1.

Order of Intestate Succession

When a person dies without issue, the law provides that siblings
and their descendants (nephews/nieces) inherit as collateral
relatives. The relevant Civil Code provisions are:

 Art. 1003: If there are no descendants, ascendants,

illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral
relatives succeed to the entire estate.
 Art. 1004-1008: Details the rules for distribution among
siblings and their descendants.
 Art. 975: When children of one or more brothers or sisters
of the deceased survive, they inherit by representation (per
stirpes) if they survive with uncles or aunts. If they alone
survive, they inherit in equal portions (per capita) Civil Code
(1949).

2. Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court has clarified these rules:

 Nephews and nieces inherit by representation (per stirpes)

only when concurring with surviving siblings of the decedent.
If only nephews and nieces survive, they inherit per capita,
i.e., in equal shares, regardless of which sibling they descend
from Abellana de Bacayo v. Ferraris de Borromeo
(1965); Papa v. Camacho (1986); Bicomong v. Almanza
(1977).

Step-by-Step Analysis

A. At Leticia’s Death: Who Are the Heirs?

 Lumen (sibling) was alive at Leticia’s death, even if only for a

few days.
 The 5 other siblings predeceased Leticia; their children (35)
are the nephews/nieces.
 Maan is Lumen’s only child.

Heirs at the time of Leticia’s death:

 Lumen (sibling)
 35 children of the 5 predeceased siblings (nephews/nieces)
 Maan is not an heir at this point; Lumen is.
B. If Lumen Survived Leticia (Even Briefly):

 Lumen inherits in her own right as a surviving sibling.

 The 35 nephews/nieces inherit by representation (per
stirpes) the shares of their respective deceased parents.

Distribution:

 The estate is divided into 6 shares (one for each sibling).

 Lumen gets 1/6.
 The 1/6 share of each predeceased sibling is divided among
their respective children (per stirpes).
 Maan gets nothing directly from Leticia; she may inherit from
Lumen if Lumen’s share passes to her by succession.

C. If All Siblings Predeceased Leticia:

 Only nephews and nieces survive.

 All 36 (Maan + 35) inherit in equal shares (per capita),
regardless of which sibling they descend from Civil Code
(1949); Abellana de Bacayo v. Ferraris de Borromeo
(1965); Papa v. Camacho (1986); Bicomong v. Almanza
(1977).

Direct Answers to Your Questions

1. How much should Maan get from Leticia’s estate?

 If Lumen survived Leticia:

o Maan gets nothing directly from Leticia. Lumen gets 1/6
of the estate. If Lumen dies after Leticia, her 1/6 share
passes to her own heirs (Maan) by a separate
succession.
 If all siblings predeceased Leticia:
o Maan gets 1/36 of the estate (₱3,400,000 ÷ 36 ≈
₱94,444.44).

2. Does Art. 975 mean all 36 nieces/nephews get equal

shares?

 No, not if a sibling survives. If only nephews/nieces

survive, then yes, all get equal shares (per capita) Civil
Code (1949); J1; J2; J3.

3. Per capita or per stirpes?

  If a sibling survives: Per stirpes (representation).
 If only nephews/nieces survive: Per capita (equal
shares).

4. Legal Basis/Jurisprudence

 Civil Code (1949), especially Arts. 975, 1003–1009.

 Abellana de Bacayo v. Ferraris de Borromeo (1965)
 Papa v. Camacho (1986)
 Bicomong v. Almanza (1977)

5. Distribution if all siblings predeceased Leticia

 All 36 nephews/nieces inherit equally (per capita).

Summary Table

MAAN’S DISTRIBUTION
SCENARIO LEGAL BASIS
SHARE RULE
Lumen None directly;
survived inherits via Per stirpes Civil Code, J1, J2
Leticia Lumen’s estate
All siblings
1/36 of estate Civil
predeceased Per capita
(≈₱94,444.44) Code, J1, J2, J3
Leticia

Key Citations

 “Nephews and nieces alone do not inherit by right of

representation (that is, per stirpes) unless concurring with
brothers or sisters of the deceased. If only nephews and
nieces survive, they inherit per capita, in equal shares,
regardless of the number of children each predeceased
brother or sister may have left.” Abellana de Bacayo v.
Ferraris de Borromeo (1965); Papa v. Camacho
(1986); Bicomong v. Almanza (1977).

