument
was
executed. Although the will operates only after the
death
of the testator, in reality, his wishes regarding the
disposition of his estate among his heirs, devisees and
legacies, are given solemn expression at the time the
will
was executed. It is also during that same time, that
will
becomes a completed act.
Suppose at the time of the execution of the will, the
law
required three (3) witnesses. The will was executed by
X,
complying with such requirement. Thereafter, a
subsequent law reduced the required number of
witnesses, until the time X dies. Is the will valid?
Yes. Although, the will did not comply with the
formalities
prescribed by law, enacted after the execution of the
will,
yet, it can still be admitted to probate because it had
complied with all of the formalities in force at the
time of
its execution.
Is the rule enunciated in Article 795 absolute?
No. The validity of a will as to its form depends upon
the
observance of the law in force at the time it is made.
Except, if a subsequent law allows or required
retroactivity. A latter law may allow for express
retroactivity as implied from the language used
therein.
Suppose X died before effectivity of a new law, but
probate of the will was initiated after the effectivity
of
the law. Will the new law be given retroactive effect?
No. The new law must be given retroactive effect, as
this
will violate the vested rights of the heirs.
Why?
Because the rights are transmitted at the time of the
death
of the decedent.
Lorenzo vs Posadas (64 Phil 353)
FACTS: Thomas Hanley died, leaving a will and some
personal and real properties. The will, which was duly
admitted to probate, provides among other things, that all
the properties of the testator shall pass to his nephew,
Matthew Hanley. However, it also provides that all the real
estate shall be placed under the management of the
executors for a period of ten (10) years. After the
expiration of which, the properties shall be given to
Matthew Hanley.
Plaintiff contends that the inheritance tax should be based
upon the value of the estate at the expiration of the tenyear
period, which according to the testators will, the
property could be and is to be delivered to the instituted
heir, and not upon the value thereof, at the time of the
death of the testator.
HELD: Whatever may be the time when actual
transmission of the inheritance takes place, succession
takes place in any event at the moment of death of the
decedent.
Death is the generating source from the power of the State
to impose inheritance taxes takes it being. Hence, if upon
the death of the decedent, succession takes place and the
right of the State to tax vest instantly, the tax should be
measured by the value of the estate as it stood at the time
of the decedents death, regardless of any subsequent
contingence affecting value or any subsequent increase or
decrease in value.
Article 796 to Article 800
Testamentary Capacity and Intent
Testamentary Capacity refers to the ability, as well
as,
the power to make a will.
Article 796
All persons who are not expressly prohibited by law
may
make a will.
Who may execute a will?
All persons who are not expressly prohibited by law
to
make a will.
Is the right to make a will a natural right?
No. Because not all persons are qualified to make a
will.
The law provides some requirements before a person
can
execute a will.
It is purely a creature of statute, and as such, is subject
matter of legislative control.
Article 797
Persons of either sex under eighteen years of age
cannot
make a will.
What are the minimum requirements for persons in
making a will?
1. must be 18 years old
2. must be of sound mind
3. must not be expressly prohibited by law
When does a person become eighteen (18)?
A person is said to have reached the age of eighteen
(18)
only at the commencement of the day which is
popularly
known as his birthday.
*eighteen (18) years of age
minimum age required
as long as it is made before the decedent
reaches the age of eighteen (18) the will is
void
good faith is immaterial
the law does not fix a maximum age
X made a will when he is only seventeen (17). He died
without changing the will. Is the will valid?
No. X has no testamentary capacity at the time of the
execution of the will. Supervening capacity or
incapacity
does not affect the will because its invalidity is
determined
at the time of the execution of the will.
In the preceding problem, what if X believed in good
faith
that he is already eighteen (18) years of age, is the
will
valid?
No. Good faith is immaterial.
Suppose that X is already ninety-five (95) years old,
can
he still make a will?
Yes.
What if X suffers from tubercolosis, diabetis, SARS,
AID,
etc?
He may still make a valid will.
