anycase.

ai
Standard
Search Libraries
LawJurisprudenceIssuance
You have 14 searches left
LL
Leticia died without issue. She has 6 sibling, 5 of whom predeceased her. Lumen who died a few days after
Leticia, has only one child named Maan, while the 5 siblings who predeceased Leticia had a total of 35
children. In accordance with the Philippine law on succession, how much should Maan get from the 3.4 estate
of Leticia? Does Art. 975 mean that the 36 nieces and nephew of Leticia should all get an equal share? Should
the distribution be made per capita or per stirpes? What jurisprudence or legal basis supports the answer?

AI Answer
Query Interpretation
You are asking for the correct distribution of Leticia’s estate among her nieces and nephews, specifically:

 How much Maan (the only child of Lumen, a sibling who died after Leticia) should receive,
 Whether all 36 nieces and nephews (Maan + 35 children of the other 5 predeceased siblings) should
get equal shares,
 Whether the distribution is per capita or per stirpes,
 The legal and jurisprudential basis for the answer.

Legal Framework
1. Order of Intestate Succession

Leticia died without issue (no children), and her siblings (collateral relatives) are next in line after ascendants

and spouse, per Civil Code (1949), Articles 1003–1009.

2. Who Are the Heirs?

 Of Leticia’s 6 siblings, only Lumen survived her, but Lumen died a few days later.
 The other 5 siblings predeceased Leticia, leaving a total of 35 children.
 Lumen’s only child is Maan.

3. Manner of Distribution: Per Stirpes or Per Capita?

Article 975 of the Civil Code (1949) provides:

"When children of one or more brothers or sisters of the deceased survive, they shall inherit from the latter by
representation, if they survive with their uncles or aunts. But if they alone survive, they shall inherit in equal
portions."

Jurisprudence clarifies this:

 If nephews and nieces inherit together with a surviving sibling (uncle/aunt), the nephews and nieces
inherit by representation (per stirpes).
 If only nephews and nieces survive (no living siblings of the decedent), they inherit per capita (equal
shares) Abellana de Bacayo v. Ferraris de Borromeo (1965); Papa v. Camacho (1986); Bicomong v.
Almanza (1977).

4. Application to the Facts

 Lumen survived Leticia, but died a few days later. The critical point is whether Lumen was alive at
the time of Leticia’s death. Since Lumen survived Leticia, Lumen is an heir.
 The estate first passes to Lumen (as the only surviving sibling) and to the children of the 5
predeceased siblings (by representation, per stirpes).
 Maan, as Lumen’s only child, inherits Lumen’s share by right of representation (transmission).

5. Computation

Step 1: Determine the number of shares

 6 shares: 1 for each sibling (Lumen + 5 predeceased siblings).

Step 2: Distribution

 Lumen (alive at Leticia’s death) gets 1/6 of the estate.

 Each group of children of the 5 predeceased siblings collectively gets 1/6 each, to be divided among
themselves per capita within their group.

Step 3: Transmission to Maan

 Lumen died after Leticia, so her 1/6 share passes to her heir, Maan.

Step 4: Final Shares

 Maan receives Lumen’s 1/6 share = 1/6 of 3.4 million = ₱566,666.67.

 The 35 children of the other 5 siblings share the remaining 5/6, divided according to their parent’s
share.

Table: Distribution of Leticia’s Estate

SHARE OF
HEIR/GROUP AMOUNT (₱) NOTES
ESTATE
Maan (child of 1/6 566,666.67 Inherits Lumen’s share by
 SHARE OF
HEIR/GROUP AMOUNT (₱) NOTES
ESTATE
Lumen) transmission
Children of Sibling #2 1/6 566,666.67 Divided equally among children
Children of Sibling #3 1/6 566,666.67 Divided equally among children
Children of Sibling #4 1/6 566,666.67 Divided equally among children
Children of Sibling #5 1/6 566,666.67 Divided equally among children
Children of Sibling #6 1/6 566,666.67 Divided equally among children
Total 6/6 3,400,000.00
Key Legal Basis
 Per stirpes applies when nephews and nieces inherit together with a surviving sibling (Civil Code
(1949), Art. 975; Abellana de Bacayo v. Ferraris de Borromeo (1965); Papa v. Camacho
(1986); Bicomong v. Almanza (1977)).
 Per capita applies only if all siblings are dead and only nephews/nieces survive (Civil Code (1949),
Art. 975; Bicomong v. Almanza (1977)).

Direct Answers
 How much should Maan get?
₱566,666.67 (1/6 of the estate), as Lumen’s sole heir.
 Do all 36 nieces and nephews get equal shares?
No. Distribution is per stirpes, not per capita, because Lumen survived Leticia.
 Is the distribution per capita or per stirpes?
Per stirpes. Each sibling’s line gets 1/6, divided among their children.

 Legal/Jurisprudential Basis:

Civil Code (1949), Art. 975; Abellana de Bacayo v. Ferraris de Borromeo (1965); Papa v. Camacho

(1986); Bicomong v. Almanza (1977).

For further details or to review the full text of the cited laws and cases, please search for “intestate succession
per stirpes Civil Code” or “Abellana de Bacayo v. Ferraris de Borromeo” on [Link].

Disclaimer: While we do our best to ensure our answers are reliable, they do not constitute legal advice.
Consider checking the provided sources or consulting a qualified lawyer. Our service does not assume liability
for actions taken based on our answers.

Was that helpful?

Or would you like to continue learning more about these similar topics:

how is the estate of a deceased individual distributed among surviving siblings' children under
succession law?
what is the difference between per capita and per stirpes distribution in inheritance law procedures?
what legal principles or decisions clarify the interpretation of article 975 in succession cases involving
nieces and nephews?

Search Results
SORT BYRelevanceDate
Jurisprudence
Law
Issuance
Latest available document: March 3, 2025
[J1] G.R. NO. L-19382
• Aug 31, 1965

Abellana de Bacayo v. Ferraris de Borromeo, et al.

AI Summary
This case involves the summary settlement of the estate of Melodia Ferraris, who was declared presumptively
dead after her whereabouts were unknown for over 10 years. The case revolves around the question of who
should inherit the intestate estate when the decedent is survived by an aunt and the children of
a predeceased brother.

“" Nevertheless, the trial court was correct when it held that, in case of intestacy, nephews and nieces of the
de cujus exclude all other collaterals (aunts and uncles, first… ... " ART. 1005. Should brothers and sisters
survive together with nephews and nieces who are the children of the decedent's brothers and sisters of the
full blood, the former shall inherit per capita, and the latter per stirpes."”

[J2] G.R. NO. L-28032

• Sep 24, 1986

Papa, et al. v. Camacho, et al.

AI Summary
The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees, declaring them, as reservatarios, entitled to one-
half of the seven parcels of land in dispute. However, the defendant-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court,
arguing that the rights of the reservatarios should be determined by the rules on intestate succession.

“"Nevertheless, the trial court was correct when it held that, in case of intestacy, nephews and nieces of the
de cujus exclude all other collaterals (aunts and uncles, first cousins,… ... " Art. 1005. Should brothers and
sisters survive together with nephews and nieces who are the children of the decedent's brothers and sisters
of the full blood, the former shall inherit per capita, and the latter per stirpes." Art. 1009.”

[J3] G.R. NO. L-37365

• Nov 29, 1977

Bicomong, et al. v. Almanza, et al.

AI Summary
This is a case concerning the inheritance of properties left by Maura Bagsic. The Court ruled in favor of
her nephews and nieces, as she died without descendants and her husband and ascendants had already passed
away.

“Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per capita or per stripes,
in accordance with the rules laid down for brothers and sisters of the full blood. " In the absence of
descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, Article 1003 of the New Civil Code
provides that collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate…”

[J4] G.R. NO. 250613

• Apr 03, 2024

Macalinao, et al. v. Macalinao, et al.

