PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Under the law, persons with legal capacity may own properties, acquire rights, and incur obligations. Succession is one mode of transferring ownership of properties, acquiring certain rights, and assuming specific obligations. It is a derivative mode since the transfer presupposes a previous owner as compared to original modes where the property subject of the acquisition has no previous owner such as occupation and intellectual creation. Because of succession, upon a person’s death, his heir becomes the owner of whatever property, rights, and obligations are left by the decedent either voluntarily (by will) or involuntarily (by operation of law). Other derivative modes of acquiring ownership include law, donation, tradition (delivery), and prescription. (Mison)

Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligation to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law. "Decedent” is the general term applied to the person whose property is transmitted through succession, whether or not he left a will. If he left a will, he is also called the testator. (Article 774-775) According to Mison, by the definition, the characteristics of succession are as follows: 1. It is a mode of acquiring ownership, one of those enumerated in Article 712 of the Civil Code; 2. It is a gratuitous transmission , sometimes referred to as a donation mortis causa; 3. It is a transmission of property, rights and obligations to another to the extent of the value of the inheritance ; 4. The transmission of property, rights, and obligations is by virtue of death ; and 5. The transmission occurs either by will or by operation of law .

Even at death, a person has the power to control the disposition of his property inasmuch as the power to dispose is an inherent attribute of ownership. Therefore, within the limits fixed by law, a person may distribute his property to anyone he wishes. Both testamentary and intestate succession find support in the theory of succession as an attribute of ownership since a testament is an instrument controlling the disposition of the estate while, in the absence of a testament, the law on intestate succession takes its place by calling on the heirs who would have received the estate had the decedent written a will. (Mison)

The making of a will must be free of any vice of consent. These vices of consent such as violence, intimidation, undue influence, mistake, and fraud are discussed under the law on contracts. An entire chapter in the law on succession deals with conditions and terms which were already introduced in the law on obligations. (Mison)

The concept of co-ownership is intertwined with the discussion of co-heirs especially with respect to the extent of their powers of administration and alienation. Further, in fideicommissary substitution and reserva troncal, the powers of a fiduciary heir and that of a reservista have been likened to that of a usufructuary. (Mison)

CASE DIGEST: [382 Phil. 538] THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 137287, February 15, 2000 ] REBECCA VIADO NON, JOSE A. NON AND DELIA VIADO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ALICIA N. VIADO, CHERRI VIADO AND FE FIDES VIADO, RESPONDENTS. VITUG, J.: FACTS: During their lifetime, the spouses Julian C. Viado and Virginia P. Viado owned several pieces of property, among them a house and lot located at La Loma, Quezon City. Virginia P. Viado died on 20 October 1982. Julian C. Viado died three years later. Surviving them were their children — Nilo Viado, Leah Viado Jacobs, and herein petitioner Rebecca Viado. Nilo Viado and Leah Viado Jacobs both died on 22 April 1987. Nilo Viado left behind as his own sole heirs herein respondents — his wife Alicia Viado and their two children Cherri Viado and Fe Fides Viado. Petitioners and respondents shared a common residence at the Isarog property. Soon, however, tension would appear to have escalated between petitioner Rebecca Viado and respondent

According to the Article 1231 of the Civil Code, the following are modes of extinguishing obligations: (1) By payment or performance; (2) By the loss of the thing due; (3) By the condonation or remission of the debt; (4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor; (5) By compensation; and (6) By novation . Obviously, one of the modes of extinguishment of obligations is novation. The next logical question then is: what is novation? Novation is defined as the extinguishment of an obligation by the substitution or change of the obligation by a subsequent one which terminates the first, either by changing the object or principal conditions, or by substituting the person of the debtor, or subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor. Article 1292 of the Civil Code on novation further provides: Article 1292. In order that an obligation may be exti

An heir loses his right to rescind if he alienates the property (despite being valued less than 25% of his legal share). Instead, the heir can demand for a cash indemnity against his co-heirs for the deficiency. (Mison)

CASE DIGEST:  [255 Phil. 341] EN BANC [ G.R. No. 83748, May 12, 1989 ] FLAVIO K. MACASAET & ASSOCIATES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: FACTS: Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) entered into a contract with petitioner for "Project Design and Management Services for the development of the proposed Zamboanga Golf and Country Club, Calarian, Zamboanga City." It was agreed that seven percent (7%) of the "total construction cost" would be paid to petitioner. During project progress, gradual payment based on completion percentage would be paid to petitioner; upon completion, any balance due to petitioner would be paid based on "final actual construction cost." Later, after completion, PTA paid more than 3 million pesos to Supra Construction Company because of escalation in the cost of materials. Petitioner discovered this and demanded payment of more than

