Donations Art 735-749, 752

C. The Compulsory Heirs

Art. 887,

Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:

(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;

(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to
their legitimate children and descendants;

(3) The widow or widower;

(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;

(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287.

Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1
and 2; neither do they exclude one another. (principle of concurrence)

In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.

The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned, shall inherit from
them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code. (807a)

Article 287. Illegitimate children other than natural in accordance with article 269 and other
than natural children by legal fiction are entitled to support and such successional rights as
are granted in this Code. (n)

Article 269. Only natural children can be legitimated. Children born outside wedlock of
parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any
impediment to marry each other, are natura

FC 164,

Art. 164. Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are
legitimate.

Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm
of the husband or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate children of the
husband and his wife, provided, that both of them authorized or ratified such
insemination in a written instrument executed and signed by them before the
birth of the child. The instrument shall be recorded in the civil registry together
with the birth certificate of the child. (55a, 258a)

FC 165,
Art. 165. Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless
otherwise provided in this Code. (n)

FC 54,
Art. 54. Children conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute
nullity of the marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be
considered legitimate. Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage
under Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.

Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the
requirements of the immediately preceding Article; otherwise, the subsequent
marriage shall be null and void.

Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the
partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of the
children’s presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriatee civil
registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect third
persons. (n)

Sec. 16-18 of RA 8552,

ARTICLE V
EFFECTS OF ADOPTION

Section 16. Parental Authority. – Except in cases where the biological parent is the spouse
of the adopter, all legal ties between the biological parent(s) and the adoptee shall be
severed and the same shall then be vested on the adopter(s).

Section 17. Legitimacy. – The adoptee shall be considered the legitimate son/daughter of

the adopter(s) for all intents and purposes and as such is entitled to all the rights and
obligations provided by law to legitimate sons/daughters born to them without discrimination
of any kind. To this end, the adoptee is entitled to love, guidance, and support in keeping
with the means of the family.

Section 18. Succession. – In legal and intestate succession, the adopter(s) and the
adoptee shall have reciprocal rights of succession without distinction from legitimate filiation.
However, if the adoptee and his/her biological parent(s) had left a will, the law on
testamentary succession shall govern.

FC 179,

Art. 179. Legitimated children shall enjoy the same rights as legitimate children. (272a)

1003-1014,

SUBSECTION 5. Collateral Relatives

Article 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. (946a)

Article 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of the full blood, they shall
inherit in equal shares. (947)

Article 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together with nephews and nieces, who
are the children of the descendant's brothers and sisters of the full blood, the former shall
inherit per capita, and the latter per stirpes. (948)
Article 1006. Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and
sisters of the half blood, the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter. (949)

Article 1007. In case brothers and sisters of the half blood, some on the father's and some
on the mother's side, are the only survivors, all shall inherit in equal shares without
distinction as to the origin of the property. (950)

Article 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per capita or
per stirpes, in accordance with the rules laid down for brothers and sisters of the full blood.
(915)

Article 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children of brothers or sisters,
the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate.

The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by reason of
relationship by the whole blood. (954a)

Article 1010. The right to inherit ab intestato shall not extend beyond the fifth degree of
relationship in the collateral line. (955a)

SUBSECTION 6. The State

Article 1011. In default of persons entitled to succeed in accordance with the provisions of
the preceding Sections, the State shall inherit the whole estate. (956a)

Article 1012. In order that the State may take possession of the property mentioned in the
preceding article, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court must be observed. (958a)

Article 1013. After the payment of debts and charges, the personal property shall be
assigned to the municipality or city where the deceased last resided in the Philippines, and
the real estate to the municipalities or cities, respectively, in which the same is situated.

If the deceased never resided in the Philippines, the whole estate shall be assigned to the
respective municipalities or cities where the same is located.

Such estate shall be for the benefit of public schools, and public charitable institutions and
centers, in such municipalities or cities. The court shall distribute the estate as the respective
needs of each beneficiary may warrant.

The court, at the instance of an interested party, or on its own motion, may order the
establishment of a permanent trust, so that only the income from the property shall be used.
(956a)

Article 1014. If a person legally entitled to the estate of the deceased appears and files a
claim thereto with the court within five years from the date the property was delivered to the
State, such person shall be entitled to the possession of the same, or if sold, the municipality
or city shall be accountable to him for such part of the proceeds as may not have been
lawfully spent. (n)

1015,

CHAPTER 4
Provisions Common to Testate and Intestate Successions

SECTION 1
Right of Accretion
Article 1015. Accretion is a right by virtue of which, when two or more persons are called to
the same inheritance, devise or legacy, the part assigned to the one who renounces or
cannot receive his share, or who died before the testator, is added or incorporated to that of
his co-heirs, co-devisees, or co-legatees. (n)

RA 9255
"Article 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental
authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code.
However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been
expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register,
or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the
father. Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to
prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of
one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child."
 