AI Summary
The Court modified the distribution of the benefits: Cerena receives one-fourth, Cindy receives one-half, and
Kenneth and Kristel each receive one-eighth. The Court emphasized the primacy of
compulsory succession and the non-impairment of legitimes, clarifying the distribution rules when a
surviving spouse concurs with one legitimate and multiple illegitimate children.

“First is the line of reasoning which surmises that in the scenario where the surviving spouse concurs
with one legitimate child and two illegitimate children, the apportionment must be one-third of the
hereditary estate for the legitimate child, one-third for the surviving spouse, and one-sixth each for the two
illegitimate children, on the basis of Article 999, as cited above. This line of interpretation suggests that the
primacy is placed on the provision which prescribes that the surviving spouse must receive a share that
is equal to that of the share of one legitimate child.”

[J5] G.R. NO. 142977

• Sep 30, 2008

Camcam, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
Leonor Camcam, together with her brothers-in-law and the heirs of her deceased brother, filed a complaint
for the annulment of documents executed by Leonor in favor of Arcadio Frias covering two parcels of land. ...
After a lengthy legal battle, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial court's decision, which
declared that one-half of the properties belonged to Frias, while the other half should be divided among
Leonor's brothers and sisters, per capita.

“During the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court, Leonor's brother-in-law Agapito died and
was substituted by his heirs, namely petitioners Teofila, Felicidad, Mercedes, Lydia, Alfredo, Bienvenido,
Efren, Lilia, Erlinda, Melinda, Marylou, and Meriam, all surnamed Salvador.[16] ... If there are brothers and
sisters and nephews, who are children of brothers and sisters of the whole blood, the former shall
inherit per capita, and the latter per stirpes.”

[J6] G.R. NO. 117685

• Jun 21, 1999

People of the Philippines v. Bautista

AI Summary
The appellant, Alfonso Bautista, was convicted of murder for the killing of Cipriano Bandarlipe. The
prosecution's evidence was found to be unreliable and filled with inconsistencies, leading to doubts about the
identification of the assailant.

“The two did not go home immediately for fear that they would get sick (pasma) but apparently in her haste to
leave, Leticia left in a corner of the hut a pink panty with the name "Letty Bandarlipe" embroidered on it. ...
Appellant made several attempts to collect his share but Feriamil merely advised him to keep his patience
while he searched for money as Leticia had taken the proceeds of the sale.[13]”

[J7] G.R. NO. 171068

• Sep 05, 2007

Arzadon-Crisologo, et al. v. Rañon, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over ownership of a residential lot in the Philippines. The heirs of Marcelina
Arzadon-Crisologo filed a complaint against the Rañon family, claiming ownership of the property.

“This is because according to Article 1001[13] of the Civil Code, should brothers and sisters or
their children survive with the widow or the widower (who are without issue), the latter shall be entitled
to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half. The spouses
Alcantara died without issue.”
[J8] G.R. NO. 241330
• Dec 05, 2022

Valenzuela, et al. v. Pabilani, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a deed of absolute sale (DOAS) of a property in Makati City, which was executed after the
death of one of the parties involved, Candida. The DOAS was found to be void and forged, and subsequent
certificates of title obtained from it were declared null and void.

“When Candida died, petitioners as her heirs ipso jure acquired their rights to succession to
Candida's estate. The legal implications being that the right of ownership of their share in
Candida's estate was immediately vested at the moment of her death.”

[J9] G.R. NO. 187725

• Jan 19, 2011

Jesalva v. People of the Philippines

AI Summary
Benjamin Jesalva filed a Petition for Review to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed
the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding him guilty of Homicide. The case stemmed from the death of a
woman named Leticia, where it was alleged that Jesalva killed her.

“After dropping one male companion at his house, Benjamin Jesalva, together with Leticia Aldemo,
proceeded to bring Gloria Haboc to her home, which was only twenty meters away from Leticia's residence.
After staying at Gloria Haboc's house for five minutes, and denied another drink, Benjamin Jesalva
immediately accelerated his vehicle en route to 6th Street instead of the shorter and direct route, the 7th street,
where Leticia Aldemo's house is located; Leticia Aldemo never reached home as testified by her husband
Efren Aldemo;”

[J10] G.R. NO. 142441

• Nov 10, 2004

Bongalon, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over the ownership of a piece of property in Albay, Philippines. Pedro Bongalon
claimed ownership of the property, but his claim was challenged by respondents Cecilio and Amparo
Bongalon.

“The 1/5 undivided share of Jacoba, who apparently predeceased her children Conchita, Catalina, and
Leonardo, passed to Jacoba’s children as co-owners in equal shares. Likewise, the undivided 1/5 share of
Emilio, who also apparently predeceased his children Teodora, Francisca, and Maxima, passed to
Emilio’s children as co-owners in equal shares.”

[J11] G.R. NO. 187942

• Sep 07, 2016

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao v. Prudencio, et al.

AI Summary
The issue stemmed from the exclusion of the rightful heirs in the partition of the estate of the deceased and the
subsequent sale of their shares to third parties. ... The court also ruled that the sale of the property to the
Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao and the subsequent sale to third parties were valid only insofar as
the share of the original owner, Teodora, was concerned.
“Articles 979, 980 and 981 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Civil Code) state that all the children of the
deceased shall inherit from him and by implication should participate in the settlement of his/her estate, to
wit: Art. 979. ... The children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right, dividing the
inheritance in equal shares.”

[J12] G. R. NO. 23923

• Mar 23, 1926

Barreto, et al. v. Tuason, et al.

AI Summary
The plaintiffs, representing the descendants of four of the founder's children, are seeking their share of the
revenue from the entailed properties. ... The court has ordered a new trial to allow for the participation of
additional claimants and to determine the distribution of the trust fund among the various beneficiaries,
including the descendants of the younger children of the founder.

“Of the eight younger children four died without succession and the other four are the descendants of the
plaintiffs in this cause. ... The other four portions, that is, the remaining one-half of the said fifth, which
would have corresponded to the stirps of the other four younger children, if they had died leaving succession,
accrue, so to speak, both to the descendants of the younger children leaving succession and to the other
descendants of the founder.”

[J13] G.R. NO. 118077

• Nov 21, 1996

People of the Philippines v. Cabaluna

AI Summary
The case is about the appeal of accused-appellant Dominador Cabaluna against the decision of the trial court
finding him guilty of rape. The victim, Leticia Abenion, accused Cabaluna of inducing her to take medicine
for her fever, causing her to lose consciousness, and then raping her in a motel against her will.

“"Thereafter, appellant and Leticia boarded a public utility jeepney for transport (p. 6, Ibid.). On the
jeepney, however, Leticia felt uncontrollably giddy. She then lapsed into unconsciousness (p. 7, Ibid.). She has
no recollection of anything that happened thereafter. "At around 6:00 o’clock in the morning of 15 February
1992. ... "Instinctively Leticia readily jumped from the bed and lost no time in dressing up (ibid). Appellant,
however, attempted to touch her again (pp. 8, 29, Ibid.). This time, Leticia struggled…”

[J14] G.R. NO. 186233

• Oct 02, 2009

People of the Philippines v. Satonero

AI Summary
Romeo Satonero @ Ruben appealed the decision of the Regional Trial Court which found him guilty of
murder for the killing of Ramon Amigable on December 25, 1997. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's decision, and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, concluding that the evidence established
beyond reasonable doubt that Satonero was the unlawful aggressor in the fatal encounter.

“The prosecution offered in evidence the testimonies of Leticia Amigable Vda. ... The Prosecution's Version of
Facts At around five o'clock in the afternoon of December 25, 1997, Leticia and her nephew, Ramon
Amigable were in Brgy.”

