1. Right of Representation: Arts. 970-974 the CIVIL CODE.

Even if her allegations were

Teotico vs Del Val GR No. L18753, March true, the law does not give her any right to
26, 1965 succeed the estate of the deceased sister of both
Jose and Francisca because being an illegitimate
FACTS: Maria Mortera died on July 1955 child she is prohibited by law from succeeding
leaving properties worth P600,000. She to the legitimate relatives of her natural father
executed a will written in Spanish, affixed her and that relationship established by adoption is
signature and acknowledged before Notary limited solely to the adopter and adopted and
Public by her and the witnesses. Among the does not extend to the relatives of the adopting
legacies made in the will was the P20,000 for parents except only as expressly provided by
Rene Teotico who was married to the testatrixs law. As a consequence, she is an heir of the
niece, Josefina Mortera. The usufruct of adopter but not of the relatives of the adopter.
Marias interest in the Calvo Building were left
to the said spouses and the ownership thereof Hence, defendant has no right to intervene
was left in equal parts to her grandchildren, the either as testamentary or as legal heir in the
legitimate children of said spouses. Josefina probate proceeding.
was likewise instituted, as sole and universal
heir to all the remainder of her properties not
2. Order of Intestate Succession Arts:
otherwise disposed by will. Vicente Teotico
975-979
filed a petition for the probate of the will but
was opposed by Ana del Val Chan, claiming Sayson Vs CA
that she was an adopted child of Francisca
(deceased sister of Maria) and an acknowledged FACTS: Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot five
natural child of Jose (deceased brother of children, namely, Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa,
Maria), that said will was not executed as Remedios and Teodoro. Eleno died on Nov. 10,
required by law and that Maria as physically 1952, and Rafaela on May 15, 1976. Teodoro,
and mentally incapable to execute the will at the who had married Isabel Bautista, died on Mar.
time of its execution and was executed under 23, 1972. His wife died nine years later, on Mar.
duress, threat, or influence of fear. 26, 1981. Their properties were left in the
possession of Delia, Edmundo and Doribel, all
ISSUE: WON defendant has right to intervene surnamed Sayson, who claim to be their
in this proceeding. children.On Apr. 25, 1983, Mauricio, Rosario,
Basilisa and Remedios, together with Juana
HELD: It is a well-settled rule that in order that (Isabels mother), filed a complaint for partition
a person may be allowed to intervene in a of the intestate estate of Teodoro and Isabel.
probate proceeding is that he must have an Delia, Edmundo (both legally adopted) and
interest in the estate, will or in the property to Doribel (the legitimate daughter), who alleged
be affected by either as executor or as a successional rights to the estate as the
claimant of the estate and be benefited by such decedents lawful descendants, resisted said
as an heir or one who has a claim against it as complaint and filed their own complaint for the
creditor. Under the terms of the will, defendant partition of the intestate estate of Eleno and
has no right to intervene because she has no Rafaela claiming that they are entitled to
such interest in the estate either as heir, executor inherit Teodoros share in his parents estate
or administrator because it did not appear by right of representation.
therein any provision designating her as heir/ The trial court declared them entitled to
legatee in any portion of the estate. She could inherit by right of representation.On appeal, the
have acquired such right if she was a legal heir CA modified the decision disqualifying Delia
of the deceased but she is not under and Edmundo from inheriting from the estate of
the deceased spouses Eleno and Rafaela. Hence, the time of his death, his nearest relatives were:
this petition. (1) his half brother, Luis R. Yangco, (2) his half
sister, Paz Yangco, the wife of Miguel Osorio,
ISSUE: Whether Delia, Edmundo and Doribel (3) Amelia Corpus, Jose A. V. Corpus and
are entitled to inherit their fathers share in the Ramon L. Corpus, the children of his half
estate of his (Teodoro) parents estate by right brother, Pablo Corpus and
of representation. (4) Juana (Juanita) Corpus, the daughter of his
half brother Jose Corpus. Juanita died in
HELD: YES as to Doribel but NO as to October, 1944. Teodoro R. Yangco was the son
Delia and Edmundo.There is no question that as of Luis Rafael Yangco and Ramona Arguelles,
the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and thus the widow of Tomas Corpus. Before her union
granddaughter of Eleno and Rafaela, Doribel with Luis Rafael Yangco, Ramona
has a right to represent her deceased father in had begotten five (5) children with
the distribution of the intestate estate of her Tomas Corpus, two (2) of whom were the
grandparents. Under Art. 981 (NCC), she is aforementioned Pablo Corpus and Jose Corpus.
