BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

Lower Court Ruling:

Teves de Jakosalem v. Rafols
The trial court ruled in favor of Nicolas Rafols for the one-half
G.R. No. L-48372 Date: July 24, 1942 portion of the land conveyed to him by Susana Melgar. It reasoned
that at the time of the initial sale to Pedro Cui, the land was in
Ponente: Moran, J. custodia legis—under judicial administration—and therefore,
Susana Melgar had no authority to sell it. The lower court
Facts:
concluded that Cui acquired no valid title, thereby recognizing the
Juan Melgar, the original owner of the disputed land, died, and his later conveyance to Rafols as valid.
estate entered judicial administration in 1915. On July 5, 1917,
Supreme Court Ruling:
during the pendency of the estate proceedings, his daughter
Susana Melgar sold the land to Pedro Cui under a pacto de retro The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling. It held that
sale, while remaining in possession as lessee. Later, on December even while an estate is under judicial administration, heirs may
12, 1920, the estate was partitioned, and the land in question was validly sell or assign their hereditary rights or shares, subject to the
formally adjudicated to Susana Melgar. In 1921, she transferred outcome of partition. Citing Article 440 and other civil law
one-half of the land to Nicolas Rafols in payment for professional doctrines, the Court emphasized that succession takes place from
services, and he took possession of that portion. Meanwhile, the moment of death (Article 777), and hereditary rights are
Pedro Cui filed suit in 1921 to recover the entire land. During the transmitted upon death (Article 774), forming a community of
litigation, on August 4, 1925, Cui donated the land to Generosa ownership among co-heirs. Thus, Susana had a transmissible
Teves de Jakosalem, the plaintiff in the case. The trial court ruled interest in the estate, which she validly sold to Cui in 1917. When
in favor of Rafols with respect to the half he received, and in favor the estate was partitioned in 1920, and the land was adjudicated
of Jakosalem as to the other half. Jakosalem appealed the ruling to Susana, it retroactively confirmed the full validity of her sale to
favorable to Rafols. Cui. Consequently, the later conveyance to Rafols in 1921 was null
and ineffective because Susana no longer had any transferable
Issue:
interest in the land. Moreover, Cui, through Susana's leasehold
Whether or not Susana Melgar could validly sell the land to Pedro possession, had prior possession, which, even under double sale
Cui during the pendency of the judicial administration of her rules, prevails over the subsequent transferee, Rafols. The Court
father’s estate, and whether this sale prevails over the subsequent ordered Rafols to return the land and pay damages amounting to
conveyance made to Nicolas Rafols. P90 annually from 1921 until restitution.

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 1
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

Ratio/Doctrine: already deceased. Conchita also alleged that she was deceived
into signing documents due to her frail condition. The mortgaged
An heir may validly sell or assign his undivided share in the property was foreclosed and sold to BSLA. The petitioners claimed
hereditary estate even during judicial administration, and such sale the documents and foreclosure were null and void, seeking
becomes fully effective once the property is adjudicated to the heir cancellation of the encumbrance, return of the title, and damages.
in partition. Succession is deemed to occur at the moment of
death, and the transmission of hereditary rights creates a Issue:
community of ownership among the heirs, allowing each heir to
dispose of their prospective share subject to final adjudication Whether or not Maria Lourdes Gloria-Payduan, as a compulsory
(Articles 774–782, Civil Code). heir of her deceased father Juan Gloria and alleged co-owner of
the property, had legal standing (real party in interest) to sue for
the annulment of the mortgage and promissory note executed
without her knowledge.
Payduan vs. Builders Savings and Loan Association, Inc.
Lower Court Ruling:
G.R. No. 202324 Date: June 4, 2018
Initially, the RTC dismissed the complaint. However, upon
Ponente: Del Castillo, J. reconsideration, the RTC reversed itself, finding that Conchita was
tricked into signing documents under false pretenses and that the
Facts: mortgage was simulated and void. The court ruled that BSLA was
negligent in approving the loan without proper verification,
Spouses Juan and Conchita Gloria were registered owners of a
particularly since one mortgagor (Juan) was already deceased. It
parcel of land in Kamuning, Quezon City. After Juan’s death in
declared the mortgage and promissory note null and void,
1987, their daughter, Maria Lourdes Gloria-Payduan, assisted
cancelled the annotations on the title, and awarded moral
Conchita in handling affairs relating to the property. In 1993,
damages and attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs. The RTC anchored
Conchita and Lourdes filed a complaint against Builders Savings
its ruling on Civil Code provisions, including Articles 1330, 2085,
and Loan Association, Inc. (BSLA) and Benildo Biag, claiming that
and relevant jurisprudence invalidating mortgages executed
Biag fraudulently obtained possession of their certificate of title
through fraud or without proper authority.​
under the pretense of reconstituting it, only to use it as collateral
​
for a loan from BSLA. The Real Estate Mortgage and Promissory
The CA reversed the RTC, holding that Maria Lourdes was not a
Note bore forged signatures, including that of Juan, who was

