1975-2004 Succession; acceptance, repudiation, collation 1977 No. XIII-a Distinguish acceptance and repudiation of inheritance from collation. Answer Acceptance is the act of an heir, legatee or devisee in manifesting his desire in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law to succeed to the inheritance, legacy or devise, while repudiation is the act of an heir, legatee or devisee in manifesting his desire in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law not to succeed to such inheritance, legacy or devise. Collation, on the other hand, refers to the act of restoring to the common mass of the hereditary estate, either actually or fictitiously, any property or right, which a compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, may have received by way of donation or any other gratuitous title from the decedent during the lifetime of the latter, but which is understood for legal purposes as an advance of his legitime. (NOTE: The above answer may be stated substantially). Succession; barrier between illegitimate and legitimate relatives 1984 No. 9 A had two sons, one legitimate (B) and the other illegitimate (C), who both died in a car accident. At the time of the accident, B was not married but had an illegitimate son, D. C also had an illegitimate son, E. Upon learning of the death of his sons, A suffered a heart attack and died. Can D and E inherit from A? Explain Answer: A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma, D, cannot inherit. The illegitimate child cannot inherit from the legitimate relatives of his father or mother, {Art. 992). E can inherit. The rights of illegitimate children are transmitted upon their death to their descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. (Art 990). Succession; barrier between illegitimate and legitimate relatives 1996 No. 11: Cristina. the illegitimate daughter of Jose and Maria, died Intestate, without any descendant or ascendant. Her valuable estate is being claimed by Ana, the legitimate daughter of Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate son of Maria. Is either, both, or neither of them entitled to inherit? Explain. Answer; Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of ab intestato from Cristina. Both are legitimate relatives of Cristina's illegitimate parents and therefore they fall under the prohibition prescribed by Art. 992, NCC (Manuel v. Ferrer, 242 SCRA 477; Diaz v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 427). Succession; barrier between illegitimate and legitimate relatives 1993 No. 2; A is the acknowledged natural child of B who died when A was already 22 years old. When B's full blood brother, C, died he (C) was survived by his widow and four children of his other brother. D. Claiming that he is entitled to inherit from his father's brother. C, A brought suit to obtain his share in the estate of C. Will his action prosper? Answer: No, the action of A will not prosper. On the premise that B, C and D are legitimate brothers, as an illegitimate child of B, A cannot inherit in intestacy from C who is a legitimate brother of B. Only the wife of C in her own right and the legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the children of D as C's legitimate nephews inheriting as collateral relatives) can inherit in intestacy. (Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975, Civil Code) Alternative Answer: The action of A will not prosper. Being an illegitimate, he is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting ab intestato from the legitimate relatives of his father. Succession; barrier between legitimate and illegitimate relatives 1983 No. 9 A, a spurious child, died intestate survived by B, the brother of his deceased mother, and C, his mother's legitimate granddaughter. May B and C inherit from A? Reasons. Answer B cannot because uncles have no right to inherit from their illegitimate nephews. C cannot succeed either because legitimate relatives have no right to inherit from an illegitimate child and vice versa. Succession; capacity to inherit; conditional devise 1980 No. VII (a) In his will, Reverend Father "R' devised a parcel of riceland in favor of "his nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood." The Will was duly probated. No nephew of the testator claimed the devise and the testate proceeding remained pending. In the interim, the riceland was to be administered by the Parish Priest of the locality pursuant to a project of partition approved by the Probate Court. Twenty- one years after the testator's death, the Parish Priest filed a petition before the Court for delivery of the rice land to the Church as trustee. The legal heirs of Father "R" objected and prayed instead that the bequest be declared inoperative and that they be adjudged entitled to the rice land. It also turned out that the testator had a grandnephew (a grandson of his first cousin) who was taking the holy orders in a Seminary. Would you construe the testamentary provision liberally so as to render the trust operative and to prevent intestacy, or would you declare the bequest inoperative and the legal heirs entitled to the riceland? Answer (a) It depends. If the Seminarian, who is presently studying for the priesthood, was born before the death of Father "R", it is