entitled to the share her father would have On October 5, 1951, Tomas Corpus, as the sole
directly inherited had he survived, which shall heir of Juanita Corpus, filed an action in the
be equal to the shares of her grandparents other Court of First Instance of Manila to recover
children. the supposed share in Yangco intestate estate.
But a different conclusion must be He alleged in his complaint that
reached in the case of Delia and Edmundo, to the dispositions in Yangcos will imposing
whom the grandparents were total strangers. perpetual prohibitions upon alienation rendered
While it is true that the adopted child shall be it void and that the 1949 partition is invalid and,
deemed to be a legitimate child and have the therefore, the decedents estate should be
same right as the latter, those rights do not distributed according to the rules on intestacy.
include the right of representation. The
relationship created by the adoption is between ISSUE: Whether or not Tomas Corpus has a
only the adopting parents and the adopted child cause of action for recovery of the
and does not extend to the blood relatives of supposed hereditary share of his mother,
either party. Juanita Corpus, as legal heir in Yangcos estate.
In sum, we agree with the lower courts
RULING: It is disputably presumed that a man
that Delia and Edmundo as the adopted children
and a woman deporting themselves as husband
and Doribel as the legitimate daughter of
and wife have entered into a lawful contract of
Teodoro Sayson and Isabel Bautista, are their
marriage and that a child born in a lawful
exclusive heirs and are under no obligation to
wedlock, there being no divorce, absolute or
share the estate of their parents with the
from bed and board, is legitimate. Since
petitioners. The CA was correct however, in
Teodoro R. Yangco was an acknowledged
holding that only Doribel has the right of
natural child or was illegitimate and since
representation in the inheritance of her
Juanita Corpus was the legitimate child of
grandparents intestate estate, the other private
Jose Corpus, himself a legitimate child, the
respondents being only the adoptive children of
Supreme Court held
the deceased Teodoro.
that appellant Tomas Corpus has no cause of
action for the recovery of the
Illegitimate Children Arts. 98-994 supposed hereditary share of his mother,
3. Corpus vs. Administrator Juanita Corpus, as a legal heir, in Yangcos
estate.
FACTS: Teodoro R. Yangco died in Manila on
April 20, 1939. Yangco had no forced heirs. At
 4. Leonardo vs CA claim a share of the estate left by the
deceased Francisca Reyes considering that,
FACTS:Francisca Reyes died intestate on July as found again by the Court of Appeals, he
12, 1942 and was survived by two daughters, was born outside wedlock as shown by the
Maria and Silvestra Cailles and a grandson, fact that when he was born on September
Sotero Leonardo, the son of her daughter, 13, 1938, his alleged putative father and
Pascuala Cailles who predeceased her. Sotero mother were not yet married, and what is
Leonardo died in 1944, while Silvestra Cailles more, his alleged fathers first marriage was
died in 1949 without any issue. On October 29, still subsisting. At most, petitioner would be
1964, petitioner Cresenciano Leonardo, an illegitimate child who has no right
claiming to be the son of the late Sotero to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
Leonardo, filed a complaint for ownership of children and relatives of his father, like the
properties, sum of money and accounting in the deceased Francisca Reyes. (Article
Court of First Instance of Rizal seeking 992, Civil Code of the Philippines.)