[J15] G.R. NO. 8927

• Mar 10, 1914
Jose, et al. v. Uson, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves the interpretation of a codicil to the will of Filomena Uson, specifically regarding the
division of her property between her living sisters and the children of her deceased sisters. The court found
that the property should be divided equally between the living sisters and the children of the deceased sisters,
in contrast to the lower court's ruling.

“The court below found that the children of the deceased sisters should take only that portion which their
respective mothers would have taken if they had been alive at the… ... …admission that the testatrix desired to
favor her deceased sister Eufemia Uson, who left three children, more than her other deceased sister Antonia
Uson, who left two children, and moreover…”

[J16] G. R. NOS. 36811, 36827, 36840, 36872

• Mar 31, 1934

Barretto y Rocha, et al. v. Tuason y de la Paz, et al.

AI Summary
This document pertains to a legal case involving the mayorazgo founded by Antonio Tuason. ... The document
discusses the validity of sales of participations in the mayorazgo, the distribution of the fifth of the properties,
and the involvement of various appellants and intervenors.

“"Of the eight younger children four died without succession and the other four are the descendants of the
plaintiffs in this cause. Hence, four of the eight portions, that is,… Consequently, this one-half in accretion
should be distributed among the descendants of the founder in general, who are the plaintiffs and some of the
defendants, but bearing in mind the…”

[J17] G.R. NO. 183448

• Jun 30, 2014

Peralta, et al. v. Abalon, et al.

AI Summary
This case involves a dispute over a parcel of land that was registered under the name of Bernardina Abalon,
but was fraudulently transferred to Restituto Rellama, who then sold it to various parties. ... The Court also
affirmed the legal standing of the heirs as successors of Bernardina, but clarified that they acquired the
property through succession, not through acquisitive prescription.

“On the issue of the legal standing of the Abalons to file this case, we find that the CA correctly upheld their
standing as heirs of the deceased Bernardina Abalon. ... Under Article 975[38] of the Civil
Code, siblings Mansueto and Amelia Abalon are the legal heirs of Bernardina, the latter having had
no issue during her marriage.”

[J18] G.R. NO. 48627

• Feb 19, 1943

Pablo, et al. v. Lim, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves the interpretation of a clause in the will of Vicente Singson Pablo,
who died without descendants or ascendants. ... This decision was affirmed on appeal, with the court
emphasizing that the testator's intention was for the residue of his estate to be distributed in equal parts to all
who would have been entitled to inherit from him had he died intestate.

[J19] G.R. NO. 159709

• Jun 27, 2012
Franco, et al. v. Gonzales, et al.

AI Summary
This case involves a dispute over loans obtained by Servando Franco and Leticia Medel from Veronica
Gonzales. ... As a result, the court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered the Regional Trial
Court to proceed with the execution of the original decision, deducting the amount of partial payment made by
Servando Franco.

“On November 19, 1985, Servando and Leticia obtained from Veronica another loan in the amount of
P90,000.00, payable in two months, at 6% interest per month. ... On June 11, 1986, Servando
and Leticia secured from Veronica still another loan in the amount of P300,000.00, maturing in one month,
secured by a real estate mortgage over a property belonging to Leticia Makalintal Yaptinchay, who issued a
special power of attorney in favor of Leticia Medel, authorizing her to execute the mortgage.”

[J20] G.R. NO. 124976

• May 31, 2000

People of the Philippines v. Balora

AI Summary
Vicente Balora y Delantar was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping Leticia Gapasinao in a cinema
comfort room. The court rejected his appeal and upheld the trial court's decision, citing the victim's credibility,
lack of resistance due to intimidation, and medical findings that supported her account.

“Though Florencia was calling her name, Leticia could not shout for help or get out of the cubicle because
accused was preventing her from doing so. As nobody was answering, Florencia waited until she
saw Leticia come out of one of the cubicles, pale and trembling as if in a state of shock.”

[J21] G.R. NO. L-35664

• May 19, 1983

People of the Philippines v. De La Cruz, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves the forcible abduction and rape of Leticia Octavio by Gregorio de la Cruz, assisted by
Ernesto de los Santos and Rosalino de los Santos. The sole issue in the case is the credibility of witnesses,
particularly that of Leticia Octavio.

“"Quirino Labing-isa and his family were all in the house when the two, Leticia and Gregorio arrived. After
extending the proper respects to them, like the kissing of their hands… (tsn, pp. 24 and 25, June 21, 1971)”

[J22] G.R. NO. L-6525

• Apr 12, 1954

Esparagoza, et al. v. Tan, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to set aside certain orders of a judge,
which sought the immediate arrest of petitioners for their failure to deliver money as ordered by the court. ...
The court set aside the orders and ordered that the petitioners be given the opportunity to answer the motion
for contempt before any action is taken.

“…First Instance of Rizal by the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines against
Marta Banclos de Esparagoza, et al., in connection with the disposition of the… ... However, as the widow,
and her lawyer, in a gesture of nobility, agreed to give one-half of said amount to the four
illegitimate children of the deceased, the court also…”
[J23] G.R. NO. 211153
• Feb 28, 2018

Cruz, et al. v. Cruz, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves heirs disputing an extrajudicial settlement of their parents' estate, which resulted in
unequal distribution of property. ... The Supreme Court denied the appeal by the petitioners, confirming the
nullification of the settlement and stating that the action for annulment does not prescribe, as the settlement
was a total nullity and did not affect all the heirs.

“In short, this is a simple case of exclusion in legal succession, where co-heirs were effectively deprived of
their rightful share to the estate of their parents who died without… Under the law, "[t]he children of the
deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares."[16] In
this case, two of Concepcion's co-heirs renounced their shares in the subject property; their shares therefore
accrued to the remaining co-heirs, in equal shares as well.[17]”

[J24] G.R. NO. 116775

• Jan 22, 1998

Uriarte, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
On the other hand, the private respondent, who is the son of Justa's half sister, claimed that he is entitled to
a share of the land. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the private respondent, finding that he is the nearest
surviving relative of Justa and therefore entitled to her estate.

“Indeed, given the fact that 0.5 hectares of the land in question belonged to the conjugal partnership of
Justa’s parents, Justa was entitled to 0.125 hectares of the half hectare land as her father’s (Juan
Arnaldo’s) share in the conjugal property, while petitioners are entitled to the other 0.125 hectares. In
addition, Justa inherited her mother’s (Ursula Tubil’s) share consisting of 0.25 hectares.”

[J25] G.R. NO. 131622

• Nov 27, 1998

Medel, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
Leticia Y. Medel, Dr. Rafael Medel, and Servando Franco borrowed money from the spouses Veronica and
Danilo Gonzales under the business name "Gonzales Credit Enterprises". They failed to pay back the loans,
and a legal battle ensued.

“On June 11, 1986, Servando and Leticia secured from Veronica still another loan in the amount of
P300,000.00, maturing in one month, secured by a real estate mortgage over a property belonging
to Leticia Makalintal Yaptinchay, who issued a special power of attorney in favor of Leticia Medel,
authorizing her to execute the mortgage. ... On July 23, 1986, Servando and Leticia with the latter's husband,
Dr. Rafael Medel, consolidated all their previous unpaid loans totaling P440,000.00, and sought from
Veronica another loan in the amount of P60,000.00, bringing their indebtedness to a total of P500,000.00,
payable on August 23, 1986.”

[J26] G.R. NO. 126518

• Dec 02, 1998

People of the Philippines v. Bugayong

AI Summary
Rodelio Bugayong was convicted of rape and acts of lasciviousness, with the main question being whether the
allegation regarding the date of the commission of the offense in the information violated his constitutional
rights. The Court ruled that the precise date need not be alleged in the information, and appellant was not
deprived of his right to be informed of the accusation against him.