Nuguid v Nuguid, GR L-23445, June 23, 1966
Parents preterited
Wala anak decedent
Di nasama magulang sa will
nuguid v nuguid
f:
The deceased Rosario Nuguid left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. But she left
forced heirs in the direct ascending line — her parents, now oppositors Felix Nuguid and
Paz Salonga Nuguid. And, the will completely omits both of them: They thus received
nothing by the testament; tacitly, they were deprived of their legitime; neither were they
expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of preterition.

-Rosario single, without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate

- Surviving her were her legitimate parents felix and paz
-and 6 brothers and sisters namely
-sister filed probate of holo will
-parents opposed mentioning that that by the institution of petitioner Remedios Nuguid as
universal heir of the deceased, oppositors — who are compulsory heirs of the deceased in
the direct ascending line — were illegally preterited and that in consequence the
institution is void.

-Petitioner’s mainstay is that the present is "a case of ineffective disinheritance rather
than one of preterition." 15 From this, petitioner draws the conclusion that Article 854
"does not apply to the case at bar." This argument fails to appreciate the distinction
between preterition and disinheritance.

Preterition "consists in the omission in the testator’s will of the forced heirs or anyone of
them, either because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are
neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited." 16 Disinheritance, in turn, "is a
testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a
cause authorized by law."

The will here does not explicitly disinherit the testatrix’s parents, the forced heirs. It
simply omits their names altogether. Said will rather than be labeled ineffective
disinheritance is clearly one in which the said forced heirs suffer from preterition.

Petitioner insists that the compulsory heirs ineffectively disinherited are entitled to
receive their legitimes, but that the institution of heir "is not invalidated," although the
inheritance of the heir so instituted is reduced to the extent of said legitimes.
if this was applied it would render meaningless the provisions on preterition

               Lapuz Sy v Eufemio, GR  L-30977, January 31, 1972

http://hyperjetsetter.blogspot.com/2011/04/lapuz-sy-vs-eufemio.html

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1972/jan1972/gr_l_30977_1972.html

legal separation

Art. 106. The decree of legal separation shall have the following effects:

(1) The spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other, but the marriage bonds
shall not be severed; .

(2) The conjugal partnership of gains or the absolute conjugal community of property shall be
dissolved and liquidated, but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the
profits earned by the partnership or community, without prejudice to the provisions of article
176;

(3) The custody of the minor children shall be awarded to the innocent spouse, unless
otherwise directed by the court in the interest of said minors, for whom said court may
appoint a guardian;

(4) The offending spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse by
intestate succession. Moreover, provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the will
of the innocent one shall be revoked by operation of law.

. Being personal in character, it follows that the death of one party to the action causes the
death of the action itself —

the resulting changes in property relations between spouses shows that they are solely the
effect of the decree of legal separation; hence, they can not survive the death of the plaintiff
if it occurs prior to the decree.

Rosales v Rosales, GR L-40789, February 27,1987

X1/4 -------------- Y x
l
A1/4 B1/4 C x --- Cw
I
D1/4

Daughter-in-law a compulsory heir to her mother-in-law?

No

Cw  insisted in getting a share of the estate in her capacity as the surviving

spouse of the late  C
claiming that she is a compulsory heir of her mother-in-law together with her
son, D

I;
 is a widow (surviving spouse) an intestate heir of her mother-in-law? 

H;
-no
-There is no provision in the Civil Code which states that a widow (surviving
spouse) is an intestate heir of her mother-in-law. The entire Code is devoid of
any provision which entitles her to inherit from her mother-in-law either by her
own right or by the right of representation. The provisions of the Code which
relate to the order of intestate succession (Articles 978 to 1014) enumerate with
meticulous exactitude the intestate heirs of a decedent, with the State as the
final intestate heir. The conspicuous absence of a provision which makes a
daughter-in-law an intestate heir of the deceased all the more confirms Our
observation. If the legislature intended to make the surviving spouse an
intestate heir of the parent-in-law, it would have so provided in the Code. chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Petitioner argues that she is a compulsory heir in accordance with the provisions
of Article 887 of the Civil Code which provides that: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

The aforesaid provision of law 3 refers to the estate of the deceased spouse in
which case the surviving spouse (widow or widower) is a compulsory heir. It
does not apply to the estate of a parent-in-law.