judgment (1) to be declared one of the lawful
heirs of the deceased Francisca Reyes, entitled
to one-half share in the estate of said 5. Diaz v. IAC GR No. L-66574 (150
deceased jointly with defendant, private SCRA 645) June 17, 1987
respondent herein, Maria Cailles, (2) to have the Doctrine: Right of Representation is admitted
properties left by said Francisca Reyes, only within the legitimate family
described in the complaint, partitioned
Facts: Felisa is a niece of Simona who together
between him and defendant Maria Cailles, and
with Felisas mother Juliana were the only
(3) to have an accounting of all the income
legitimate children of spouses Felipe and
derived from said properties from the
Petronilla.Juliana married Simon and out of
time defendants took possession thereof until
their union were born Felisa and another child
said accounting shall have been made,
who died during infancy;.Simona is the widow
delivering to him his share therein with legal
of Pascual and mother of Pablo.Pablo was the
interest. Answering the complaint, private
only legitimate son of his parents Pascual and
respondent Maria Cailles asserted exclusive
Simona. Pascual died in 1970, Pablo in 1973
ownership over the subject properties
and Simona in 1976.Pablo at the time of his
and alleged that petitioner is an illegitimate
death was survived by his mother Simona and
child who cannot succeed by right of
six minor natural children: four minor children
representation. For his part, the other defendant,
with Anselma Diaz and two minor children with
private respondent JamesBracewell, claimed
Felixberta.
that said properties are now his by virtue of a
In 1976 , Judge Jose Raval declared
valid and legal deed of sale which Maria Cailles
Felisa as the sole legitimate heir of
had subsequently executed in his favor. These
Simona.Petitioners Anselma and Felixberta as
properties were allegedly mortgaged to
guardians of their minor children file for
respondent Rural Bank of Paranaque, Inc.
opposition and motion to exclude Felisa from
sometime in September 1963.
further taking part or intervening in the
settlement of the intestate estate of Simona.
ISSUE:Whether or not petitioner, as the
In 1980 ,Judge Bleza issued an order
great grandson of Francisca Reyes, has legal
excluding Felisa from further taking part or
right to inherit by representation.
intervening and declared her to be not an heir of
Simona.Felisas motion for recon was denied,
RULING:No. Even if it is true that
and she filed her appeal to the Intermediate
petitioner is the child of Sotero Leonardo,
still he cannot, by right of representation,
 Felipe Pamuti and Petronila Asuncion; that
Appellate Court declaring her as the sole heir of Juliana married Simon Jardin and out of
Simona. their union were born Felisa Pamuti and
another child who died during infancy; that
Issue: Who are the legal heirs of Simona, her Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero is the
niece Felisa or her grandchildren (the natural widow of Pascual Santero and the mother of
children of Pablo)? Pablo Santero; that Pablo Santero was the
only legitimate son of his parents Pascual
Ruling: Felisa. Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. de
The 6 minor children cannot represent Santero; that Pascual Santero died in 1970;
their father Pablo in the succession of the latter Pablo Santero in 1973 and Simona Santero
to the intestate estate of his legitimate mother in 1976; that Pablo Santero, at the time of
Simona because of the barrier provided for his death was survived by his mother
under Art. 992 of the Civil Code: Art 992. An Simona Santero and his six minor natural
illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab children to wit: four minor children with
intestato from the legitimate children and Anselma Diaz and two minor children with
relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such Felixberta Pacursa.
children or relatives inherit in the same manner
from the illegitimate child. Issue: who are the legal heirs of Simona
Pablo is a legitimate child. However, his Pamuti Vda. de Santero her niece Felisa
6 minor children are illegitimate. Art 992 Pamuti-Jardin or her grandchildren (the
provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it natural children of Pablo Santero)?
prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestate
between the illegitimate child and the legitimate Ruling: Petitioners claim that the
children and relatives of the father or mother of amendment of Articles 941 and 943 of the
said legitimate child. They may have a natural old Civil Code (Civil Code of Spain) by
tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law Articles 990 and 992 of the new Civil Code
for the purposes of Art. 992. (Civil Code of the Philippines) constitute a
substantial and not merely a formal change,
JBL Reyes reflections on this which also finds which grants illegitimate children certain
full support from other civilists:In the Spanish successional rights. A careful evaluation of
Civil Code of 1989, the right of representation the New Civil Code provisions, especially
was admitted only within the legitimate family. Articles 902, 982, 989, and 990, claimed by
An illegitimate child cannot inherit ab intestate petitioners to have conferred illegitimate
from the legitimate children and relatives of his children the right to represent their parents
father and mother.The Civil Code of the in the inheritance of their legitimate
Philippines adhered to this principle since it grandparents, would in point of fact reveal
reproduced Art 943 in its own Art 992, but with that such right to this time does not exist.
fine incon sistency in subsequent articles (990, Article 982 is inapplicable to instant case
995, 998) which allows the hereditary portion of because Article 992 prohibits absolutely a
the illegitimate child to pass to his own succession ab intestato between the
descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate. illegitimate child and the legitimate children
and relatives of the father or mother. It may
6. Diaz vs IAC (1990) 182 SCRA 427 not be amiss to state that Article 982 is the
general rule and Article 992 the exception.
Facts: Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of
Articles 902, 989, and 990 clearly speak of
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero who
successional rights of illegitimate children,
together with Felisa's mother Juliana were
which rights are transmitted to their
the only legitimate children of the spouses
descendants upon their death. The not commit any error in holding Felisa
descendants (of these illegitimate children) Pamuti Jardin to be the sole legitimate heir
who may inherit by virtue of the right of to the intestate estate of the late Simona
representation may be legitimate or Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
illegitimate. In whatever manner, one should The word "relatives" is a general term
not overlook the fact that the persons to be and when used in a statute it embraces not
represented are themselves illegitimate. only collateral relatives but also all the
Article 992 of the New Civil Code kindred of the person spoken of, unless the
provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it context indicates that it was used in a more
prohibits absolutely a succession ab restrictive or limited sense which as
intestato between the illegitimate child and already discussed earlier, is not so in the
the legitimate children and relatives of the case at bar.
father or mother of said illegitimate child. In the light of the foregoing, We
They may have a natural tie of blood, but conclude that until Article 992 is suppressed
this is not recognized by law for the purpose or at least amended to clarify the term
of Article 992. Between the legitimate "relatives" there is no other alternative but to
family and the illegitimate family there is apply the law literally. Thus, We hereby
presumed to be an intervening antagonism reiterate the decision of June 17, 1987 and
and incompatibility. The illegitimate child is declare Felisa Pamuti-Jardin to be the
disgracefully looked down upon by the sole heir to the intestate estate of Simona
legitimate family; and the family is in turn, Pamuti Vda. de Santero, to the exclusion
hated by the illegitimate child; the latter of petitioners.
considers the privileged condition of the
former, and the resources of which it is
thereby deprived; the former, in turn, sees in
the illegitimate child nothing but the product
of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish
broken in life; the law does no more than
recognize this truth, by avoiding further
ground of resentment.
It is therefore clear from Article 992 of
the New Civil Code that the phrase
"legitimate children and relatives of his
father or mother" includes Simona Pamuti
Vda. de Santero as the word "relative" is
broad enough to comprehend all the kindred
of the person spoken of. (Comment, p. 139
Rollo citing p. 2862 Bouvier's Law
Dictionary vol. 11, Third Revision, Eight
Edition) The record reveals that from the
commencement of this case the only parties
who claimed to be the legitimate heirs of the
late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero are
Felisa Pamuti Jardin and the six minor
natural or illegitimate children of Pablo
Santero. Since petitioners herein are barred
by the provisions of Article 992, the
respondent Intermediate Appellate Court did