Substitution of Heirs and approved by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur in special
Proceeding No. 453; that plaintiffs had made demands for the
Palacios vs. Ramirez
The main issue in this appeal is the manner of partitioning the testate
estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez among the principal beneficiaries,
namely: his widow Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez; his two
grandnephews Roberto and Jorge Ramirez; and his companion
Wanda de Wrobleski
Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain on
December 11, 1964, with only his widow as compulsory heir. His
will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of Manila,
Branch X, on July 27, 1965. Maria Luisa Palacios was appointed
administratrix of the estate
On June 23, 1966, the administratrix submitted a project of partition
as follows: the property of the deceased is to be divided into two
parts. One part shall go to the widow in satisfaction of her legitime;
the other part or "free portion" shall go to Jorge and Roberto
Ramirez. One third (1/3) of the free portion is charged with the
widow's usufruct and the remaining two-thirds (2/3) with a usufruct
in favor of Wanda.
Jorge and Roberto opposed the project of partition on the grounds: (a)
that the provisions for vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda de
Wrobleski with respect to the widow's usufruct and in favor of Juan
Pablo Jankowski and Horacio V. Ramirez, with respect to Wanda's
usufruct are invalid because the first heirs Marcelle and Wanda)
survived the testator; (b) that the provisions for fideicommissary
substitutions are also invalid because the first heirs are not related to
the second heirs or substitutes within the first degree, as provided in
Article 863 of the Civil Code; (c) that the grant of a usufruct over real
property in the Philippines in favor of Wanda Wrobleski, who is an
alien, violates Section 5, Article III of the Philippine Constitution;
and that (d) the proposed partition of the testator's interest in the
Santa Cruz (Escolta) Building between the widow Marcelle and the
appellants, violates the testator's express win to give this property to
them Nonetheless, the lower court approved the project of partition in
its order dated May 3, 1967. It is this order which Jorge and Roberto
have appealed to this Court.
Held: this is a case of simple substitution with respect to the legacies
of Roberto and Jorge Ramirez.
One-half (1/2) thereof to his widow as her legitime;
One-half (1/2) thereof which is the free portion to Roberto and Jorge
Ramirez in naked ownership.
The usufruct to Wanda de Wrobleski with a simple substitution in
favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez.
Crisologo vs. Singson
Action for partition commenced by the spouses Consolacion
Florentino and Francisco Crisologo against Manuel Singson in
connection with a residential lot located a Plaridel St., Vigan, Ilocos
Sur, with an area of approximately 193 square meters, and the
improvements existing thereon, covered by Tax No. 10765-C. Their
complaint alleged that Singson owned one-half pro-indiviso of said
property and that Consolacion Florentino owned the other half by
virtue of the provisions of the duly probated last will of Da. Leona
Singson, the original owner, and the project of partition submitted to,
partition of said property, but defendant refused to accede thereto,
thus compelling them to bring action.
Defendant's defense was that Consolacion Florentino was a mere
usufructuary of, and not owner of one-half pro-indiviso of the
property in question, and that, therefore, she was not entitled to
demand partition thereof.
The issue to be decided is whether the testamentary disposition
above-quoted provided for what is called sustitucion vulgar or for a
sustitucion fideicomisaria.
Held: The document did not expressly provide for fideicomissary
substitution.
It is clear that the particular testamentary clause under consideration
provides for a substitution of the heir named therein in this manner:
that upon the death of Consolacion Florentino whether this occurs
before or after that of the testatrix the property bequeathed to her
shall be delivered ("se dara") or shall belong in equal parts to the
testatrix's three brothers, Evaristo, Manuel and Dionisio, or their
forced heirs, should anyone of them die ahead of Consolacion
Florentino.