“Later, Alberto and Leticia started living together with another woman and another man respectively, [with
whom each of them] raised another family x. Leticia cohabited with the accused RODELIO BUGAYONG and
had one (1) child, a minor by the name of CATHERINE BUGAYONG. For his part, ALBERTO CAUAN lived
in with another woman with whom he has six (6) children.”

[J27] G.R. NO. L-9786

• Aug 31, 1960

Masangcay, et al. v. Valencia, et al.

AI Summary
After her death, her nieces filed a petition to be declared as her heirs, which was opposed by her husband
and brother-in-law. The court ruled in favor of the nieces, declaring them as heirs entitled to a portion of the
conjugal estate.

“…brothers and sisters (Article 945). The heirs of Basilisa and Simeona necessarily shall inherit the estate of
Teodora. Basilisa and Teodora are sisters of full blood as they have one… Hence, Rosita, Evangelina and
Ester are entitled to 1/3 or each of them to 1/9 of the conjugal estate; while Felicidad de la Peña and Julia de
la Peña are entitled to 1/6 or each of them to 1/12 of the conjugal estate.”

[J28] G.R. NO. 168156

• Dec 06, 2006

Lasam, et al. v. Umengan

AI Summary
However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, ruling that the will had not
been probated and therefore had no legal effect. The court also found that Vicenta Umengan had a better right
to possession based on legal conveyances and prior possession of the lot.

“Considering that her purported last will and testament has, as yet, no force and effect for not having been
probated, her six children are deemed to be co-owners of the subject lot having their respective pro
indiviso shares. The conveyances made by the children of Isabel Cuntapay by her first marriage of their
respective pro indiviso shares in the subject lot to respondent are valid because the law recognizes the
substantive right of heirs to dispose of their ideal share in the co-heirship and/co-ownership among the
heirs.”

[J29] G.R. NO. 100993

• Mar 30, 1993

Divina v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
This case involves a dispute over the inheritance of Eleuterio M. Muñoz. An extra-judicial settlement was
agreed upon by the heirs, but a complaint was later filed alleging that one of the heirs was not fully paid and
that property was not turned over as promised.

“Based on the "Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate of Eleuterio M. Muñoz, with Deed of Sale"[1] the heirs
agreed that three-fourths (3/4) of the total net value of the property or… In the same instrument, the heirs
agreed that Maximo, Trinidad and Concepcion were to sell to Juanita all their rights and participation to
the estate and in consideration thereof, Juanita is to pay each of the heirs P55,788.00 or a total of
P167,364.00 to expedite the settlement of the estate.”
[J30] G.R. NO. 101929
• Jan 06, 1993

Dizon, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over ownership of two lots in the Bacolor cadastre, with the heirs of Dionisio
Galang claiming sole ownership based on titles issued in 1922. The heirs of Galang's sisters contested this,
claiming a partition among the siblings and asserting their co-ownership rights.

“That on this date, I have received from all my sisters and nephews who are my co-heirs, namely Potenciana
Galang, Flaviana Galang, Gertrudes Galang, who are my sisters, and Silverio… ... Said affidavit is not
therefore a sufficient basis or support for what is alleged by respondents as a partition among Dionisio and
his now deceased sisters.”

[J31] G.R. NO. 68764

• Mar 18, 1991

People of the Philippines v. Cuarteros

AI Summary
Carlos Cuarteros y Perez appealed his conviction for the crime of rape and was found guilty by the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City. However, the Supreme Court, upon review, acquitted him based on reasonable
doubt.

“It is possible that there was an amorous relationship between Cuarteros and Leticia. ... When her mother-
in-law died, he loaned her P250.00 which she later repaid.”

[J32] G.R. NO. 189776

• Dec 15, 2010

Arellano v. Pascual, et al.

AI Summary
Amelia P. Arellano, represented by her daughters, petitioned for Judicial Settlement of Intestate Estate and
Issuance of Letters of Administration. A trial court found a Deed of Donation from the deceased to Amelia
valid and subject to collation, and partitioned the estate among the heirs.

“On the second issue: The decedent's remaining estate should thus be partitioned equally among his heirs-
siblings-collateral relatives, herein petitioner and respondents, pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code,
viz: Art. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the
collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following
articles.”

[J33] G.R. NO. 255258

• Oct 19, 2022

Heirs of Arturo E. Bandoy, et al. v. Bandoy

AI Summary
The property was inherited by Ambrocio's children, Arturo, Angelita, and Alexander. ... After analyzing the
dispositions made by the heirs and Alexander, the Supreme Court determined that the remaining share of the
property should be divided as follows: The heirs of Arturo are entitled to a 2,518 square meter portion,
Alexander is entitled to a 922 square meter portion, and the heirs of Angelita are not entitled to any share.
“Article 974 of the Civil Code provides that "[w]henever there is succession by representation, the division of
the estate shall be made per stirpes, in such manner that the representative… …of Arturo, 2,718 square
meters less 200 square meters sold to Silverio Bautista, the remaining share of the heirs of Arturo is 2,518
square meters, Alexander, 2,718 square meters less…”

[J34] G.R. NO. 131812

• Aug 22, 2002

People of the Philippines v. Ylanan

AI Summary
Manuel Ylanan was found guilty of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu City. The case involved a 15-year-old girl, Rosemarie Monopolio, who worked as a helper in Ylanan's
kitchenette.

“But Leticia Agustin is definitely not a loyal aunt, one who is expected to root for Rosemarie or to be
protective of her. …very straitened circumstances (Julie Fe Monopolio told the Court that during their brief
sojourn with Leticia, she and Rosemarie were given food but once a day), it is quite understandable…”

[J35] G.R. NO. 181844

• Sep 29, 2010

Paringit, et al. v. Paringit Bajit, et al.

AI Summary
This case involves a dispute over a property purchased by one sibling for the benefit of all siblings.
The siblings want to recover their share in the property by reimbursing their brother for their share in the
purchase price.

“d) That I waive my share in the estate of my deceased wife and as she has no will regarding the said estate,
the same must be divided equally among my five children at 15 sq. m. each; but each of them should
reimburse their brother Felipe and his wife, Josefa the proportional amount advanced by them as I also will
reimburse him the sum of P30,000.00 or one half of the amount that the couple advanced.”

[J36] G.R. NO. 2386

• Apr 16, 1906

Fuentes, et al. v. Canon y Faustino, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over a legacy in the will of Josefa Faustino y Mendoza. ... The court ruled in favor
of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to pay the specified amounts in proportion to their share of the estate.

“One of the nephews afterwards died, and his property was divided among the heirs of two
other nephews who had died before Josefa and the nephew and niece who had survived her. The court
ordered judgment against the twenty defendants for the payment of 3,000 pesos and interest, without any
statement as to how much each defendant was to pay.”

[J37] G.R. NO. L-47275

• Feb 21, 1989

People of the Philippines v. Somera

“"Hearing the screams of a woman, Leticia Rafanan came out of her house holding a baby under her arm
and a lighted kerosene lamp with her other hand. Leticia tried… Again, Leticia tried to help Merlita by
pulling one of her hands but to no avail.”

[J38] G.R. NO. L-34986

• Mar 23, 1984

People of the Philippines v. Ludovice, et al.

AI Summary
This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Albay in a rape case. The three
accused, Cesar Ludovice, Manuel Ludovice, and Rodolfo Lobriano, were found guilty of the crime of rape and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

“"Q [Atty. Ludovice] After a while what happened next? A Then Lubiano [Lobriano] said, 'It has not yet
entered.' Q What else happened? A Then Leticia answered, 'No it is inside already.'" (TSN, p. 163.) After the
act, Leticia stayed lying on her back with her jeans down. ... They returned to the Ludovice residence
with Leticia and on the way Cesar told Leticia, "You also yield to him in order that he would not disclose or
reveal the thing that happened." (TSN, p. 168.”