In the case of Heirs of Ureta, Sr. v. Heirs of Ureta (G.R. No. 165748, September 14, 2011), the Heirs of Alfonso were of the position that the absence of the Heirs of Policronio in the partition or the lack of authority of their representative results, at the very least, in their preterition and not in the invalidity of the entire deed of partition. Assuming there was actual preterition, it did not render the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition voidable. Citing Article 1104 of the Civil Code, they aver that a partition made with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs shall not be rescinded, but the heirs shall be proportionately obliged to pay the share of the person omitted. Thus, the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition should not have been annulled by the CA. Instead, it should have ordered the share of the heirs omitted to be given to them. The Heirs of Alfonso also argued that all that remains to be adjudged is the right of the preterited heirs to represent their father, Policronio,

In case there is an allegation that not all the known heirs of the decedent participated in the extrajudicial partition, and one or some who participated and were made parties thereto were not actually heirs, proof of such allegation would not automatically warrant rescission of the deed of partition. Under Article 1104 of the Civil Code, "[a] partition made with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs shall not be rescinded, unless it be proved that there was bad faith or fraud on the part of the persons interested; but the latter shall be proportionately obliged to pay to the person omitted the share which belongs to him." If there is no evidence of bad faith or fraud, rescission would not prosper. (G.R. No. 128102, March 7, 2000) As to the party or parties to the deed who are allegedly not actually heirs, Article 1105 is in point; it provides: "A partition which includes a person believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with respect to s

A partition which includes a person believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with respect to such person. (Article 1105, Civil Code) In case a person is included in a partition under a mistaken belief that such person is an heir, the partition shall remain valid but void with respect to the provisions in favor of such person. (Mison)

Republic Act (RA) No. 11057, otherwise known as the “Personal Property Security Act (PPSA),” was signed into law on 17 August 2018. PPSA aims to promote economic activity by increasing access to least cost credit, particularly for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), by establishing a unified and modern legal framework for securing obligations with personal property. PPSA aims to strengthen the secured transactions legal framework in the Philippines, which shall provide for the creation, perfection, determination of priority, establishment of a centralized notice registry, and enforcement of security interests in personal property and for other purposes. This is the primary site for the public consultation on the drafting of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the PPSA.

CASE DIGEST:  130 Phil. 101 [ G.R. No. L-24434, January 17, 1968 ] HEIRS OF PEDRO REGANON, JOVENCIA REGANON, MENCIAS REGANON, JOSEFA REGANON, VIOLETA REGANON AND FLORA REGANON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. RUFINO IMPERIAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. BENGZON, J.P., J.: FACTS: The heirs of Pedro Reganon filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land against Rufino Imperial. After trial, the court awarded the subject property to the plaintiffs and sentenced defendant Rufino to pay damages in the amount of Php1,929.20. Subsequently, plaintiffs discovered that the residuary estate of one Eulogio Imperial was deposited with the Philippine National Bank, and one of the heirs of Eulogio, herein defendant Rufino’s share in said estate was in the amount of Php1,471.97. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for a writ of execution and of an order directing the manager of the Bank to hold the share of defendant Rufino in order that the same could be applied to

The executor or administrator shall have access to partnership books and property. The executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased partner shall at all times have access to, and may examine and take copies of, books and papers relating to the partnership business, and make examine and make invoices of the property belonging to such partnership; and the surviving partner or partners, on request, shall exhibit to him all such books, papers, and property in their hands or control. On the written application of such executor or administrator, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may order any such surviving partner or partners to freely permit the exercise of the rights, and to exhibit the books, papers, and property, as in this section provided, and may punish any partner failing to do so for contempt. An executor or administrator shall maintain in tenantable repair the houses and other structures and fences belonging to the estate, and deliver the same in such repair to

According to Rule 84 of the Rules of Court, the administrator is given several powers and duties including the power to possess and manage the properties of the estate. By virtue of Article 777, properties are transmitted from the decedent to his/her heirs by succession from the moment of death of the decedent. Inasmuch as the heir is an owner of such properties, s/he may exercise all rights of ownership to include the right to possess and manage the same. This apparent conflict is necessitated by the possibility that the estate may have to answer for some debts and obligations of the decedent. Thus, before the heir can actually possess the properties inherited, an administrator is appointed to manage, protect, and preserve the estate while he liquidates the estate for the protection of creditors . (Mison)