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 2
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

real party in interest since she had not been judicially declared an Ratio/Doctrine:
heir and failed to prove co-ownership over the property. The CA
also ruled that the verification and certification against forum An heir becomes a co-owner of the decedent’s property from the
shopping were defective, having been signed only by Lourdes and moment of death by operation of law (Article 777), and may bring
not by Conchita. Moreover, it held that Lourdes’ testimony actions to protect such interest even without judicial declaration of
regarding the fraud lacked personal knowledge and was heirship. In actions involving co-ownership, substantial compliance
inadmissible as hearsay, rendering the claim of simulation with procedural requirements (e.g., verification, forum shopping) is
unsubstantiated. sufficient if parties share a common interest. Furthermore, a real
estate mortgage executed through fraud or by someone who is not
Supreme Court Ruling: the owner is void, and no title or right is conveyed by a forged
instrument. Mortgagees have the duty to exercise due diligence in
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstating the RTC's verifying the authority and identity of mortgagors.
judgment. It held that under Article 777 of the Civil Code,
successional rights are transmitted from the moment of death,
making Lourdes a co-owner by virtue of being the daughter and
compulsory heir of Juan. The Court ruled that judicial declaration Salitico v. Heirs of Resurreccion Felix
of heirship is not a prerequisite for asserting rights over inherited
property, as affirmed in Capablanca v. Bas and Heirs of Ignacio G.R. No. 240199 Date: April 10, 2019
Conti v. CA. The Court also recognized substantial compliance
with procedural rules on verification and forum shopping, given the Ponente: Caguioa, J.
shared interest of the co-owners. As to the merits, the Court found
Facts:
that Biag indeed committed fraud, that Juan’s signature was
forged, and that the mortgage was void under Articles 1346 and Amanda H. Burgos was the registered owner of a parcel of land in
1409 (2). The Court emphasized that only the true owner may Bambang, Bulacan. Upon her death, her niece Resurreccion
mortgage property, and no valid mortgage can arise from fraud, Martinez-Felix inherited the property through a testamentary
simulation, or forgery. It concluded that BSLA, as mortgagee, was disposition in a document titled Huling Habilin dated May 7, 1986.
not a buyer in good faith due to its negligence and failure to This will was later probated and allowed by the RTC in 2008.
investigate the authenticity of the loan documents and the identity Resurreccion, in turn, sold the inherited land to spouses Isidro and
of the mortgagors. Conrada Salitico via a deed of absolute sale (Bilihang Tuluyan ng
Lupa) dated November 10, 1998, and the Saliticos immediately

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 3
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

took possession of the land. However, in 2010, the heirs of The Supreme Court partially reversed the lower courts. It affirmed
Resurreccion demanded that the Saliticos vacate the property. The that Resurreccion, as a devisee, validly acquired ownership over
Saliticos responded by filing a Complaint for Specific Performance the property upon Amanda’s death, in accordance with Article 777
to compel the delivery of the owner's duplicate of the title and the of the Civil Code, which states that succession is transmitted from
issuance of a new certificate in their name. The Register of Deeds the moment of death. The Court clarified that Resurreccion
refused to register the adverse claim, and litigation ensued. While acquired full rights of ownership over the specific property devised
both the RTC and the Court of Appeals acknowledged the validity to her and thus had the capacity to sell it to the Saliticos. The
of the sale, they dismissed the case, citing that there had been no Court emphasized that Article 777 does not require that the estate
final distribution of Amanda's estate as required in probate be fully settled before heirs may dispose of their respective shares
proceedings. or devisees transfer ownership of specific legacies. Hence, the
sale to the Saliticos was valid, and they were entitled to the
Issue: delivery of the owner’s duplicate copy of the title.

Whether or not the sale of the inherited property by Resurreccion

However, the Supreme Court held that the spouses could not yet
to the spouses Salitico gives rise to a cause of action to compel
compel the Register of Deeds to issue a new certificate of title in
the delivery of the owner’s duplicate title and the issuance of a
their name. Under Section 91 and 92 of Presidential Decree No.
new certificate of title, despite the pending final settlement of the
1529 and Rule 90, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the issuance of
estate of Amanda H. Burgos.
a new certificate of title requires either: (1) a final order of
distribution from the probate court or (2) an order in anticipation of
Lower Court Ruling:
final distribution. Since no such order existed, and no proof of
The RTC ruled that although Resurreccion had validly sold the payment of estate obligations (e.g., taxes, debts) was presented,
subject property to the spouses Salitico, the complaint was the transfer of title was legally premature. Thus, while the Saliticos
premature because the estate of Amanda had not yet been fully had a valid claim of ownership and the right to possess the
settled. Citing the need for a final order of distribution in the property, the procedural bar remained against titling it in their
probate proceedings, the RTC concluded that the Saliticos’ cause name.
of action had not yet accrued. Consequently, it dismissed the
complaint for lack of cause of action. Ratio/Doctrine:

Succession is transmitted by operation of law from the moment of

Supreme Court Ruling:
the decedent’s death (Article 777, Civil Code), and the heir or

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 4
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

devisee may validly sell their hereditary rights or devised property property. In response, the Saliticos filed a complaint for specific
even before final partition. However, the transfer of legal title performance, seeking delivery of the owner's duplicate certificate
through the issuance of a new certificate of title in favor of the of title and cancellation of the original title in Amanda's name in
transferee is subject to compliance with procedural requirements, favor of a new one under theirs. The Register of Deeds, however,
such as a final court order of distribution or proof of payment of refused to act due to the lack of final distribution of Amanda’s
estate obligations under PD 1529 and Rule 90 of the Rules of estate.
Court. The substantive right of ownership under succession and
the procedural right to title transfer must be distinguished and Issue:
harmonized.
Whether or not the sale of the devised property by Resurreccion to
Spouses Salitico entitles the latter to compel delivery of the
owner's duplicate title and issuance of a new title in their name
despite the pending final distribution of the estate of Amanda
Treyes v. Larlar
Burgos.
G.R. No. 232579 Date: September 8, 2020
Lower Court Ruling:
Ponente: Caguioa, J.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found that while Resurreccion
Facts: validly sold the land to the Saliticos, the complaint was premature
since Amanda’s estate had not yet been fully settled. The court
Amanda H. Burgos owned a 1,413-square-meter parcel of land in held that the rights of the Saliticos could not yet be enforced
Bambang, Bulacan. In her will (Huling Habilin) dated May 7, 1986, absent proof of final distribution of the estate through the probate
she bequeathed the property to her niece, Resurreccion court. Thus, the complaint was dismissed for lack of cause of
Martinez-Felix. After Amanda’s death, and even before the full action. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this ruling, citing Rule
judicial settlement of the estate, Resurreccion sold the land to 75, Section 1 and Rule 90, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which
Spouses Isidro and Conrada Salitico through a document titled require that no property subject to a will may pass to heirs or
Bilihang Tuluyan ng Lupa dated November 10, 1998. The spouses transferees until debts and other obligations of the estate are
took possession of the land, and probate proceedings followed, settled and final orders of distribution are issued.
during which the will was admitted by the RTC in 2008. Later, the
heirs of Resurreccion demanded that the spouses vacate the Supreme Court Ruling:

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 5
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

The Supreme Court partially reversed the CA and RTC. It ruled even before partition. However, under Sections 91 and 92 of PD
that under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the rights to inheritance 1529 and Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, issuance of a new
are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent, and certificate of title in the transferee's name requires a final order of
this includes ownership over devised property. Therefore, distribution or an order in anticipation of final distribution by the
Resurreccion, as devisee, acquired ownership over the property probate court. The heir’s right to sell is distinct from the procedural
upon Amanda’s death and had the right to dispose of it—even requirement of transferring registered title.
before final partition. Citing jurisprudence such as Teves de
Jakosalem v. Rafols, the Court reiterated that an heir may validly
sell his/her inheritance even while the estate remains under
judicial settlement, and such sale is effective subject to final Uson v. Del Rosario
adjudication. Accordingly, the sale in favor of the Saliticos was
valid, and they are entitled to delivery of the owner's duplicate of G.R. No. L-4963 Date: January 29, 1953
the title.
Ponente: Bautista Angelo, J.
However, the Court clarified that issuance of a new certificate of Facts:
title cannot proceed in the absence of (a) a final order of
distribution or (b) an order in anticipation of distribution from the Maria Uson, the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda, filed an action for
probate court, pursuant to Sections 91 and 92 of PD 1529 recovery of ownership and possession of five parcels of land in
(Property Registration Decree). These requirements ensure the Labrador, Pangasinan. Upon Faustino’s death in 1945, Maria Uson
rights of creditors and the government (e.g., estate taxes) are claimed that she became the sole heir to these lands. However,
satisfied before title transfer. Thus, while the Saliticos lawfully Maria del Rosario, the decedent’s common-law wife, took
acquired rights over the property, their request to cancel Amanda’s possession of the lands with her four illegitimate children,
title and register one in their names was premature and must await prompting the complaint. The defendants argued that in a 1931
the final settlement of the estate. public document, Maria Uson and Faustino agreed to separate,
and she was given a parcel of land in exchange for waiving her
Ratio/Doctrine: right to inherit his future properties. They also claimed that under
the new Civil Code (which took effect in 1950), illegitimate children
Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, ownership of hereditary
like those of Faustino were granted successional rights and that
property is transferred to heirs from the moment of the decedent's
these rights should apply retroactively.
death, allowing heirs or devisees to validly dispose of their share

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 6
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

Issue: consistent with Article 776, which defines inheritance as all the
property, rights, and obligations of a person not extinguished by
Whether or not Maria Uson retained her right to inherit the lands death. Furthermore, the alleged compassionate assignment by
left by her husband Faustino Nebreda despite an alleged waiver of Uson of the properties to the illegitimate children was deemed void
future inheritance and the subsequent recognition of illegitimate for failure to comply with the formal requirements of a valid
children’s inheritance rights under the new Civil Code. donation under Article 633 of the Old Civil Code (requiring a public
document and proper acceptance).
Lower Court Ruling:
Ratio/Doctrine:
The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan ruled in favor of Maria
Uson, holding that she, as the legal wife and sole heir, had vested Succession rights are transmitted from the moment of death of the
rights to the property from the moment of her husband’s death in decedent (Article 777, Civil Code), and such rights vest
1945. It found the defendants' reliance on the 1931 waiver invalid immediately in the heir. Any rights granted by subsequent laws,
and dismissed the argument that the new Civil Code could apply such as those recognizing the successional rights of illegitimate
retroactively to override her vested rights. The court ordered the children, cannot impair or prejudice rights already vested.
defendants to return ownership and possession of the lands to Moreover, future inheritance cannot be validly waived or
Maria Uson. contracted away, and donations of real property must comply with
legal formalities, or they are void.
Supreme Court Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, emphasizing

that successional rights are transmitted from the moment of the
decedent's death, as provided in Article 657 of the Old Civil Code, Borja v. Borja
which corresponds to Article 777 of the current Civil Code. Since
46 SCRA 577 Date: August 18, 1972
Faustino died in 1945—before the effectivity of the New Civil
Code—Maria Uson’s right to inherit became vested at that Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L.
moment. Thus, any rights granted to illegitimate children under the
new law could not impair her already acquired rights. The Court Facts:
also rejected the validity of the 1931 waiver because future
inheritance cannot be the object of a valid waiver or contract, in Francisco de Borja was married to Josefa Tangco, with whom he
line with Article 1311 and Article 1347 of the Civil Code, and had children, including Jose de Borja. Upon Josefa’s death in

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 7
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