It seems to be of the essence of a fideicommissary substitution that an
obligation be clearly imposed upon the first heir to preserve and
transmit to another the whole or part of the estate bequeathed to him,
upon his death or upon the happening of a particular event. For this
reason, Art. 785 of the old Civil Code provides that a
fideicommissary substitution shall have no effect unless it is made
expressly ("de una manera expresa") either by giving it such name, or
by imposing upon the first heir the absolute obligation ("obligacion
terminante") to deliver the inheritance to a substitute or second heir.
Legacies and Devises
Fernandez vs. Dimagiba
On January 19, 1955, Ismaela Dimagiba submitted to the CFI a
petition for the probate of the will of the late Benedicta de los Reyes.
The will instituted the Ismaela as the sole heir of the estate of the
deceased.
Dionisio Fernandez, et.al., all claiming to be heirs intestate of the
decedent, filed oppositions to the probate.
Grounds advanced for the opposition were forgery, vices of consent
of the testatrix, estoppel by laches of the proponent and revocation of
the will by two deeds of conveyance of the major portion of the estate
made by the testatrix in favor of Ismaela in 1943 and 1944, but which
conveyances were finally set aside by this Supreme Court in a
decision promulgated on August 3, 1954, in cases G.R. Nos. L-5618
and L-5620.
Held: The revocation invoked by the oppositors-appellants is not an
express one, but merely implied from subsequent acts (conveyance)
of the testatrix allegedly evidencing an abandonment of the original
intention to bequeath or devise the properties concerned. As such, the
revocation would not affect the will itself, but merely the particular
devise or legacy. Only the total and absolute revocation can preclude
probate of the revoked testament.
the claim of oppositors-appellants, there had been no legal revocation
by the execution of the 1943 and 1944 deeds of sale, because the
latter had been made in favor of the legatee herself, and affirmed the
decision of the Court of First Instance
Belen. vs. BPI
Benigno Diaz died; thecodicil, together with the will, was admitted to
probate
The proceedings for the administration of the estate of Benigno Diaz
were closed in 1950 and the estate was thereafter put under the
administration of the appellee Bank of the Philippine Islands, as
trustee for the benefit of the legatees.
Later, Filomena (wife) died, leaving two legitimate children,
Milagros (with 7 children) and Onesima, single.
Onesima filed petition, to the effect that the amount pertaining to
Filomena should be divided between her and Milagros, to the
exclusion of the 7 grandchildren.
Held: In the absence of other indications of contrary intent, the proper
rule to apply in the instant case is that the testator, by designating a
class or group of legatees, intended all members thereof to succeed
per capita. Milagros, Onesima, and the 7 grandchildren will have
equal shares.
Delos Santos vs. Dela Cruz
Pelagia the deceased owner of subject property (20,000 sqm)
Maximo (defendant) is nephew of Pelagia, while Gertrudes is only
grand niece.
They executed extrajudicial partitition, with Maximo to develop
certain portions into a subdivision.
Maximo failed, Gertrudes filed for specific performance.
Maximo argued that the partition is void as to Gertrudes and that she
has no cause of action against him.
Held: The relatives "nearest in degree" to Pelagia de la Cruz are her
nephews (Maximo) and nieces, one of whom is defendant-appellant
(maximo). Necessarily, plaintiff-appellee, a grandniece is excluded
by law from the inheritance.
Remote relatives or unrelated person who unduly received and took
possession of the property of a deceased person without any right, by
virtue of a null and void partition, must restore it to the legitimate
successor in the inheritance
Diaz vs. IAC
Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona Pamuti
Vda. De Santero who together with Felisas mother Juliana
were the only legitimate children of the spouses Felipe Pamuti
and Petronila Asuncion. Pablo Santero was the only legitimate
son of his parents Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. De
Santero. Pablo Santero died in 1973 and at the time of his death
was survived by his mother Simona Santero snd his six minor
natural children.