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. 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.”

[J8] 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.”

[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. 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.

“Appellant, however, cautioned Leticia to first ask permission

from his wife Alicia Cabaluna, using as reason instead the
pretension that Leticia would go out on a date with her
boyfriend, since it was a Valentine’s Day (pp. 5, 20-21, Ibid.). ...
"On her way out of the house, Leticia saw appellant at an
adjacent ‘sari-sari’ store where he was boozing down on beer with
some companions (p. 5, 21, TSN, 27 Oct. 1992).”

[J13] 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…”

[J14] 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.”
[J15] 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.”

[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. 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.

[J18] 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.”

[J19] 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.”

[J20] 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)”

[J21] G.R. NO. L-49118

• Aug 30, 1988

People of the Philippines v. Capitin

AI Summary
Leticia Capitin, a 22-year old housemaid, was convicted of
parricide for smothering her two-month-old baby to death. ... The
court also highlighted the inadmissibility of her confession, as it
was taken without the presence of legal counsel and in a state
of emotional distress.

“…the motive, the trial court conjectured that Leticia's illicit

liaison with the father of her child led her to kill it and "thereby
hopefully salvage her honor."*** It is the… ... It should also be
added that, if we are to indulge in presumptions, what we should
presume is not that Leticia deliberately snuffed out her
daughter's life, which was an unnatural thing to do, but that as a
mother, like most mothers, she naturally loved the flesh of her
flesh.”

[J22] 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.”

[J23] 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.”

[J24] 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.”

[J25] 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.”

[J26] 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.”
[J27] 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.”

[J28] 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]”

[J29] G.R. NO. 119957

• Sep 23, 1996
People of the Philippines v. Bawar

AI Summary
In G.R. No. 119957, the accused-appellant, Rodolfo Bawar y
Labog, appealed the decision of the Regional Trial Court
convicting him of rape. The prosecution's version of the incident
was presented by the victim, Librada Opis-Montiano, while Bawar
presented a different version, claiming that the act was
consensual.

“When accused-appellant left, Leticia approached complainant,

and the latter tearfully told her, "Ate, bakit ako pa ang inagiahi in
Pareng Rudy, wala naman akong ipinakitang masama sa
kanya." Leticia did not answer but cried. Complainant then
told Leticia, "Ate, hindi ko kagustuhan yoon - Hindi ko
pinagtataksilan ang kapatid Mo".”

[J30] 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.”

[J31] G.R. NO. 180997

• Nov 17, 2010

Bolaños, et al. v. Bernarte, et al.

AI Summary
This is a case involving a disputed property in Albay, Philippines.
... The court ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the
property belongs to the 11 children of the deceased original
owner, Roman Zuñiga, Sr., and that the sale made by Cresencia
to the petitioners was valid only for her and her sister's share of
the property.

“The children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in

their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares. Thus,
the RTC correctly ruled that Lot No. 1-P rightfully belongs to the
11 children of Roman, seven (7) from his first marriage with
Flavia and four (4) from his second marriage with Ceferina,
in equal shares.”

[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. 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.”

[J34] 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.”

[J35] 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…”

[J36] G.R. NO. 141634

• Feb 05, 2001

Sandejas , et al. v. Lina

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over the sale of real property in
an estate subject to probate court approval. The Court of Appeals
ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the estate to sell 3/5 of
the disputed property to the respondent.

“Succession laws and jurisprudence require that when a

marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or the wife, the
decedent's entire estate - under the concept of conjugal
properties of gains -- must be divided equally, with one half
going to the surviving spouse and the other half to the heirs of
the deceased.[25] ... We assume, however, that this preliminary
determination of the decedent's estate has already been taken
into account by the parties, since the only issue raised in this
case is whether Eliodoro's share is 11/20 or 3/5 of the disputed
lots.”

[J37] 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.”

[J38] 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.”

[J39] 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.”

[J40] 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…”

[J41] 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.”

[J42] 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.”

[J43] 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.