1940, probate proceedings were initiated (Sp. Proc. No. R-7866), hereditary shares.
and Francisco was appointed executor. Later, Jose de Borja ​
became co-administrator and eventually sole administrator. In contrast, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija voided the
Francisco purportedly married Tasiana Ongsingco after Josefa's agreement, citing the lack of probate of Francisco’s will and
death. Upon Francisco’s death in 1954, Tasiana was appointed claiming that heirs could not settle hereditary rights while such
special administratrix of his estate (Sp. Proc. No. 832, CFI Nueva probate was pending. Additionally, in Civil Case No. 7452, the CFI
Ecija). Disputes arose between Tasiana and Jose (on behalf of of Rizal declared Hacienda de Jalajala to be Francisco’s exclusive
himself and his siblings), resulting in multiple lawsuits. To resolve property based on testimonies and documents allegedly showing
all claims, Jose and Tasiana executed a compromise agreement in separate acquisition.
1963 in which Tasiana agreed to receive Php 800,000 as full
settlement of any and all claims to the estates of both Francisco Supreme Court Ruling:
and Josefa. The agreement was submitted for court approval. The
The Supreme Court affirmed the approval of the compromise by
CFI of Rizal approved it, but the CFI of Nueva Ecija rejected it.
the CFI of Rizal and reversed the rulings of the CFI of Nueva
Separately, Tasiana filed a case asserting that Hacienda de
Ecija, declaring the agreement valid. It held that under Article 777
Jalajala (Poblacion), the main asset in dispute, was the exclusive
of the Civil Code, successional rights vest from the moment of
property of Francisco. The trial court ruled in her favor, declaring it
death, allowing heirs to dispose of their eventual hereditary
exclusive, not conjugal. Jose de Borja appealed.
shares, even if exact entitlements are not yet determined. The
Issue: Court emphasized that Tasiana, being a compulsory heir, had an
inheritable share independent of any will and could validly
Whether or not the compromise agreement entered into by Jose renounce or transfer her rights by contract. The agreement was
de Borja and Tasiana Ongsingco is valid and enforceable despite not a settlement of the estate per se, but a personal transaction
the pending probate of Francisco de Borja’s will and whether involving her potential share, which Article 1088 of the Civil Code
Hacienda de Jalajala (Poblacion) is exclusive or conjugal property. permits. Regarding Hacienda de Jalajala, the Court ruled that the
presumption of conjugal ownership under Article 160 was not
Lower Court Ruling: overcome, and that both Francisco and Tasiana had previously
admitted its conjugal nature in inventories and pleadings. Thus,
The Court of First Instance of Rizal approved the compromise
the property belonged to the conjugal partnership between
agreement, recognizing its intent to end longstanding disputes and
Francisco and Josefa Tangco.
its nature as a valid settlement between heirs over their respective

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 8
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

Ratio/Doctrine: represented by their father Ponciano Bonilla. The trial court,

however, dismissed the complaint outright, stating that a dead
An heir may validly renounce, alienate, or compromise his or her person has no legal personality to sue. Subsequent motions for
hereditary rights—even before judicial partition or the probate of a reconsideration and for substitution were denied, with the court
will—as long as the inheritance has vested by death under Article citing that minors cannot sue in court. The petitioners then brought
777 of the Civil Code. Such a compromise agreement does not the case before the Supreme Court.
require prior court approval to be binding between parties in their
personal capacities. Moreover, conjugal property is presumed Issue:
under Article 160 unless conclusively proven otherwise, and
consistent admissions by the decedent and his representative in Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint
inventories and court filings serve as strong evidence against solely on the ground that the original plaintiff had died, without
claims of exclusive ownership. allowing substitution by her heirs.

Lower Court Ruling:

The Court of First Instance of Abra dismissed the complaint,

Bonilla v. Barcena reasoning that Fortunata Barcena, being deceased at the time of
the amended complaint, was no longer a real party in interest and
71 SCRA 491 Date: June 18, 1976
had no legal personality to sue. The court also denied substitution
Ponente: Martin, J. by her minor children, stating that minors cannot sue in court and
disregarding the offer of counsel to appoint a guardian ad litem.
Facts: The court repeatedly denied motions for reconsideration and
requests for substitution, effectively terminating the case.
Fortunata Barcena filed a complaint on March 31, 1975, before the
Court of First Instance of Abra to quiet title over certain parcels of Supreme Court Ruling:
land. While the case was pending and after an amended complaint
was filed on July 17, 1975, Fortunata died on July 9, 1975. On The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s orders, holding that
August 4, 1975, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the dismissal was a grave error. The Court emphasized that since
the ground that the plaintiff was already deceased. During the Fortunata Barcena was alive when the original complaint was filed,
hearing, Fortunata’s counsel confirmed her death and moved for the court had validly acquired jurisdiction over her. Upon her
substitution by her minor children, Rosalio and Salvacion Bonilla, death, her rights were transmitted to her heirs by operation of

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 9
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

Article 777 of the Civil Code, which states that succession rights G.R. No. 82027 Date: March 29, 1990
are transmitted from the moment of death. These rights, being
patrimonial in nature, did not extinguish upon her death but Ponente: Sarmiento, J.
passed to her heirs, making them parties-in-interest. Furthermore,
Facts:
under Sections 16 and 17 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the
proper procedure upon the death of a party is substitution by legal This case arose from a dispute concerning whether funds in a joint
representatives or heirs, including the appointment of a guardian bank account between spouses Romarico G. Vitug and the late
ad litem for minors. The Court noted that the plaintiff’s counsel had Dolores Luchangco Vitug should be considered part of the
already suggested the appointment of the children’s uncle as decedent’s estate. Dolores died in New York in 1980, and her
guardian ad litem and complied with all procedural requirements. widower Romarico, as co-special administrator, sought to sell
The Court concluded that the right to quiet title involves property some estate assets to reimburse himself for Php 667,731.66,
and property rights, which survive the death of the plaintiff and which he claimed he had advanced to the estate using personal
therefore the case must continue through her heirs. funds. These funds allegedly came from their joint savings account
(No. 35342-038 at Bank of America), covered by a 1970
Ratio/Doctrine: survivorship agreement stating that upon the death of one party,
the funds would become the sole property of the surviving spouse.
Succession rights under Article 777 of the Civil Code vest
The executrix, Rowena Faustino-Corona, opposed the sale,
immediately upon the death of the decedent, and heirs acquire a
asserting that the funds were part of the conjugal estate and
legal interest in the decedent’s property without need of judicial
subject to probate. The probate court sided with Vitug, allowing
declaration. An action involving property rights, such as an action
reimbursement. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this,
to quiet title, survives the death of the plaintiff and may be
holding that the survivorship agreement was a mortis causa
prosecuted by the heirs through proper substitution under the
disposition that failed the formalities of a valid will.
Rules of Court. The trial court's refusal to allow substitution and
appointment of a guardian ad litem for minor heirs is a grave
Issue:
abuse of discretion.
Whether or not the survivorship agreement covering the joint bank
account between Romarico and Dolores Vitug constitutes a mortis
causa disposition and should thus be included in the estate of the
Vitug v. Court of Appeals deceased for probate.