Death dissolves the conjugal partnership or absolute community. In the absence of any stipulation in any marriage settlement, one-half will go to the estate of the deceased while the other half goes to the surviving spouse. The half which goes to the surviving spouse is not transferred by succession. Such half represents the share of such surviving spouse in the property regime which was dissolved by death. Such spouse gets this share by virtue of being a co-owner or conjugal partner. However, the surviving spouse also gets a share in the other half that went to estate of the deceased spouse. The surviving spouse gets this share by virtue of being an heir under our compulsory system of succession. (Mison)

The Court has the power to authorize the administrator or executor to sell, mortgage, or encumber properties of the decedent in certain cases as provided under Section 7 of Rule 89 of the Rules of Court. However, such Rule cannot adversely affect the substantive rights of an heir to dispose of his/her hereditary rights that accrued from the moment of the death of the decedent. Section 7 is about "Regulation for granting authority to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber estate." The court having jurisdiction of the estate of the deceased may authorize the executor or administrator to sell personal estate , or to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber real estate , in cases provided by these rules and when it appears necessary or beneficial under the following regulations: The executor or administrator shall file a written petition setting forth the debts due from the deceased, the expenses of administration, the legacies, the value of the p

1. Where can we apply vanity plate? All motorists may apply for the vanity plates at the MID-Computer Section, LTO, East Avenue, Quezon City or at any LTO Regional (RO)/District Offices (DO) nationwide. 2. What documents do I need to secure a VLP for my motor vehicle? The following are the requirements for securing a VLP: Duly Accomplished Application form (Request for Vanity Plate) Photocopy of Certificate of Registration (CR) of motor vehicle Photocopy of the latest Official Receipt (OR) of Registration 3. What types of vanity plates are available and how much do they cost? There are two (2) categories namely; Premium Edition (Php 25,000.00) and Select Edition (10,000.00). For additional information please visit our website, http://www.lto.gov.ph 4. Can I give the vanity as gift? Yes, provided that the recipient of the gift is a registered owner of a motor vehicle. 5. How long does it take to secure my VLP? Assuming that all document

CASE DIGEST: 114 Phil. 443 [ G. R. No. L-15499, February 28, 1962 ] [With Resolutions of April 23, 1962] ANGELA M. BUTTE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MANUEL UY & SONS, INC., DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. REYES, J.B.L., J.: FACTS: During his lifetime, Jose Ramirez co-owned a property in Manila, with 5 other persons. In his last will and testament, Jose bequeathed his estate, which included his 1/6 undivided portion in the said property, to his children and grandchildren, and 1/3 of the free portion to Mrs. Angela Butte. Eight years after the death of Jose and while the estate proceedings were still pending, one of the co-owners sold her 1/6 share in the property to Manuel Uy & Sons. After being informed of said sale, Mrs. Butte, offered to redeem said 1/6 share sold to Manuel Uy and Sons and filed the corresponding legal action for legal redemption. ISSUE: Can Butte exercise the right of legal redemption despite the presence of the judicial

CASE DIGEST: [238 Phil. 259] SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 75884, September 24, 1987 ] JULITA GO ONG, FOR HERSELF AND AS JUDICIAL GUARDIAN OF STEVEN GO ONG, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION AND THE CITY SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENTS. PARAS, J.: FACTS: Two parcels of land (Lots 1 and 12) were in the name of “Alfredo Ong Bio Hong married to Julita Go Ong.” When Alfredo died, Julita was appointed Administratrix. Julita sold Lot 12 to Lim Che Boon and mortgaged Lot 1 to Allied Bank to secure a loan of P900,000. When the Bank tried to collect the unpaid amount of P828,000 on the loan, Julita filed a complaint alleging that the contract of mortgage she entered into with the Bank was a nullity because the necessary judicial approval was never obtained. Julita based her allegation on Sec. 7, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court whereby a judicial approval is mandatory before an administrator can validly enter into a mortgage over properties belonging to the est

Heirs acquire an interest in the undivided estate owned by the decedent from the moment of the death. By law, the rights to the succession of a deceased person are transmitted to his heirs from the moment of his death which includes all property, rights and obligations that survive the decedent. As a consequence, co-heirs become co-owners of all properties belonging to the decedent. Hence, any co-heir is entitled to exercise all rights of ownership regardless of the eventual size of the share of such co-heir. (Mison)

In several cases, the Supreme Court has declared that the provisions of the will of the decedent must be followed and respected. However, an heir can ultimately (although indirectly) vary the disposition of the testator by disposing his share in the estate even prior to actual distribution. He can convey his eventual share for a greater or lesser value or exchange it for a different property, e.g. cash for property. Any agreement that merely conveys an individual’s share in the estate is valid so long as such agreement was executed after the death of the decedent. Upon death, rights to the properties and rights to the estate are transferred to the heir. There is no legal bar for the heir to dispose of her hereditary share even if such disposition technically changes the distribution of the testator. (Mison)