Indeed, the surviving spouse is considered a third person as regards the estate
of the parent-in-law.

https://pdfcoffee.com/rosales-vs-rosales-pdf-free.html

Acain v IAC, GR L-72706, October 27, 1987

Acain v IAC, GR L-72706, October 27, 1987

http://legallyboo.blogspot.com/2014/04/acain-vs-iac.html

no preterition regarding widow because she’s not from the direct line
there is preterition regarding the adopted daughter(ampon same rights with natural
children hence considered from the direct line)

Solano v CA, GR L-41971, November 11, 1983

Solano vs. CA
G.R. No. l-41971, 29 November 1983

Facts:
Bienvenido and Emetria Garcia, claiming to be illegitimate children of Dr.
Meliton Solano, filed an action for recognition against him where the latter in his
Answer, denied paternity. During the pendency of the case, Solano died. Petitioner Zonia
Solano was ordered substituted for the decedent as the only surviving heir mentioned in
his Last Will and Testament probated on March 10, 1969, or prior to his death. Zonia
entered her formal appearance as a substitute defendant claiming additionally that she
was the sole heir of her father, Solano, and asking that she be allowed to assume her
duties as executrix of the probated will with the least interference from the Garcias.
The Garcias, private respondents herein, filed their Reply to Zonia’s Appearance
Supplemental Cause of Action impugning the recognition of Zonia as an acknowledged
natural child with the prayer that she be declared instead, like them, as an adulterous
child of the decedent.
The trial court also declared that the Garcias are the illegitimate children of Dr.
Solano.
Issue:
Whether or not the institution of Zonia as sole heir by Solano null and void as
there was preterition of the other heirs

Ruling:
Yes. The Garcias and Zonia were in the same category as illegitimate children;
that Zonia’s acknowledgment as a natural child in a notarial document executed by
Solano and Trinidad Tuagnon was erroneous because at the time of her birth in 1941,
Solano was still married to Lilly Gorand, his divorce having been obtained only in 1943,
and, therefore, did not have the legal capacity to contract marriage at the time of Zonia’s
conception. That being the compulsory heirs, the Garcias were in fact, preterited from
Solano’s Last Will and Testament; and that as a result of said preterition, the institution
of Zonia as sole heir by Solano is null and void under Article 854 of the Civil Code.
As provided in the provision, the disposition in the Will giving the usufruct in
favor of Trinidad Tuagnon over the five parcels of land is a legacy, recognized in Article
563 of the Civil Code, and it should be respected in so far as it is not inofficious.
Contrary to the conclusions of the court holding that the entire Will is void and
intestacy ensues, the preterition of the Garcias should annul the institution of Zonia as
heir only insofar as the legitime of the omitted heirs is impaired. The Will, therefore, is
valid subject to that limitation. It is plain that the intention of the testator was to favor
Zonia with certain portions of his property, which, under the law, he had a right to
dispose of by Will, so that the disposition in her favor should be upheld as to the one-half
portion of the property that the testator could freely dispose of. Since the legitime of the
illegitimate children consists of ½ of the hereditary estate, the Garcias and Zonia each
have a right to participate therein in the proportion of 1/3 each. Zonia’s hereditary share
will, therefore be ½ + 1/3 of ½ or 4/6 of the estate, while the Garcias will respectively be
entitled to 1/3 of ½ or 1/6 of the value of the estate. 237

SOLANO, a resident of Tabaco, Albay, married Pilar Riosa. The latter died. On a world tour
he met a French woman, Lilly Gorand, who became his second wife in 1928. The union was
short-lived as she left him in 1929. In the early part of 1930, SOLANO started having
amorous relations with Juana Garcia, out of which affair was born Bienvenido Garcia on
March 24, 1931 (Exhibits "A" & "3"); and on November 3, 1935, Emeteria Garcia was born
(Exhibits "B " & "2"). Their birth certificates and baptismal certificates mention only the
mother's name without the father's name. The facts establish, however, that SOLANO during
his lifetime recognized the GARCIAS as his children by acts of support and provisions for
their education.

In 1935, SOLANO started living with Trinidad Tuagnon. Three children were born out of this
relation but only petitioner ZONIA Ana Tuagnon, born on July 26, 1941, is living. In her Birth
Certificate, her status was listed as "illegitimate"; her mother as Trinidad Tuagnon; her father
as "P.N.C. " (Exhibit "V"), or "padre no conocido".