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 10
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

Lower Court Ruling: Ratio/Doctrine:

The trial court upheld the survivorship agreement as valid, A survivorship agreement covering conjugal funds does not
interpreting it as a binding contract that vested exclusive constitute a disposition mortis causa if it is in the nature of an
ownership of the account to the surviving spouse upon the death aleatory contract, where the right of the survivor arises not from
of the other. Based on this, the court granted Vitug's motion to sell inheritance but from a contractual obligation taking effect upon the
part of the estate to reimburse his personal expenditures allegedly uncertain event of death. Such agreements are not governed by
made on behalf of the estate, ruling that the funds from the joint the law on succession (Articles 774–782) and are valid provided
account were his separate property due to the survivorship clause. they are not used to circumvent rules on legitimes or conjugal
property.
Supreme Court Ruling:

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated

the trial court’s ruling. It held that the survivorship agreement was
Felipe v. Heirs of Aldon
not a mortis causa disposition (i.e., a will) and thus need not
comply with testamentary formalities under Article 805. Instead, it 120 SCRA 628 Date: February 16, 1983
was an aleatory contract permitted under Article 2010 of the Civil
Code—where the transfer of property depended on the uncertain Ponente: Abad Santos, J.
event of death. The Court emphasized that the funds were
presumed conjugal in nature (under Article 160), and since the Facts:
spouses jointly agreed to place them in a survivorship account,
Maximo Aldon and Gimena Almosara, married in 1936, acquired
ownership vested in the surviving spouse upon the other’s death.
several parcels of land during their marriage, specifically between
The agreement did not modify the conjugal partnership nor
1948 and 1950. In 1951, Gimena, without Maximo's consent, sold
amount to a prohibited donation between spouses. As there was
Lots 1370, 1371, and 1415 to spouses Eduardo and Hermogena
no showing of fraud or intent to circumvent succession laws, the
Felipe. Maximo died in 1959. In 1976, Gimena and her children,
Court ruled that the survivorship agreement was valid, and the
Sofia and Salvador Aldon, sued the Felipes to recover the lots,
funds no longer formed part of the decedent’s estate, rendering
claiming the sale was actually an oral mortgage agreement. The
them outside the scope of Articles 774–782, which govern
Felipes asserted they lawfully purchased the properties. The trial
succession rights only over property left by the decedent.
court ruled in favor of the Felipes, but this was reversed by the
Court of Appeals, which held the sale invalid due to lack of

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 11
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

spousal consent, thus ordering the return of the lots to the Aldons. 782 and 978. The Court also ruled that the Felipes’ claim of
acquisitive prescription failed due to bad faith and that the
Issue: children’s 1976 action was timely filed, well within the 30-year
prescriptive period for immovable property under Article 1141.
Whether or not a sale of conjugal property made solely by the wife
without the husband’s consent is valid and binding against the Ratio/Doctrine:
heirs of the husband after his death.
A sale of conjugal property made without the consent of the other
Lower Court Ruling: spouse is a voidable contract, not void. Upon the death of one
spouse, the heirs may question such sale to protect their
The trial court upheld the Felipes' claim, ruling that they were
hereditary rights over the decedent’s share in the property under
lawful owners of the land as purchasers in good faith under a valid
Articles 774–782 of the Civil Code. The surviving spouse who
deed of sale executed by Gimena Almosara. It dismissed the
executed the defective sale cannot later seek its annulment. The
Aldons’ claim, awarded attorney’s fees to the Felipes, and held
heirs, having acquired definite succession rights upon the
that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the transaction was merely a
decedent’s death, may challenge transactions that impair those
mortgage.
rights within the prescriptive period.
Supreme Court Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling but

clarified the legal basis: the sale executed solely by Gimena was Union Bank v. Santibanez
not void but voidable for lack of required spousal consent under
Article 166 of the Civil Code. Gimena could not annul the contract 452 SCRA 228 Date: February 23, 2005
as she was the party responsible for the defect, and her right did
Ponente: Callejo, Sr., J.
not improve after Maximo’s death. However, their children, Sofia
and Salvador Aldon, acquired a definite right to question the sale Facts:
upon Maximo’s death, as they had an interest in his hereditary
share. Under Article 774, succession includes all rights and Efraim Santibañez contracted two loans in 1980 from First
obligations not extinguished by death. Since Maximo’s one-half Countryside Credit Corporation (FCCC) to finance the purchase of
share in the conjugal property devolved upon his heirs at death, agricultural tractors. These were supported by promissory notes
his children were entitled to two-thirds of that half under Articles executed by Efraim and his son Edmund. Efraim died in February

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 12
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