The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. (Article 777, Civil Code) Since the hereditary share in decedent’s estate is transmitted or vested immediately from the moment of the death of such predecessor in interest, there is no legal bar for a successor to dispose of his hereditary share immediately after such death, even if the actual extent of such share is not determined until the subsequent liquidation of the estate. However, the effect of such alienation to the transferee is limited to what is ultimately adjudicated to the transferor heir. (Mison)

CASE DIGEST:[163 Phil. 516] FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. L-41715, June 18, 1976 ] ROSALIO BONILLA (A MINOR) SALVACION BONILLA (A MINOR) AND PONCIANO BONILLA (THEIR FATHER) WHO REPRESENTS THE MINORS, PETITIONERS, VS. LEON BARCENA, MAXIMA ARIAS BALLENA, ESPERANZA BARCENA, MANUEL BARCENA, AGUSTINA NERI, WIDOW OF JULIAN TAMAYO AND HON. LEOPOLDO GIRONELLA OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ABRA, RESPONDENTS. DECISION. MARTIN, J.: FACTS: On March 31, 1975, Fortunato Barcena, mother of minors Rosalio and Salvacion Bonilla and wife of Ponciano Bonilla instituted a civil action to quiet title over certain parcels of land located in Abra. Fortunata died on July 9, 1975. On August 4, 1975, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Fortunata was dead and therefore has no legal capacity to sue. When the motion was heard, counsel for plaintiff asked for the substitution by her minor child and her husband, but the court dismissed the case on the ground that a dead person cannot be a real

CASE DIGEST: 150-B Phil. 486 [ G.R. No. L-28040, August 18, 1972 ] TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSEFA TANGCO, JOSE DE BORJA, ADMINISTRATOR AND APPELLEE, JOSE DE BORJA, AS ADMINISTRATOR, CAYETANO DE BORJA, MATILDE DE BORJA AND CRISANTO DE BORJA (DECEASED) AS CHILDREN OF JOSEFA TANGCO, APPELLEES, VS. TASIANA VDA. DE DE BORJA, SPECIAL ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF FRANCISCO DE BORJA, APPELLANT. FACTS: Francisco de Borja, upon the death of his wife Josefa, fi led for the probate of her will. When the will was probated, Francisco was appointed as executor and administrator and herein appellee, Jose de Borja, their son was appointed as coadministrator. Subsequently, Francisco took upon himself, a second wife, Tasiana Ongsingco (Vda. De Borja). Even before the estate of Josefa was settled, Francisco died. Tasiana instituted testate proceedings wherein she was appointed special Administratrix. The relationship between the children of the fi rst marriage and t

The filiation and legitimacy of the descendant as well as of the ascendant in relation to the decedent affects the share of the heirs. As a basic proposition, an illegitimate child gets only half the share of a legitimate child. The classification whether a decedent is legitimate or illegitimate also affects the order of intestate succession. The Family Code, which amended most of the provisions of Book I of the Civil Code, also provides for a different order of intestate succession in the adopted line. There are many other provisions in the Family Code which involves principles of succession such as those regarding the nullity of marriage, annulment, and legal separation all of which require for the delivery of the presumptive legitime to compulsory heirs. Provisions regarding support come into play in the law on succession when a testator intends to disinherit any of his heirs. (Mison, 2010)

Under Philippine law, there are several modes of acquiring or transferring ownership; occupation, law, donation, tradicion (delivery), intellectual creation, prescription, and succession. Among the aforementioned modes of acquiring ownership, succession is unique since the transfer necessitates the fact of death. No property may be transferred to another by succession without the death of the transferor. As such, it is a derivative mode of acquiring ownership since the property transferred by the operation of succession presupposes a previous owner. (Mison, 2010)

According to Albano, Article 32 of the New Civil Code enumerates basic constitutional rights of citizens. Violation of these rights may give rise to criminal and civil liability. In fact, even if the act that violates any of them does not amount to a crime, person may still be held civilly liable. Such civil action shall be proved only by preponderance of evidence. As a rule, the responsibility under Article 32 of the Civil Code is not demandable from a judge. The basis of this is the principle of presumption of good faith in the performance of one’s duties and functions. (Albano) However, There are, however, exceptions are provided by the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), viz: Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor, and perpetual absolute disqualification. Art. 205. Judgment rendered through negligence. Any judge