During the Japanese occupation, SOLANO obtained a divorce from Lilly Gorand on
November 29, 1943 (Exhibits "R-1" and "S-1"). On December 22, 1943, SOLANO and
Trinidad Tuagnon executed an "Escritura de Reconocimiento de Unit Hija Natural" (Exhibit
"Q"; "7"), acknowledging ZONIA as a "natural child" and giving her the right to use the name
ZONIA Ana Solano y Tuagnon. The document was registered with the Local Civil Registrar
on the same date.
On January 18, 1969, SOLANO executed his "Ultima Voluntad y Testamento" (Exhibit "11"),
instituting ZONIA as his universal heir to all his personal and real properties

The case of Nuguid vs. Nuguid, et al.,   reiterating the ruling in Neri, et al. vs. Akutin, et
14

al.,   which held that where the institution of a universal heir is null and void due to
15

pretention, the Will is a complete nullity and intestate succession ensues, is not applicable
herein because in the Nuguid case, only a one-sentence Will was involved with no other
provision except the institution of the sole and universal heir; there was no specification of
individual property; there were no specific legacies or bequests. It was upon that factual
setting that this Court declared: têñ.£îhqwâ£

The disputed order, we observe, declares the will in question 'a complete
nullity. Article 854 of the Civil Code in turn merely nullifies 'the institution of
heir'. Considering, however, that the will before us solely provides for the
institution of petitioner as universal heir, and nothing more, the result is the
same. The entire will is null." (at p. 459)

In contrast, in the case at bar, there is a specific bequest or legacy so that Article 854 of the
Civil Code, supra, applies merely annulling the "institution of heir". ????????

Castro v CA, GR 50974-75, May 31, 1989

Pedro
I I I
Juan Feliciana Eustaqio -1st wife marcelina(ded)
Eustaqiowidow–2nd wife pricola (kasal pa sa iba)
I
Benita

 Eustaquio Castro, who caused the registration of said birth gave the date indicated in the
civil registry that he was the father. Benita Castro was later baptized in the Roman Catholic
Church of Camiling, Tarlac, wherein the baptismal certificate appeared that her parents are
deceased Eustaquio Castro and Pricola Maregmen (Exhibit C). When Eustaquio Castro died,
pictures were taken wherein the immediate members of the family in mourning were present,
among whom was Benita Castro Naval (Exhibits D and D-1). On this score, the plaintiffs in
their complaint in Civil Case No. 3762 admitted that defendant Benita C. Naval is the forced
heir of Eustaquio Castro and a compulsory heir of Eustaquio Castro in Civil Case No. 3763.

-benita filed an action for partition

-j and f questioned Benita’s participation alleging that she was illegitimate child of eustaq
and was not recognized

The trial court ruled that respondent Benita Castro Naval is the acknowledged and
recognized child of Eustaquio Castro and is, therefore, entitled to participate in the partition
of the properties left by him. These properties are the subject of the civil cases. As stated
earlier, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.

The main issue raised in this petition is whether or not respondent Benita Castro Naval is the
acknowledged and recognized illegitimate child of Eustaquio Castro.

 The recognition of Benita Castro as a natural child of Eustaquio Castro appears in the
records of birth and partition. Recognition shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a
statement before a court of record, or any authentic writing (Art. 278, Civil Code). It was a
voluntary recognition already established which did not need any judicial pronouncement
Read full decision

                     Tayag v CA, GR 95229, June 9, 1992

-ocampo died leaving 2 legitimate and 1 illegitimate child chad represented by

her mother emily since he is still a minor
-emily filed a claim for inheritance on ocampo's estate alleging that chad is
ocampo's illegitmate child
-proof presented was letters sent by ocampo describing chad as his son and
emily as his wife
-it was opposed by the legitimate children of ocampo alleging that the action has
prescribed since
recognition of an illegitimate minor child does not take place in a record of birth or
in a wil ayusin mo na lang
I;
w/n prescribed
H;
-no. petitioner rely on:
-Under Article 175 of the Family Code, therefore, if the action is based on the
record of birth of the child, a final judgment, or an admission by the parent of the
child’s filiation in a public document or in a private handwritten signed instrument,
then the action may be brought during the lifetime of the child. However, if the
action is based on the open and continuous possession by the child of the status
of an illegitimate child, or on other evidence allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws, the view has been expressed that the action must be brought
during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
-however, in this case, the action was filed prior to the effectivity of the fam code
-governing rule then was art. 285 of CC:

"Art. 285. The action for the recognition of natural children may be brought only
during the lifetime of the presumed parents, except in the following cases:
(1) If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the
latter may file the action before the expiration of four years from the attainment of
his majority;"

-said provision was given retroactive effect by the court

Prejudice the right of chad

                     Republic v Manotoc, GR 171701, February 8, 2012

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_171701_2012.html
https://pdfcoffee.com/republic-v-marcos-manotoc-pdf-free.html
dulo

J.L.T. Agro v Balansag, GR 141882, March 11, 2005

http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/02/case-digest-j-l-t-agro-inc-v-balansag-2/

Neri,et al v Uy, GR 194366, October 10, 2012

https://chanrac08.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/neri-vs-heirs-of-hadji-yusop-uy-gr-no-194366-
10-october-2012/

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_194366_2012.html