1981, leaving a holographic will. A probate case (Special bank. As such, UBP had no cause of action against Florence.
Proceedings No. 2706) was filed. Edmund and Florence
Santibañez, his children, executed a Joint Agreement on July 22, Supreme Court Ruling:
1981, partitioning the tractors between themselves and assuming
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. It
responsibility for the corresponding debts. FCCC later assigned its
emphasized that under Articles 774 to 782 of the Civil Code,
receivables to Union Savings and Mortgage Bank. Union Bank of
succession occurs only upon the death of a person, and the rights
the Philippines (UBP), claiming to be the successor-in-interest,
to inherit are transmitted at that moment. However, in cases of
demanded payment from Edmund and Florence. Due to lack of
testate succession, partition of the estate is valid only after probate
service on Edmund who was abroad, UBP sued only Florence in
of the will. The tractors were included in the will under the clause
RTC Makati. Florence argued that she was not a party to the loan
“all other properties,” so their extrajudicial division was premature
and that the joint agreement was void without probate court
and void. Since the partition never legally occurred, the heirs
approval. The RTC dismissed the complaint, holding that UBP’s
never formally acquired possession, and thus the assumption of
claim should have been presented in the probate case and that
liability stated in the joint agreement was ineffective. Moreover,
the joint agreement was invalid absent probate approval.
UBP failed to substantiate its claim as the legitimate successor to
Issue: Union Savings and Mortgage Bank, which was the actual assignee
from FCCC. There was also no evidence that Florence signed any
Whether or not respondent Florence Santibañez Ariola can be promissory notes or guaranty agreements. The petitioner’s claim,
held liable for the loan obligations of her deceased father based on being against a deceased debtor, should have been filed in
the joint agreement and whether such partition and assumption of probate court under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.
debts are valid even without probate court approval. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

Lower Court Ruling: Ratio/Doctrine:

The RTC dismissed UBP’s complaint, reasoning that the claim In testate succession, any partition among heirs before the
should have been filed in the probate proceedings since the probate of the will is void. The assumption of liabilities arising from
obligation originated from the deceased Efraim. It ruled that the such partition is likewise invalid. Money claims against a decedent
joint agreement between the heirs was an invalid partition due to must be filed in the probate proceedings, and the court has
the lack of probate court approval, and the bank also failed to jurisdiction over all properties of the deceased. Under Article 774
prove its legal personality as successor-in-interest of the assignee of the Civil Code, while succession takes effect upon death, rights

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 13
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

to the estate are not perfected until proper probate and partition Edgardo Cunanan as a qualified legatee, but the Court of Appeals
occur in accordance with law. reversed the ruling.

Issue:

Whether or not the testamentary devise to the “nearest male

Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria Tarlac v.
relative who would study for the priesthood” was valid and
Rigor
enforceable in favor of the parish priest of Victoria as trustee, in
G.R. No. L-22036 Date: April 30, 1979 the absence of a qualified legatee.

Ponente: Aquino, J. Lower Court Ruling:

Facts: The trial court initially declared the bequest inoperative due to the
absence of a qualified legatee. However, it reconsidered after
Father Pascual Rigor, a parish priest, died in 1935 leaving a will being informed of Edgardo Cunanan’s seminary studies and
that was probated the same year. He devised approximately 44 ordered the ricelands delivered to the parish priest of Victoria as
hectares of ricelands located in Guimba, Nueva Ecija to "his trustee. This prompted an appeal from the legal heirs.
nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood until
ordination." The will prohibited the sale of the lands and provided Supreme Court Ruling:
that the devisee would only enjoy and administer them upon
entering Sacred Theology studies, and lose the right if he The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the
abandoned his religious vocation or was excommunicated. In the lower court's reconsideration. The Court held that the testator’s
interim, or if no qualified legatee existed, the parish priest of intention must prevail, and a reasonable interpretation of the will
Victoria, Tarlac would administer the lands, accumulate income, indicated that the devise was intended only for the nearest male
celebrate 20 masses annually for the testator’s soul, and deposit relative living at the time of the testator’s death. Since none of
the remaining proceeds in the bank. The original probate court Father Rigor’s nephews studied for the priesthood or were
approved a project of partition in 1940 but did not resolve the seminarians in 1935, the condition was not fulfilled. The provision
validity of the devise. Years later, the parish priest of Victoria filed was thus inoperative. The Court emphasized that the term
a petition to enforce the devise, which the legal heirs contested on “nearest male relative” must be limited to those existing at the time
the ground that no male relative had entered the priesthood. The succession opened, in line with Article 1025 of the Civil Code.
probate court initially sided with the parish priest, identifying Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim that a public charitable

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 14
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

trust was created, ruling instead that the parish priest of Victoria single and allegedly left a will naming Mitra, Orlando Castro, and
was only a conditional trustee, whose function did not arise two others as heirs. The will designated Mary Ann Castro as
because the triggering conditions never occurred. Consequently, executor and enumerated properties worth over Php 1 million.
under Articles 956 and 960(2) (formerly 888 and 912(2) of the old Respondents Perpetua Sablan-Guevarra and Remegio Sablan,
Civil Code), the ricelands should revert to the estate and be claiming to be Legaspi’s legal heirs, opposed the petition, alleging
distributed to the testator’s legal heirs. non-compliance with formalities: the last page, containing the
acknowledgment, allegedly lacked signatures; the attestation
Ratio/Doctrine: clause failed to state the number of pages; and that the will was
executed under undue pressure. Mitra claimed to be Legaspi’s de
A conditional testamentary devise that fails due to non-fulfillment
facto adopted daughter.
of the condition (i.e., the existence of a qualified legatee at the
time of the testator's death) is inoperative and must revert to the Issue:
hereditary estate in the absence of substitution or right of
accretion, in accordance with Articles 774, 956, and 960(2) of the Whether or not the notarial will of Remedios Legaspi may be
Civil Code. The interpretation of testamentary intent must be allowed probate despite alleged defects in the attestation clause
guided by the principle that succession opens at the moment of and the absence of signatures on the last page.
death, and only heirs or devisees existing at that time can acquire
by succession, unless otherwise provided. Lower Court Ruling:

The Regional Trial Court granted the petition for probate, ruling
that the will was duly executed in accordance with law. It reasoned
that the last page—being merely a continuation of the
Mitra v. Sablan
acknowledgment—did not require signatures, and that the number
G.R. No. 213994 Date: April 18, 2018 of pages was stated in the acknowledgment. The claim of undue
influence was disregarded for lack of evidence. The RTC found
Ponente: Reyes, Jr., J. compliance with the requirements of Articles 804 and 805 of the
Civil Code.
Facts:
Supreme Court Ruling:
On June 26, 2006, Margie Santos Mitra filed a petition for the
probate of a notarial will executed by Remedios Legaspi, who died The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the RTC

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 15
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

ruling allowing the will’s probate. It held that the CA erred in relying G.R. No. L- 15737 Date: February 28, 1962
on a defective photocopy of the will submitted on appeal, which
excluded the left-margin signatures of the witnesses due to poor Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L.
photocopying. The original will, however, showed full compliance
Facts:
with Article 805, which requires the testator and instrumental
witnesses to sign the left margin of each page, except the last. On October 9, 1908, Don Nicolas Villaflor executed a holographic
The Court clarified that the last page was a continuation of the will in Spanish, instituting his wife, Doña Fausta Nepomuceno, and
acknowledgment, not part of the dispositive text, and thus did not his brother, Fausto Villaflor, as universal heirs in equal shares,
require signatures. As for the omission in the attestation clause excluding specific donations and legacies. In Clause 7 of the will,
regarding the number of pages, the Court ruled that Article 809 he bequeathed specific properties, jewelry, and furniture to his
permits substantial compliance, especially when the number of wife, stating that she shall enjoy their use and possession while
pages is stated elsewhere in the will, such as in the alive and unmarried. Clause 8 provided that if she remarried, the
acknowledgment. The acknowledgment clearly stated that the will legacies would revert to his grandniece, Leonor Villaflor. He also
was composed of four pages, satisfying the intent of Article 805 to included Clause 12, which provided that Clauses 6 and 7 would be
prevent falsification and protect testamentary integrity. Thus, there voided if he ever had a legitimate or legitimated child, which did
was substantial compliance with Articles 783–795, and no extrinsic not occur. Upon Don Nicolas' death in 1922, Doña Fausta filed for
evidence was necessary to cure the formal defect. probate in Zambales (Special Proceeding No. 203) and was
appointed administratrix. A project of partition was approved in
Ratio/Doctrine: 1924 with express reservation regarding Clause 8. Doña Fausta
held usufruct over the properties until her death in 1956 without
Substantial compliance with formalities in the execution of a
having remarried. Leonor then filed a case in 1958 seeking
notarial will is sufficient under Article 809 of the Civil Code. The
ownership of the legacies under Clause 8. The estate
requirement to state the number of pages in the attestation clause
administrator, Delfin Juico, opposed, asserting that full ownership
may be satisfied if the same is clearly indicated elsewhere in the
had vested in the widow because she never remarried.
will, and signatures on every page except the acknowledgment are
sufficient under Article 805.
Issue:

Whether or not plaintiff Leonor Villaflor Vda. de Villanueva, as

reversionary legatee under Clause 8 of the will, is entitled to the
Villaflor v. Juico ownership of the properties upon the death of Doña Fausta

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 16
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

Nepomuceno, despite the latter not remarrying. Ratio/Doctrine:

Lower Court Ruling: In testamentary succession, when a testator clearly limits a

devisee’s rights to use and possession while alive, such words
The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed Leonor's complaint, must be given their ordinary and grammatical meaning. The
ruling that since Doña Fausta never remarried, the condition for devisee receives only a usufruct, not full ownership, unless the
the reversionary legacy did not occur. The lower court interpreted testator expresses otherwise. The intention of the testator is the
the phrase "uso y posesion mientras viva y no se case en paramount law in will interpretation, and all provisions must be
segundas nupcias" to mean that the widow had full ownership so given effect, as mandated by Articles 790 and 791 of the Civil
long as she did not remarry, thus extinguishing any claim of the Code. A legacy conditioned upon both lifetime and civil status
grandniece. (non-remarriage) must be interpreted in a way that does not
render any phrase inoperative, and reversionary legatees may
Supreme Court Ruling: acquire rights upon death of the usufructuary even absent the
latter’s remarriage.
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that
the intention of the testator, clearly expressed in Clause 8, was to
grant only a usufruct or life interest to Doña Fausta over the
properties listed in Clause 7. The use of the phrase "uso y
posesion mientras viva" unequivocally limited the widow’s right to Uriarte v. CFI of Negros Occidental
enjoyment during her lifetime, and not ownership. The addition of
33 SCRA 252 Date: May 29, 1970
the phrase "y no se case en segundas nupcias" only imposed an
additional condition for forfeiture during her lifetime. The Court Ponente: Dizon, J.
emphasized that Article 790 and Article 791 of the Civil Code
require wills to be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to all Facts:
clauses and expressions. Thus, upon Doña Fausta’s
Vicente Uriarte, claiming to be the natural son and sole heir of the
death—regardless of remarriage—the legacies passed to the
deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite, filed Special Proceeding No. 6344
reversionary legatee, Leonor, as intended by the testator. The
before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Negros Occidental for
Court ruled that the estate of Doña Fausta is accountable for the
the settlement of the intestate estate of the decedent. At the time,
return or value of said properties to Leonor unless lost by
he had also initiated Civil Case No. 6142 for his compulsory
fortuitous event or transferred to innocent third parties.
acknowledgment as natural son. The Negros Court appointed the