[J39] G.R. NO. 146683

• Nov 22, 2001

Arcaba v. Tabancura, et al.

AI Summary
Petitioner Cirila Arcaba sought review of a decision affirming the nullity of a deed of donation inter
vivos made by Francisco Comille in petitioner's favor. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision, ruling that
Cirila and Francisco lived together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, making the donation void
under Article 87 of the Family Code.

“It appears that when Leticia and Luzviminda were married, only Cirila was left to take care of Francisco.
[14] ... On October 4, 1991, Francisco died without any children.”

[J40] G.R. NO. 188289

• Aug 20, 2014

Noveras v. Noveras

AI Summary
The case involves a petition for review regarding the division of properties between a divorced couple, David
and Leticia Noveras. ... The Court also granted the judicial separation of the absolute community property
between the spouses and determined the share of each party as well as the presumptive legitimes of their
common children.

“Respondent David A. Noveras is hereby ordered to pay petitioner Leticia Tacbiana (sic) the amount of
P1,040,000.00 representing her share in the proceeds from the sale of the Sampaloc property. ... David
argues that allowing Leticia to share in the Philippine properties is tantamount to unjust enrichment in favor
of Leticia considering that the latter was already granted all US properties by the California court.”

[J41] G.R. NO. L-32860

• Sep 30, 1982

People of the Philippines v. Marquez, et al.

AI Summary
Renato Marquez, Francisco Forneste and Samuel Jacobo were charged with robbery with multiple rape.
Marquez died during the trial and was dropped from the case.

“After five minutes, Jacobo took her upstairs and tied both her arms and made her lie face down on the floor
together with her children. ... Shortly thereafter, she heard Leticia shout: ' Nanay' while Rufina Martinez
screamed ' Nanang Kikay, Nanang Kikay. ' Afterwards, both Leticia and Rufina were taken upstairs by
Francisco Forneste, tied and also made to lie face down on the floor.”

[J42] G.R. NO. 182259

• Oct 12, 2009

Ignacio, et al. v. People of the Philippines

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over the settlement of an estate involving a 94,802-sq m land in Las Piñas City. ...
The court found that while the accused may be civilly liable for unduly receiving more than their fair share of
the estate, they were acquitted of criminal charges due to lack of evidence.

“But there is no evidence on record that Lorenzo alone owned the property subject of the settlement with
Ayala Land, which would warrant the equal distribution of the property to his heirs of either marriage. Of
course, since the children of the first marriage appear to have received larger shares than those of the
second marriage in the settlement, the implication is that the property was conjugal asset of the first marriage
and so the children of the latter marriage got the larger shares.”

[J43] G.R. NO. 162421

• Aug 31, 2007

Cabales, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
This is a legal case between the Cabales family and the Feliano family over a parcel of land in Southern Leyte.
... However, Nelson Cabales cannot redeem the property from the Feliano family as too much time has passed
since the sale.

“When Rufino Cabales died intestate, his wife Saturnina and his six (6) children, Bonifacio, Albino,
Francisco, Leonora, Alberto and petitioner Rito, survived and succeeded him. Article 996 of the New Civil
Code provides that "[i]f a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving
spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the children." Verily, the seven (7) heirs
inherited equally on subject property.”

[J44] G.R. NO. 127206

• Sep 12, 2003

Palma Gil, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over the sale of a parcel of land by Concepcion Palma Gil to Iluminada Pacetes. ...
Despite consigning part of the purchase price with the court, Iluminada Pacetes was not able to secure title
over the property until much later.

“…Absolute Sale executed in favor of Iluminada Pacetes, were transmitted to her sister, and her nephews and
nieces[29] by way of succession, a mode of acquiring the property, rights and… ... …that: That upon the
death of the late Concepcion Palma Gil, her heirs namely: A. Children of the deceased Pilar Palma Gil
Rodriguez; B. Children of the deceased Asuncion Palma…”
[J45] G.R. NO. L-10915
• Mar 30, 1960

Bacalzo, et al. v. Pacada

AI Summary
The Court ruled in favor of his children from his first marriage, declaring them as the legal and absolute
owners of the lot. The second wife of the deceased, Martina Pacada, was granted the right to the portion in
usufruct equal to the share of each of the three petitioners.

“…dies before the giving of the deed of the land, "shall descend and deed shall issue to the persons who
under the laws of the Philippine Islands would have taken… ... ) Applying the law, the deed of conveyance
and title to the controverted lot in the present case must be issued to and in the name of herein
petitioners, without prejudice to the right of the respondent to the portion in usufruct equal to that
corresponding by way of legitime to each if the three petitioners.”

[J46] G.R. NO. 51767

• Jun 29, 1982

Co v. Philippine National Bank

AI Summary
Leticia Co, assisted by her husband Mui Yuk Kong, filed a lawsuit against the Philippine National Bank
(PNB) to compel the bank to accept their redemption of a property. ... The court held that PNB's refusal was
unjust and ordered PNB to accept the redemption offer for the amount tendered by Leticia Co. The court also
ruled that PNB should pay interest on the redemption amount, compounded annually, and that Leticia Co
would have to pay the difference if the total amount paid, including interest, was less than P3,366,546.42.

[J47] G.R. NO. L-11976

• Aug 29, 1961

Collector of Internal Revenue v. Prieto, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves the estate and inheritance taxes of the estate of Doña Teresa Tuason y de la Paz.
The issue is whether there has been an overpayment in inheritance tax by respondents Antonio, Benito and
Mauro Prieto.

“…that, after the payment of the specific legacies therein provided for, the residue of her estate should be
divided in equal parts among 14 heirs, namely: (1) Antonio Prieto, (2)… In accordance with the project of
partition submitted in the probate proceedings and duly approved by the court, the total value of
the estate amounted to P3,513,073.63.”

[J48] G. R. NO. L-18838

• May 25, 1967

Pascual, et al. v. Meneses, et al.

AI Summary
This is a case involving a dispute over the ownership and partition of the estate of Celedonio Meneses and
Ana Asuncion. The descendants of the couple are in contention over the distribution of the properties and
fruits thereof.

“Then, too, proof of the partition and delivery of the share of one (1) child of said spouses, raises the
presumption that the other children must have, similarly, received their own shares. ... …of the immovable
properties therein described, and instituted as her universal heirs, to succeed, in equal shares, to said
properties, her children by two marriage (Anacleto, Cirila & Fernando Meneses…”
[J49] G.R. NO. L-8101
• May 18, 1956

Guzman v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
Mariano de Guzman filed a complaint against Florentina de Guzman, Domingo Sanchez, and Sergio de
Guzman for refusing to pay rent or vacate the land he purchased. ... The Supreme Court remanded the case for
further proceedings to include all parties in interest and treat the action as one for partition.

“It is noteworthy that although the action commenced in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan was one for
ejectment, the Court of Appeals, in view of the fact that both parties adduced evidence of ownership, held that
it is not barred from deciding the question of title and frBni converting the action into one of partition. ...
Doroteo sold his share to Mariano and hence he has become the owner of two shares, the share purchased
by him and the share which belongs to him as heir of Pablo.”

[J50] G.R. NO. L-22402

• Jun 30, 1969

Alviar v. Alviar, et al.

AI Summary
He claimed that they had misled him into signing the agreement and that they had no right to inherit from
Belen Alviar's estate. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the degree of relationship between
Clemente and Belen was the same as that of the half siblings, and that the extrajudicial partition was valid.

“The main issue raised by the parties in this case is whether or not, as a full brother of Belen Alviar, the
degree of relationship to her of the deceased Clemente Alviar was nearer than that of their half brothers and
sisters, the children of their father by second marriage, and he excluded them in the succession to
her estate. ... " ART. 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of the full blood, they shall
inherit in equal shares."”