“Leticia claimed that David agreed to and executed a Joint

Affidavit with Leticia in the presence of David’s father, Atty. …
proceeds from the sale of the Sampaloc property shall be paid to
and collected by Leticia; 2) that David shall return and pay
to Leticia P750,000.00, which is equivalent to…”

[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-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.”

[J46] G.R. NO. 231721-22

• Mar 18, 2021

Ulay v. Bustamante, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a petition for review of a decision by the Court
of Appeals regarding a dispute over a parcel of land among the
heirs of the original owners. ... The court also directed the
Registry of Deeds to annotate the names of the co-owners on the
title and ordered a widow to vacate the premises and pay her
proportionate share of registration fees and expenses.

“Upon Gregoria's passing, Lot No. 1089-F which she continued to

possess prior to her death was inherited by her eight children,
namely: Veneranda Concha (Veneranda), Dionisia Concha-
Ampong (Dionisia), Roger B. Concha[15] (Roger), Ernesto B.
Concha (Ernesto), Amelia Concha-Ginsola[16] (Amelia), Erlinda
Concha-Amoso[17] (Erlinda), Hilyn Concha-Monday (Hilyn) and
Estelita B. Concha (Estelita) (collectively, Gregoria Heirs).[18]
Meanwhile, Juana, then a widow, cohabitated with one Arturo
Remillano (Arturo).”

[J47] 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.”

[J48] 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.

[J49] 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.”

[J50] 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.”

[J51] 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.”

[J52] 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…”

[J53] 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."”

[J54] 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.”

[J55] 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…”

[J56] 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.”

[J57] 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]”

[J58] 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.”

[J59] 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.).”

[J60] 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…”

[J61] 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.”

[J62] 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.”

[J63] 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.”

[J64] 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.”

[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. 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…”

[J67] 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.”

[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. L-28248

• Mar 12, 1975

Perido, et al. v. Perido, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over the inheritance and partition of
properties among the children and grandchildren of Lucio Perido
from his two marriages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the Court of First Instance, which declared the
legitimacy of the children from the second marriage, and ruled
that the properties in question were the exclusive properties of
Lucio Perido or the conjugal property of Lucio Perido and his
second wife, Marcelina Baliguat.

“Perido, but because he is already dead with one child, the

same 1/8 goes to Juan A. Perido, of age, married to Salud
Salgado; 1/8 goes to Maria Perido, of… "The plaintiffs appealed to
the Court of Appeals, alleging that the trial court erred: (1) in
declaring that Eusebio Perido, Juan Perido, Maria Perido, Sofronia
Perido and Gonzalo Perido, were the legitimate children of Lucio
Perido and his second wife, Marcelina Baliguat; (2) in declaring
that Lucio Perido was the exclusive owner of Lots Nos.”

[J70] 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.”
[J71] 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]”

[J72] 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.”

[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. 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."”

[J75] 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.”

[J76] 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…”

[J77] 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…”

[J78] G.R. NO. 215820

• Mar 20, 2017
Delos Santos, et al. v. Abejon, et al.

AI Summary
The case involves a dispute over a loan and the sale of a piece of
property between Erlinda Delos Santos and her daughters, and
Alberto Abejon and the estate of Teresita Abejon. The Court ruled
that the Deed of Sale and the Release of Mortgage were null and
void and ordered the cancellation of a Transfer Certificate of Title
and the reinstatement of another.

“It must be pointed out that such loan was contracted by Erlinda,
who is only one (1) out of the four (4) herein petitioners, and her
deceased husband, Pedro, during the latter's lifetime and while
their marriage was still subsisting.[23] ... …conjugal partnership
be insufficient to cover the same, then Erlinda and Pedro (more
particularly, his estate as he is already deceased) shall be
solidarity liable for the unpaid balance with…”

[J79] 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.”

[J80] 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.
“(b) Respondent Leticia acquired the subject property from her
mother and co-respondent Alicia in good faith and for value, three
years after the latter bought the subject property from Iluminada;
… ... …the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ
of preliminary injunction, respondents Alicia and Leticia opposed
the same arguing that the MeTC, in Civil Case No. 22375, already
settled…”

[J81] 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 ▲