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 17
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

Philippine National Bank as special administrator, though it never The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of both petitions. It
qualified. Later, Higinio Uriarte opposed the petition, asserting the affirmed that while both the Manila and Negros courts had
existence of a will executed in Spain and questioning Vicente’s concurrent jurisdiction over the estate of a non-resident alien
legal interest. Juan Uriarte Zamacona then filed a motion to decedent with properties in both places, the existence of a will
dismiss the Negros proceedings and, simultaneously, initiated shifted priority to testate proceedings. The Court emphasized that
Special Proceeding No. 51396 in the CFI of Manila for the probate under Articles 783–795 of the Civil Code, succession must follow
of the alleged will. The Negros Court dismissed the intestate case, the expressed will of the testator if a valid will exists. The Court
while the Manila Court admitted the will to probate and denied ruled that testate proceedings prevail over intestate ones, citing
Vicente’s motion to intervene. Vicente thereafter filed petitions for settled jurisprudence. Although the Manila Court may not have
certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme Court challenging been the proper venue, venue is a waivable procedural matter.
the actions of both trial courts. Vicente, having delayed objections and participated in the
proceedings, was barred by laches. The Court also found no merit
Issue: in the mandamus petition, declaring it moot, as forcing the Negros
Court to entertain an appeal would not change the outcome.
Whether or not the Courts of First Instance of Negros Occidental
Furthermore, it held that Vicente could still pursue his
and Manila erred in dismissing the earlier intestate proceeding and
acknowledgment case or intervene in the testate proceedings to
allowing the later testate proceeding to proceed despite issues of
establish heirship.
jurisdiction and venue, particularly in light of Articles 783–795 of
the Civil Code on testamentary succession. Ratio/Doctrine:

Lower Court Ruling: Testate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings
when a valid will is presented, even if an intestate case was filed
The Negros Court dismissed Special Proceeding No. 6344,
earlier. Venue, though important, is a waivable procedural matter,
reasoning that the decedent left a will, thereby negating the need
and jurisdiction over settlement of a decedent’s estate may be
for intestate proceedings. It further ruled that Vicente Uriarte had
validly exercised by any court with concurrent jurisdiction where
no legal interest as he had not yet been judicially acknowledged
the decedent left property. A person claiming to be an heir must
as the decedent’s natural son. The Manila Court denied Vicente’s
first establish legal standing through acknowledgment proceedings
motion to intervene and allowed probate proceedings to continue
before initiating or intervening in the settlement of the estate under
based on the will presented.
Articles 783–795 of the Civil Code.
Supreme Court Ruling:

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 18
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of applying

Bellis v. Bellis Texas law, the national law of the decedent, which does not
recognize the concept of legitimes or compulsory heirs. Relying on
20 SCRA 358 Date: June 6, 1967 Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, the court held that the
order and amount of succession, as well as the intrinsic validity of
Ponente: Bengzon, J.P., J.
testamentary provisions, are governed by the law of the
Facts: decedent’s nationality. As such, it approved the executor’s project
of partition, excluding the illegitimate children from the residual
Amos G. Bellis, an American citizen and resident of San Antonio, estate beyond their specific legacies.
Texas, executed a will in the Philippines in 1952. He had five
legitimate children with his first wife, Mary Mallen, three with his Supreme Court Ruling:
second wife, Violet Kennedy, and three illegitimate children,
The Supreme Court affirmed the probate court’s ruling,
including Maria Cristina and Miriam Palma Bellis. In his Philippine
emphasizing the application of Article 16, paragraph 2 and Article
will, Bellis bequeathed $240,000 to his first wife, Php 40,000 each
1039 of the Civil Code, which provide that the national law of the
to his three illegitimate children, and the remainder of his estate to
decedent governs succession in terms of order, amount, validity,
his seven legitimate children. Upon his death in 1958, the will was
and capacity. Since Bellis was a U.S. (Texas) citizen and Texas
probated in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The executor
law does not provide for compulsory heirs or legitimes, the
satisfied the bequests and filed a project of partition, which
oppositors’ claim under Philippine law was denied. The Court
excluded the illegitimate children from the residuary estate. Maria
rejected the application of Article 17, which relates to public policy,
Cristina and Miriam opposed, claiming entitlement to legitimes as
explaining that the policy on legitimes does not override the
compulsory heirs under Philippine law.
specific provisions of Article 16. The Court also dismissed the
Issue: argument that Bellis intended Philippine law to apply by executing
a will in the Philippines, citing precedent that a foreign national
Whether or not the Philippine law on legitimes should apply to the cannot voluntarily subject succession to Philippine law if his
estate of a foreign national whose will is probated in the national law governs under Article 16.
Philippines, thereby entitling the illegitimate children to their
legitimes. Ratio/Doctrine:

Lower Court Ruling: In testate and intestate succession, the national law of the

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 19
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams
 BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

San Beda University - College of Law | Academic Year 2025 - 2026

decedent governs the order of succession, the amount of

successional rights, the intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions, and the capacity to succeed, regardless of the
property’s location. Philippine laws on legitimes do not apply to
foreign nationals whose national law does not recognize forced
heirship. (Articles 783–795 interpreted in light of Article 16 and
Article 1039 of the Civil Code)

Important Note: “Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort Page 20
This was accomplished with the help of an LLM. Do NOT rely on this that might have saved the world.”​
alone and make sure to use it only as a supplement to the full text. — Jane Addams