[J51] G.R. NO. L-46439

• Apr 24, 1984

Moscoso v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
The petitioner applied for land registration of a residential lot, but the opposition from the
illegitimate children of the previous owner led to a ruling by the court to register the land in the name of the
petitioner and the opposition, based on evidence that supported the acknowledgment of the opposition as a
natural child of the previous owner. The Supreme Court modified the decision and adjudicated the land to the
petitioner and the opposition, in a co-ownership, based on their respective shares in accordance with the law.

“Since there are six (6) legitimate children including the petitioner Andrea M. Moscoso who had previously
acquired the shares of her five (5) co-heirs, and one (1) acknowledged natural child,… WHEREFORE, IN
VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED in the sense that the
adjudication of the land subject of the land registration proceedings shall be in the co-ownership of petitioner-
applicant Andrea M. Moscoso for 12/13 share and to oppositor private respondent Maximina L. Moron for
1/13 share.”

[J52] G.R. NO. 259061

• Aug 15, 2022

Bangug, et al. v. Dela Cruz

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over the right of possession of a parcel of land in Isabela. The petitioners, who are
co-owners of the land inherited from their grandmother, contest the claim of respondent George, who asserts
ownership based on a deed of reconveyance executed by his father, Severino.

“…Article 1078 of the Civil Code, "[w]here there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is,
before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject… Consequently, when Cayetana died in 1935,
the mothers of petitioners, Rufina and Juliana, who were Cayetana's children, became co-owners, with their
other siblings, of the land owned by Cayetana.”

[J53] G.R. NO. L-39975

• Jun 30, 1989

Madarcos, et al. v. De la Merced, et al.

AI Summary
Petitioners Francisca Madarcos and Telesforo Catain, as nephews and nieces of the deceased spouses Benito
Catain and Andrea Madarcos, are considered legal heirs under the Public Land Act. They demanded the
reconveyance of a portion of the land inherited from the spouses, which was sold to a third party.

“One lot, known as Lot B, Psd 37486, with an area of 12,746 square meters, was awarded to petitioner
Francisca Madarcos, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-202 issued in her name. ...
Respondent moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that petitioners had no legal capacity to
sue because they are not the legal heirs contemplated in Section 119 of the Public Land Act.”

[J54] G.R. NO. 230934

• Dec 02, 2020

Caburnay, et al. v. Sison, et al.

AI Summary
The document is a legal decision concerning the case of Heirs of the late Apolinario Caburnay vs. Heirs of
Teodulo Sison. ... The decision is based on the fact that the transaction between Teodulo and Apolinario was a
valid contract of sale and is recognized to the extent of Teodulo's share in the property.

“Upon Perpetua's death, her one-half pro indiviso conjugal share in the subject property was inherited by
her widower, Teodulo, and their seven legitimate children equally, with each legal heir entitled to 1/8 pro
indiviso share therein, or 1/16 undivided interest in the subject property. ... Petitioners therefore erred in
claiming that Teodulo was entitled to "the one[-]half (1/2) portion of the said property plus the one fifth
(1/5) share of the late Teodulo x x…”

[J55] G.R. NO. 156879

• Jan 20, 2004

Flora, et al. v. Prado, et al.

AI Summary
The court found that the property was conjugal, and that the original owner had the right to convey
her share to the petitioners, but the specific portion of the property to be conveyed needed to be determined
through a partition agreement. The court affirmed the sale only for the legitimate share of the original owner,
but remanded the case for the determination of the specific portion to be conveyed.

“By the law on intestate succession, his six children and Narcisa Prado inherited the same at one-
seventh (1/7) each pro indiviso.[26] Inasmuch as Narcisa inherited one-seventh (1/7) of her husband's
conjugal share in the said property and is the owner of one-half (1/2) thereof as her conjugal share, she
owns a total of 9/14 of the subject property.”
[J56] G.R. NO. 160918
• Apr 16, 2009

Alcantara, et al. v. Roble, et al.

AI Summary
This is a case involving a petition for review challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding the
partition of inherited parcels of land. The petition was ruled unmeritorious, and the decision of the Court of
Appeals was affirmed.

“Anent Parcel IV, it appears that there has already been a partition of said land among the children of
Margarita Patalinghug and by which Ceferino Booc got his share of 3,065 sq.m. This shall be the subject of
partition among Jesusa, Candelario, Gerva[s]io, Columba and Concepcion. If Ceferino Booc's share would
be divided among his five children, each child shall get 613 sq.m. However, as it appeared in the records,
only Gerva[s]io, Columba and Concepcion were able to partition the 3,065 sq.m. among themselves, as
evidenced by Exhibit "P" (p. 66, O.R.).”

[J57] G.R. NO. 2790

• May 05, 1906

Millan v. Millan , et al.

AI Summary
Ciriaca Millan, the legitimate aunt of the defendants, sued for her share of the rent received from a property in
Manila. ... The defendants' claim to the property in Tondo was dismissed as they had no legal right to it.

“The question relating to the Tondo property is not sufficiently elucidated in the decision by the trial judge,
who considered it very hard to hold that the children of a nephew who died before his uncle could not
participate in the estate of such uncle with the surviving nephews, but that such was the law. ... But the fact of
the matter is that although the children of a nephew who died before his uncle were never in possession of
the inheritance, nor had any legal…”

[J58] G.R. NO. 192085

• Feb 22, 2012

Sazon v. Vasquez-Menancio

AI Summary
Caridad Segarra Sazon and Leticia Vasquez-Menancio were involved in a legal dispute over the possession
and administration of several properties in Albay. ... The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, ordering
Sazon to turn over possession of some of the properties to Vasquez-Menancio, and remanding the case to the
RTC to determine the total income and expenses related to the properties.

“As regards parcels 5 and 6, the defendant averred that they were owned by her mother Ana Segarra because
she was the one who redeemed the properties. But the evidence extant in the records disclosed that the said
parcels of land were declared for taxation purposes in the name of plaintiff Leticia Vasquez-Menancio.”

[J59] G.R. NO. 3314

• Jan 03, 1907

Chingen v. Arguelles, et al.

AI Summary
Anselmo Chingen filed a complaint seeking one-half of the jewels and the rent from property left by his
deceased wife, but the court ruled in favor of the defendants. The court found that Chingen had already
received his share of the estate and that the property had been distributed and settled according to the
deceased's will.

“It is absurd and contrary to all justice that the plaintiff should receive his share as an heir under the will
from one-half of the estate and be further entitled to the usufruct of the other half to the prejudice of his
coheir and the various legatees under the will. ... In any event the portion of the estate subject to usufruct must
be claimed from the heir or heirs in due time, and in the manner and form prescribed by law.”

[J60] G.R. NO. 137152

• Jan 29, 2001

City of Mandaluyong v. Aguilar, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a petition for expropriation filed by the City of Mandaluyong to acquire two parcels of land
for socialized housing. ... The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling, stating that the property owners qualified as
"small property owners" under the law and that the City of Mandaluyong did not exhaust all other modes of
land acquisition before resorting to expropriation.

“It is noted that Virginia Aguilar, although granted 89 square meters only of the subject lots, is, at the same
time, the sole registered owner of TCT No. 59780, one of the three (3) titles initially sought to be expropriated
in the original complaint. ... In TCT No. 13853, Eusebio's title, however, appears the following annotation: ".
subject to x x, and to the prov. of Sec. 4 Rule 74 of the Rules of Court with respect to the inheritance left by the
deceased Eusebio N. Aguilar."[53]Eusebio died on March 23, 1995,[54] and, according to Antonio's
testimony, the former was survived by five (5) children.[55]”

[J61] G.R. NO. 1380

• Jan 18, 1904

Mijares v. Nery, et al.