Felisa filed a petition that she be appointed as special administratrix
of the properties of the deceased Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
Judge Jose Raval in his Order declared Felisa Pamuti Jardin as the
sole legitimate heir of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
Petitioner Anselma Diaz, as guardian of her minor children,
filed her Opposition and Motion to Exclude Felisa Pamuti Jardin
from further taking part or intervening in the settlement of the
intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, as well as in
the intestate estate of Pascual Santero and Pablo Santero.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners herein as illegitimate children of
Pablo Santero could inherit from Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero,
by right of representation of their father Pablo Santero who is a
legitimate child of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero
RULING: No. Since the hereditary conflict refers solely to
the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, who is
the legitimate mother of Pablo Santero, the applicable law is the
provision of Article 992 of the Civil Code.
Pablo Santero is not an illegitimate child. On the other hand,
the petitioners are the illegitimate children of Pablo Santero.
If the person to be represented is an illegitimate child, then his
descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, may represent him;
however, if the person to be represented is legitimate, his illegitimate
descendants cannot represent him because the law provides that only
his legitimate descendants may exercise the right of representation by
reason of the barrier imposed Article 992.
Thus, petitioners cannot represent their father Pablo Santero in
the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of his legitimate
mother Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, because of the barrier
provided for under Article 992 of the New Civil Code.
Bacayo vs. Ferrasi-Borromeo
Melodia Ferraris was presumed dead after not being
heard from for more than 10 years.
She left an estate valued at
P6,000.00 more or less.
The deceased Melodia left no surviving
direct descendant, ascendant or spouse, but was survived only
by collateral relatives: aunt and (nieces and nephews)
Who will inherit, aunt or nieces/nephews?
Held: An aunt is as far distant as the nephews from the
decedent (three degrees). In the collateral line to which both
kinds of relatives belong, degrees are counted by first ascending
to the common ancestor and then descending to the heir (Article
966).
Also, the nephews and nieces do not inherit by right of
representation (i.e., per stirpes) unless concurring with brothers
or sisters of the deceased, as provided expressly by Article 975.
Nevertheless, the trial court was correct when it held that,
in case of intestacy, nephews and nieces of the de cujos exclude
all other collaterals (aunts and uncles, first cousins, etc.) from
the succession. This is readily apparent form Articles 1001,
1004, 1005 and 1009 of the Civil Code. Under Article 1009, the
absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the decedent
is a precondition to succession. Under our laws of succession, a
decedents uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestato so long
as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing
and qualifi ed to succeed.
Corpus vs. Corpus
First Marriage: Ramona and Tomas, had 5 legitimate children,
including Pablo and Jose. Jose had a daughter (Juanita) who is the
mother of Luis (probably a younger Tomas)
Second Marriage: Ramona and Luis, had one child (Teodoro)
Teodoro died with no forced heirs. His, nearest relatives were his
half-brothers and half-sisters.
WON Juanita (daughter of his half-brother Jose) was legal heir of
Teodoro, thus giving Tomas the cause of action to recover Juanitas
intestate share in Teodoros estate?
Held: Teodoro is only an acknowledged natural child of Luis and
Ramona. On the other hand, Jose (his half-brother and father of
Juanita) is a legitimate son of Ramona and Tomas (first marriage).
Juanita is not legal heir of Teodorico since there is no reciprocal
succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives.
Leonardo vs. CA
Francisca had 3 daughters (Maria, Silvestra and Pascuala-pre
deceased Francisca)
Francisca died intestate and was survived by two (2) daughters,
Maria and Silvestra Cailles and a grandson, Sotero Leonardo, the son
of her daughter, Pascuala Cailles who predeceased her.
Sotero Leonardo (grandson) died in 1944, while Silvestra Cailles died
in 1949 without any issue.
On October 29, 1964, petitioner Cresenciano Leonardo great
grandson already of Francisca, claiming to be the son of the late
Sotero Leonardo, filed a complaint seeking, among others, that he be
declared as one of the lawful heirs of Francisca Reyes, entitled to
one-half share in the estate of said deceased jointly with Maria
Cailles (daughter of Francisca).