What if X does not remember that he has a wife and a
children?
No. Because he does not know the proper object of his
bounty.
What is X knows he has a BPI Bank Account, but
does not
know the exact amount or he knows he has a lot in
QC
but he does not know the exact address?
He may still make a valid will for as long as he knows
the
nature and extent of his estate.
Pointers:
1. The law prescribed no limit in point of age by
which a person cannot dispose of his property by
will. Hence, mere senility or infirmity of old age
does not necessary imply that a person lacks
testamentary capacity.
2. A person is considered to have reached the age
of eighteen (18) on the 1st hour of his birthday.
3. Neither physical infirmity or disease is
inconsistent with testamentary capacity. The
usual test must still be applied.
4. Senile dementia produces a testamentary
incapacity. It is defined as the peculiar decay of
the mental faculties, whereby the person
afflicted is reduced to a second childhood.
5. The fact that the testator is under the immediate
influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs at the
time he performs the testamentary act, does not
invalidate his will, on the ground of lack of
testamentary capacity, provided he meets the
three (3) requirements.
6. An insane delusion, which will render one
incapable of making a will, may be defined as a
belief in things, which do not exist, and which,
no rational mind would believe to exist.
7. A belief in spiritualism is not itself a sufficient
evidence of testamentary incapacity. However, a
will executed by one under such extraordinary
belief in spiritualism, that he follows blindly and
implicitly, the supposed direction of the spirits in
constructing the will, is not admissible to
probate.
Example: Belief in angels/dwarfs
a. if no angel delusion
b. if there is angel undue pressure and influence
or even threat
Article 798
In order to make a will it is essential that the
testator be
of sound mind at the time of its execution.
Article 799
To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the
testator
be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or
that
his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or
unshattered
by disease, injury or other cause.
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the
time of
making the will to know the nature of the estate to be
disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the
character of the testamentary act.
When is a person of a sound mind? What is the
definition
of a sound mind as applied in the making of the will?
To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the
testator
to be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties or
that
his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired or
unshattered
by disease, injury or other cause.
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time
of
making the will to know the nature of the estate to be
disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the
character of the testamentary act.
*Soundness of mind is the ability of the testator mentally
to understand in a general way, the nature and extent of
his property, his relation to those who naturally have a
claim, to benefit from his property left by him (proper
bounty), and a general understanding of the practical
effect of the will as executed (must be aware that his act is
revocable and must be aware of the effects of his act of
making a will).
Suppose X suffered a stroke and part of his brain was
damaged. Can he still be considered to be of sound
mind
for purposes of executing a will?
It depends.
If the brain damage sustained by X is so severe, that it
deprives him, at the time of making the will, to know
the
nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper
object
of his bounty, and the character of his testamentary
act,
then, X cannot be considered to be of sound mind.
But is the brain damage sustained by X is not so
severe,
that at the time of making the will he is able to know
the
nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper
object
of his bounty and the character of his testamentary
act,
then X can still be considered to be of sound mind.
What are the requisites in order that a testator be
considered to be of sound mind?
The testator must be able, at time of the making of the
will, to know:
1. the nature of the estate to be disposed of
2. the proper objects of his bounty
3. the character of his testamentary act
What does nature of estate mean?
It refers to the character and the testators ownership
of
what he is giving. Knows the properties but not
necessarily
all the details of the properties.
X decided to make a will. He knows he has properties
in
Manila, but he does not know the exact address. Is
the
disposition valid?
Yes. Because the law merely requires that the testator
knows, in a general way the nature and the extent of
his
properties. In this case, X is of sound mind when he
executed the will.
X made a will in 1990. He knew he has money in the
bank
and house in Manila but he forgot the specific detail
concerning his properties. Is the will valid?
Yes. Because X knows the extent of his properties in a
general way. He is of sound mind.
What does the proper objects of his bounty mean?