AI Summary
This is a legal case involving the inheritance rights of the plaintiff, Consolacion Mijares, and the defendants,
the illegitimate daughters of her father. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that they have the
same rights as the plaintiff as acknowledged natural children under the Civil Code.

“…the five daughters of Mijares and Delfina Nery, the defendants in this case, have an equal right to that of
the plaintiff as to the succession of their father as… The ratification of the decision appealed from is proper
moreover inasmuch as the defendants have exhibited a will and codicil which is said to have been executed by
the late Mijares, and the judge made no finding as to the validity or invalidity of said documents for the
reasons stated in his decision.”

[J62] G.R. NO. 116110

• May 15, 1996

Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a petition for review by Baliwag Transit, Inc. of the Court of Appeals' decision awarding
damages to the spouses Antonio and Leticia Garcia for breach of contract of carriage. The incident occurred
when a bus driven by a Baliwag employee collided with a cargo truck owned by A & J Trading, causing
injuries to the Garcias and other passengers.

“Before the accident, Leticia was engaged in embroidery, earning P5,000.00 per month.
[21] ... Without doubt, Leticia and Allan experienced physical suffering, mental anguish and serious anxiety
by reason of the accident.”
[J63] G.R. NO. 149189
• Sep 03, 2008

Fideldia v. Mulato

AI Summary
This document is a case involving Leticia T. Fideldia, who filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the
Revised Rules of Court, challenging the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. ... The case stemmed from
an unlawful detainer complaint filed by Leticia against the spouses Raul and Eleonor Mulato.

“And thirdly, Leticia relies on alleged admissions made by the spouses Mulato that they were lessees
of Leticia and her mother, Petra. ... What the spouses Mulato admitted was that they were the lessees of
Petra, and not of Leticia herself; and that they paid rentals to Leticia only because she collected the same on
behalf of her mother.[29]”

[J64] G. R. NO. L-14676

• Jan 31, 1963

Villaluz, et al. v. Neme, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over the ownership and possession of a parcel of land that was part of an estate.
The plaintiffs, descendants of the deceased landowner, claimed that they were entitled to the land, while the
defendants, who acquired the land through a series of transactions, argued that they were the rightful owners.

“This section, however, refers only to the settlement and distribution of the estate of the deceased by the heirs
who make such partition among themselves in good faith, believing that they are the only heirs with the right
to succeed. ... Considering that Maria Rocabo died during the regime of the Spanish Civil Code,
the distribution of her properties should be governed by said Code, wherein it is provided that between co-
heirs, the act to demand the partition of the inheritance does not prescribe (Art. 1965 [Old Civil Code],
Baysa, et al. vs. Baysa, 53 Off.”

[J65] G.R. NO. 81909

• Sep 05, 1991

Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
This case involves a dispute over a parcel of land in Pasay City, which was mortgaged to Leticia C. Mendoza
by the son of the original owners. ... The son, Froilan Isorena, and his siblings then filed a complaint to annul
the mortgage and other related documents, which was denied by the trial court.

“However, Froilan, his wife, Carmencita Marquez and his mother (Pedro Isorena's wife), Matilde Echavarria
were made to execute a promissory note and a deed of real estate mortgage of the same property covered by
TCT No. 3229, in favor of Leticia C. Mendoza. Leticia C. Mendoza was then the common-law wife of Pedro
Isorena and was allegedly kept in the conjugal home by Pedro Isorena.”

[J66] G.R. NO. L-23025

• Jun 30, 1970

Agolto, et al. v. Diaz, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land in San Luis, Pampanga. The Court of
Appeals awarded ownership to the respondents, the Diaz family, based on a deed of partition and acquisitive
prescription.
“Both Vicenta and Lucia died without issue. ... Pilar Carlos (substituted in this case by her children, the
respondents Diaz) was Juan's daughter.”

[J67] G.R. NO. 157476

• Mar 16, 2011

Givero, et al. v. Givero, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a disputed portion of a property claimed by the petitioners, but denied by the respondents
who asserted ownership based on an oral partition made among the 11 children of the original property
owners. The lower court and the Court of Appeals both sided with the respondents, and the Supreme Court, in
its resolution, affirmed the decision, ruling in favor of the respondents and ordering the petitioners to vacate
the property and to pay damages.

“In the case at bar, it is clear from the testimonies of Maria and Luciano Givero, sister and brother,
respectively, of appellant Venancio Givero, that the properties were assigned to each of the 11 children even
prior to their father's death, with their parents pointing to them their respective shares. ... This was the reason
why Severina appeared to be the one who delivered and conveyed to the other children their shares to the
inheritance, which included the share of the youngest son, Rufino, which share was actually delivered to the
latter's heirs as he predeceased Severina.”

[J68] G.R. NO. 75238

• Sep 30, 1987

Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation v. Mendoza, et al.

AI Summary
This is a case involving a dispute between private respondents and a corporation regarding the payment of the
fair value of shares to the heirs of a deceased shareholder. ... The lower court's order was set aside, and the
restraining order was made permanent.

“"c) that after appraising the share of the deceased Bonifacio Abuyen, the same be divided into three
(3) equal parts for partition and distribution among the heirs of the deceased… " (p. 3, Rollo) The case was
assigned to Branch 135 of the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Metro Manila presided over by the Honorable
respondent Judge. On May 12, 1986, petitioner filed an "Answer with Counterclaim and Prayer for
Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative Defenses.”

[J69] G.R. NO. 5432

• Nov 20, 1909

Inocencio v. Gat-Pandan, et al.

AI Summary
Tomas Inocencio filed a petition for the registration of a parcel of land in Manila, claiming to be the absolute
owner. Miguel Gat-Pandan and his sister Quiteria objected, claiming they inherited the land from their
grandfather.

“The record in the case shows that the said Jose de los Santos left four children, three boys
and one girl, one of whom is Isaias de los Santos. ... (Art. 348, Civil Code.) Under section 19 of Act No. 496,
application for registration of title may be made, among others, by the following persons: "1. The person or
persons claiming, singly or collectively, to own the legal estate in fee simple."”

[J70] G.R. NO. 225022

• Feb 05, 2018
Villongco, et al. v. Yabut, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over the validity of an annual stockholders' meeting and the election of board
members and officers of Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation. ... The case also involved a dispute
over the distribution of shares of stock among the heirs of the deceased founder of the corporation.

“Christina Que Garcia- 2,950 shares; (f) Maria Luisa Que Camara- upon her death, her shares were divided
among her children: Eumir Que Camara- 10,936.67 shares; Pablo Que Camara- 10,936.67 shares; and
Abimar Que Camara- 10,936.66 shares. ... By virtue of the Sale of Shares of Stocks dated June 11, 2005
purportedly executed by Cecilia as the attorney-in-fact of Geronima, Cecilia allegedly effected an
inequitable distribution of the…”

[J71] G.R. NO. 194897

• Nov 13, 2023

Valiente, et al. v. Valiente, et al.

AI Summary
In the case [G.R. No. 194897, November 13, 2023], the substituted heirs of Jaime S.T. Valiente, represented
by Cyril A. Valiente, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari against Virginia A. Valiente and others,
challenging the Court of Appeals' decision that affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling on a complaint for
partition and damages. The dispute involved properties allegedly inherited from Cerilo and Soledad Valiente.

“2,272 sq.m. / 2 = 1.136 sq.m. – The equal share of each group of heirs. ... 1,735 sq.m. – area already sold
by defendants - 1,136 sq.m. – defendants' rightful share 599 sq.m. – plaintiffs' rightful share on the property
sold by the defendants.”