In her Answer,Maria Cailles asserted exclusive ownership over the
subject properties and alleged that petitioner is an illegitimate child
who cannot succeed by right of representation.
For his part, the other defendant, private respondent James Bracewell,
claimed that said properties are now his by virtue of a valid and legal
deed of sale which Maria Cailles had subsequently executed in his
favor.
ISSUE: Can Leonardo, being a great grandson, inherit?
In support of his claim, plaintiff submitted in
evidence his alleged birth certificate showing that his father is
Sotero Leonardo, married to Socorro Timbol, his alleged mother.
However, this piece of evidence does not in any way lend credence
to his tale. This is because the name of the child described in the
birth certifi cate is not that of the plaintiff but a certain Alfredo
Leonardo who was born on September 13, 1938 to Sotero
Leonardo and Socorro Timbol.
Other than his bare allegation, plaintiff did not submit any durable
evidence showing that the Alfredo Leonardo mentioned in the birth
certificate is no otherthan he himself. Thus, plaintiff failed to prove
his fi liation which is a fundamental requisite in this action where he
is claiming to be an heir in the inheritance in question. Even if it is
true that petitioner is the child of Sotero Leonardo, still he cannot, by
right of representation, claim a share of the estate left by the deceased
Francisca Reyes considering that he was born outside wedlock
as shown by the fact that when he was born on September 13 1938,
his alleged putative father and mother were not yet married,
and what is more, his alleged fathers first marriage was still
subsisting.
Santillon vs. Miranda
Pedro and Perfecta had a son, Atty. Claro.
Pedro died intestate, 4 yrs later, Claro filed petition for letters of
administration.
He claims, that aside from share, he is entitled to of the free
portion while his mother only .
Held: ruled and ordered that in the intestate succession of the
deceased Pedro Santillon, the surviving spouse Perfecta Miranda
shall inherit ONE-HALF (1/2) share and the remaining ONE-HALF
(1/2) share for the only son, Atty. Claro Santillon. This is after
deducting the share of the widow as co-owner of the conjugal
properties.
Bicomong vs. Almanza
SIMEON BAGSIC and SISENANDRA BARCENAS (died) (first marriage)
o Perpetua (died)
Gaudencio Bicomong
Felicidad Bicomong
Salome Bicomong
Gervacio Bicomong
o Igmedia (died)
Dionisio Tolentino
Maria Tolentino
Petra Tolentino
o Ignacio (died)
Francisca Bagsic
SIMEON BAGSIC (died) and SILVESTRA GLORIOSO (died) (second marriage)
o Felipa (died) and Geronimo Almanza
Cristeta Almanza (died) and Engracio Manese
o Maura (died)
The subject matter is the half undivided share of Maura Bagsic in 5
parcels of land w/c she inherited from Silvestra Glorioso.
There are 3 sets of plaintiffs: the Bicomongs. The Tolentinos, and
Francisca Bagsic, for their shares in the properties of Maura Bagsic.
When Maura Bagsic died, the properties passed on to Cristeta
Almanza, who also died without division of the properties.
Trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs.
Almanzas appealed to CA. It was contended that since Maura died
ahead of Felipa, Felipa succeeded to Mauras estate, to the exclusion
of the plaintiffs. They said the relatives nearest in degree excludes
the more distant ones.
The plaintiffs claim that Felipa died ahead of Maura.
WON Maura is succeeded by Felipa to the exclusion of nephews and
nieces of half blood

HELD NO.
-
In the absence of descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or
surviving spouse, collateral relatives succeed to the entire estate of
deceased.

Since Maura died intestate and her husband and her ascendants died
ahead of her, she is succeeded by surviving collateral relatives,
namely the daughter of her sister of full blood and the children of her
brother and sisters of half blood, in accordance with Art 975 of New
Civil Code.

The 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.

The contention that Maura should be succeeded by Felipa to the

exclusion of the nephews and nieces of half blood is erroneous. As it
was shown, Felipa predeceased her sister Maura.