It refers to the testators relation to those who would
naturally have a claim or to those who would benefit
from
the property left by the testator. In short, it refers to
the
persons who for some reason expect to inherit
something
from the testator.
page | 17 .
copied and modified from ALLIANCE FOR
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
by kotch.agcaoili.agudo
Example: testators children
Is it necessary that the testator should know the
beneficiaries of the will?
As a general rule, yes. Because the law requires the
testator to be aware of the proper objects of his
bounty,
except in Article 786 which provides that the testator
may
designate only a specific class or cause in his will, and
that
the third person shall be responsible in allocating the
specific portion to its members.
What does testator is able to know the character of
the
testamentary act mean?
It means that the testator knows that it is really a will,
that
it is a disposition mortis causa, that it is essentially
revocable. In short, the testator must have a general
understanding of the practical effect of the will as
executed.
Can a drug addict make a valid will?
As a general rule, yes. A drug addict can make a will
as
long as he is in his lucid mind and he complies with
the
requisites provided for under Article 799, 2nd
paragraph.
The exception lies when the effect of drugs are so
strong
as to render him of unsound mind.
Article 800
The law presumes that every person is of sound mind,
in
the absence of proof to the contrary.
The burden of proof that the testator was not of
sound
mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the
person who opposes the probate of the will; but if the
testator, one month, or less, before making his will
was
publicly known to be insane, the person who
maintains
the validity of the will must prove that the testator
made
it during a lucid interval.
Under Article 800, the law presumes that every
person is
of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the
contrary.
What are the instances when this presumption is
inverted? Or what are the instances when the
testator is
presumed to be mentally unsound?
There are at least three (3) instances:
1. when the testator, one (1) month or less, before
making his will was publicly known to be insane
*Instead of presumption of mental capacity,
there is a presumption of mental incapacity. The
burden of proof is shifted to the proponents of
the will.
2. if the testator made the will after he had been
judicially declared to be insane, and before such
judicial order has been set aside (Torres vs Lopez,
48 Phil 772)
3. if the testator makes a will at the time he is still
under guardianship
What is the reason for the inversion of the rule when
a impairment of the faculties as to render the testator
person who made the will is under guardianship?
A prima facie presumption of mental incapacity,
when a
person is under guardianship.
If during the probate of the will, there is a question as
to
the soundness of mind of the testator. Oppositors to
the
will presented the attending physician. Whose
testimony
shall be given weight, the attending physician or the
doctor who renders the medical speculation?
Attending physician.
What is the effect of infirmity or disease on the
testators
testamentary capacity?
Physical infirmity or disease of the testator will not
affect
his testamentary capacity as long as the
tests/requisites
are complied with.
X executed a will. In order for her to sign the will, it
is
necessary for Y, a minor, to guide her hands. Does X
still
has testamentary capacity?
Yes. As long as the three (3) requisites/tests are
complied
with.
*Mental insanity refers to any disorder of the mind
resulting from disease or defect of the brain, whereby
mental freedom may be perverted, weakened or
destroyed. This is sometimes used as the equivalent of
mental incapacity to make a will. But there may be mental
incapacity to make a will without actual insanity.
Person suffering from:
1. idiocy
2. imbecility
3. senile dementia
do not posses the necessary mental capacity to make a will
since these are absolute and permanent forms of mental
disease or insanity.
Idiocy refers to those who are mentally deficient in
intellect.
Imbecility refers to those who are mentally deficient as a
result of a disease.
But there are other forms or degrees of mental
disease/weakness which do not necessarily negate
testamentary capacity.
Under our law, to be of sound mind, it is not necessary that
the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning
faculties or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired
or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause (Article
799).
Hence, mental aberrations, which do not result in such
unable to know or understand the nature of his estate to
be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty and the
character of the testamentary act, will not destroy
testamentary capacity.
Article 801
Supervening incapacity does not invalidate an
effective
will, nor is the will of an incapable validated by the
supervening of capacity.