[J72] G.R. NO. 107109

• Feb 06, 1996

Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
Philippine National Bank (PNB) foreclosed a mortgage on one of the parcels after the owners, the Daa
spouses, defaulted on their loan. ... In conclusion, PNB was not granted the fair market value of the property
and the heirs of the original owners regained legal ownership of the land.

“Reynaldo Alonzo (heir of Liberato Alonzo) 1/6 of 1,173 square meters: 5. Nene Natolia, Lolita Natolia and
Reynaldo Natolia (heirs of Candelaria Alonzo Natolia) in equal shares of the 1/6 share of their mother
Candelaria Alonzo of 1,173 square meters.”

[J73] G.R. NO. 27531

• Dec 24, 1927

Ong Ham v. Saavedra, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves the probate and distribution of the estate of Victoriana Saavedra, who left a joint will with
her husband Macario Macrohon Ong Ham. The court ruled that Victoriana died partially intestate and
her estate should be divided among her heirs as specified in the law.

“As to the remaining sixteen parcels, the testatrix disposed of her part in them conditionally, that is to say, in
case her husband Macario Macrohon Ong Ham died before she did, said parcels were to be awarded to her
husband's nephews, or to either of them in case one should have died before the said Macario Macrohon
Ong Ham. ... We are of the opinion that this finding is in accordance with the law, since, under article 791 of
the Civil Code, conditions imposed upon heirs and legatees shall be governed by the rules established for
conditional obligations in all matters not provided for by this section (articles 790 to 805).”

[J74] G.R. NO. 5075

• Dec 01, 1909

Ramirez v. Bautista, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over two fish ponds left by Moises Ramirez, which were illegally sold by
the children of his first marriage. The court ruled that the sale was only void as to the portion belonging to the
surviving child of his second marriage, and the rest of the sale was valid.

“Therefore, in the succession of Moises Ramirez that is now opened the whole of these fractional parts can
not be included, but only the eight which actually constitute his share in the community of property
maintained by him with his children of the first marriage, Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia,
since the death of his first wife. ... …is certain that when two or more heirs appear at the opening of a
testamentary succession, or during the progress of the settlement of an intestate estate, and each turns…”

[J75] G.R. NO. 165546

• Feb 27, 2006

Social Security System v. Aguas, et al.

AI Summary
Rosanna filed a claim for benefits after her husband, Pablo, died. ... The Supreme Court, upon review, found
that only one of Rosanna's children, Jeylnn, was entitled to the benefits as she was deemed to be the
legitimate child of Pablo.

“She further averred that Pablo had no legal children with Rosanna, but that the latter had
several children with a certain Romeo dela Peña. ... She learned that the deceased had
no legal children with Rosanna; Jenelyn[7] and Jefren were Rosanna's children with one Romeo C. dela
Peña; and Rosanna left the deceased six years before his death and lived with Romeo while she was still
pregnant with Jenelyn, who was born on October 29, 1991.”

[J76] G.R. NO. 65889

• Jun 30, 1987

Duenas-Administratrix v. Mandi, et al.

AI Summary
Petra Duenas filed a Petition for Certiorari, seeking to declare a Writ of Execution null and void and to return
the intestate estate of her deceased parents to her administration. The case involves a dispute over the partition
of the estate among the heirs.

“…even an oral partition or designation of properties by the father in favor of five children, without the
participation of the four others. Under what legal authority Adriano Duenas has…”

[J77] G.R. NO. L-44664

• Jul 31, 1991

Mendoza I, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

AI Summary
The court upheld the validity of the sale based on a "Dokumento ng Bilihan" that partitioned the property and
adjudicated a portion to one of the petitioners. The court ruled that since the co-ownership was extinguished,
the petitioners could no longer exercise the right of legal redemption.

“"After examining the 'Dokumento ng Bilihan', evidencing the sale of the lot in question to the defendants, the
Court is convinced that there was such an agreement to partition the properties, including the one involved in
this case, left by the deceased Arcadio Mendoza. ... …paragraphs, which read as follows, clearly stated that it
was the agreement among the surviving children and wife of Arcadio Mendoza that Lot 3-A, which was the
other half of…”

[J78] G.R. NO. 164529

• Jun 19, 2007

Ocampo v. Vda. de Fernandez, et al.

AI Summary
Petitioner Felix claimed ownership, but the MeTC had ruled in favor of respondent Leticia in an unlawful
detainer case. ... The appellate court found that the preliminary injunction lacked legal basis and dissolved it.

“As early as the filing of their Answer with Counterclaim before the RTC in Civil Case No. Q-01-44582, the
respondents Alicia and Leticia made known their opposition to petitioner Felix's application for the issuance
of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. ... Viray, the counsel for the
respondents Alicia and Leticia, "to field a collaborating counsel in case he is unable to come; failure to do so
might mean that [the RTC]…”

[J79] G.R. NO. L-13489

• Jan 29, 1960

Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Gonzales

AI Summary
The Bank of the Philippine Islands, in its capacity as executor of the testate estate of Graciana de Jesus, filed
a case to annul a deed of donation inter vivos in favor of Jose J. Gonzales, which was objected to by Angustia
Jimenez, legatee of the property. ... The court allowed the Bank to claim expenses related to these cases as
administration expenses charged against the estate.

“…the performance of which his authority of course extends, to collect the assets of the estate for the benefit
of both the creditors and the next of kin or legatee… Since the two items in question were spent in connection
with the performance of the duty of appellant to gather all the assets of the estate in order that they may be
dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the will, they may be considered as administration expenses
that may be properly charged against the estate.”

[J80] G.R. NO. 141007

• Sep 13, 2005

Bautista, et al. v. Poblete, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over the ownership of Lot 1243, with private respondents claiming ownership
through a donation and subsequent possession, while petitioners, siblings of a different marriage, oppose the
claim. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the private respondents, finding that their possession of the land
was adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful, and in the concept of an owner.

“Petitioners, Marcelo Sr.'s children by his third marriage, opposed said application alleging that Lot 1243
had been acquired by the deceased Marcelo Reyes, Sr. by purchase from a certain Juan Aranda. ... He had
other children, who are the oppositors in this case.”
[J81] G. R. NO. 42092
• Oct 28, 1936

Camia de Reyes v. Reyes de Ilano

AI Summary
The case involves the appeal of Felisa Camia de Reyes against the rejection of her project of partition of
the estate of Andres Reyes. ... The court affirmed the resolution, with the modification that the estate should
reimburse the executrix in the amount of P690.57.

“…to the sum of P6 which the executrix paid for medicine used for her minor child, Bibiano Reyes, while it is
true that the sum of P25 a month, chargeable… ... Andres Reyes from April 30, 1932, to the month of October,
1933, or during one year and six months approximately.”

[J82] G.R. NO. L-9014

• Oct 31, 1956

Barcelona, et al. v. Barcelona, et al.

AI Summary
It was decided that Hilarion has a right to five-sixth of the property, while the remaining one-sixth belongs to
other heirs. Hilarion was ordered to pay the other heirs their share of the value of the property.

“…and Teodora, as heirs of the sister of the deceased Leoncia, have the right to one-third of the one-half of
the conjugal property which belonged to said deceased, or rather… From the year 1941, Hilarion has to
account for the products of the property and give to Quirico and Teodora their one-sixth share of the same.”

[J83] G.R. NO. 151334

• Feb 13, 2013

Figuracion, et al. v. Figuracion-Gerilla

AI Summary
The case involves a family dispute over the ownership and partition of several parcels of land in Urdaneta,
Pangasinan. The petitioners are the heirs of Leandro Figuracion, while the respondent is one of
Leandro's children.

“When Eulalio died on July 20, 1930, 1⁄4 portion of the lot was reserved for Faustina as her share in the
conjugal partnership.[60] The remaining 1⁄4 were transmitted equally to the widow Faustina and
Eulalio’s children, Carolina and Agripina.[61]”

Show less ▲