*Supervening capacity or incapacity does not affect the
will because its validity is determined at the time of the
execution of the will
Does the supervening incapacity of the testator
invalidate an effective will? Or is the will of an
incapable
validated by the supervening capacity?
No. (See Article 801 in relation to Article 795)
X made a will when he was only seventeen (17) years
old.
He died at the age of twenty-seven (27) without
changing
the will. Is the will valid?
No. X has no testamentary capacity at the execution of
the
will. Supervening capacity or incapacity does not
affect the
will because its validity is determined at the time of
the
execution of the will.
Suppose X made a will in 1975 when he was twenty-
five
(25) years old. In 1997, he became insane. He died in
1999. Is the will valid?
Yes. Subsequent incapacity of the testator does not
invalidate a valid will.
How many times can a person make a will?
There is no limit as to how many times a person can
make
a will, as long as, he has the capacity to do it. Once a
person is eighteen (18) years old the law presumes
capacity. So even if the testator is already one
hundred
(100) years old the will is still valid, unless otherwise
proven.
Does the law prescribe a limit in point of age by
which a
person can dispose of his property by will?
No. As long as the testator passes the test of sound
mind,
provided under Article 799. That is, that the testator,
at
the of the making of the will, is able to know:
1. nature of the estate to be disposed of
2. the proper objects of his bounty
3. the character of the testamentary act
What is the reason why a person below eighteen (18)
years of age is incapacitated to make a will?
The law presumes mental incapacity.
Why is a person too old still allowed to make a will?
It has been justly said, that the will of an aged (old)
person,
should be regarded with tenderness, provided, that
he
passes the three (3) tests of possessing a sound mind.
Article 802
A married woman may make a will without the
consent
of her husband, and without the authority of the
court.
Article 803
A married woman may dispose by will of all her
separate
property as well as her share of the conjugal
partnership
or absolute community property.
Why is there no provision about married men on
laws of
testamentary capacity and intent?
Because there is no doubt as to the rights of men in
succession. Unlike women due to the Old Civil Code.
Can a married woman execute her last will and
testament without the consent of her husband and
without authority from the court?
Yes. A married woman may execute a will without
the
consent of her husband and without authority from
the
court. (Article 802)
page | 19 .
copied and modified from ALLIANCE FOR
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
by kotch.agcaoili.agudo
What are the properties which a married woman may
dispose of by will?
A married woman may dispose by will all of her
separate
property, as well as, her share of the conjugal
partnership
or absolute community property.
What if the husband objects? Can she still make a
valid
will?
Yes. Article 802 is very clear on this. A married
woman may
make a will without the consent of her husband.
Aside
from the minimum requirement that she must be:
eighteen (18) years old and be of sound mind, nothing
more is needed for a married woman to validly make
a
will.
Articles 796 to 803 Testamentary Capacity
2. Articles 804-809 (Forms of Wills)
Articles 820-824 (Witnesses to Wills)

1. Conde vs Abaya 13 Phils 240

2. Pamplona vs CA 96 SCRA 775
3. Guerrero vs Bilhis 521 SCRA 394
4. Door vs Diancin 55 Phil 479
5. Yap Tua vs Yap ka Kuan 27 Phil 579
6. Avers vs Garcia 42 Phil 145
7. Nayue vs Moja 47 Phil 152
8. Testate Esatate of Pilipil vs CA 72
Phil 546
9. Testate Estate of Abada vs Abaja
450 SCRA 264
10. Caneda vs CA 222 SCRA 781
11. ROdelas vs Aranza 119 SCRA 116
12. Codoy bs Calugay 312 SCRA 333
13. Ajero vs CA 236 SCRA 488
14. Azaola vs Singson 109 Phil 102
15. Nazareno vs CA 343 SCRA 637
16. Rivera vs IAC 182SCRA 322
17. Labrador vs CA 184 SCRA 322
18. Seangio vs Reyes 508 SCRA 177
19. Capitle vs Elbamuena 509 CRA 444
20. Paz Samaniego-Caleda vs Abence
556 SCRA 569