A MONOGRAPH ON FORCED SUCCESSION
ETYMOLOGY/ DEFINITION OF FORCED SUCCESSION
Forced Succession is a legal concept for which a person is not free to dictate who will inherit his estate. Instead, forced heirship/ forced succession laws require a deceased person's estate to pass to one or more blood relatives (usually children and grandchildren) and/or a surviving spouse, who are referred to as the "protected heirs." Filipinos generally adapt the English custom of ultimogeniture by which the youngest son succeeds the family home. But the Philippine law respects the legitime of the compulsory heirs for the sake of family solidarity and to protect them from the unjustified anger or thoughtlessness of the testator. Article 886 of the New Civil Code defines LEGITIME as part of the testator’s property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for compulsory heirs. Thus, the dispositions that deprive a compulsory heir of his legitime cannot be given effect albeit a WILL was validly executed by the testator.
WHO ARE CONSIDERED FORCED HEIRS/ COMPULSORY HEIRS? The A. B.
“compulsory Primary
Secondary
C. Concurring
-
legitimate
heirs” legitimate parents
are children
and/or
classified and/or
ascendants;
- surviving spouse; illegitimate
children
as: descendants
illegitimate and/or
parents
descendants
In the Vizconde vs. CA, the Court held that petitioner, a son-in-law of decedent, is not one of the latter’s compulsory heirs. What are contemplated as compulsory heirs are the legitimate children of the decedent and their descendant. In default thereof, the
legitimate parents and their ascendant and the spouse. A son- in- law is not within the purview of compulsory heirs. The forced heir enjoys not only the right over his/ her inheritance. He/ She also has the right to institute actions in order to protect such right. In the case of Concepcion vs. Sta. Ana, the Court held that a forced heir has the right to institute an action of rescission because the right to the legitime is similar to a credit of a creditor. As Manresa correctly states in commenting on article 1291 of the Civil Code: "The rights of a forced heir to the legitime are undoubtedly similar to a credit of a creditor in so far as the rights to the legitime may be defeated by fraudulent contracts, and are superior to the will of those bound to respect them. In its judgment of October 28, 1897, the Supreme Court of Spain held that the forced heirs instituted as such by their father to the latter's testament have the undeniable right to institute an action to annul contracts entered into by the father to their prejudice. As it is seen the action is called action of nullity, but it is rather an action of rescission taking into account the purpose for which it is instituted and the confusion of ideas that has prevailed in this matter. However, as the plaintiff in the present case, not being a forced heir of the late Perpetua Concepcion, cannot institute an action to annul under article 1300 or to rescind under article 1291 (3) of the Civil Code the contract under consideration entered into by the deceased with the defendant. Depending on the surviving heirs called to the succession, the law reserves at least one half of the deceased’s hereditary estate for distribution to the heirs. The hereditary estate is the difference between the assets and the liabilities of the deceased. If a property is conjugally-owned by spouses, or co-owned by several parties, then only that portion of the property belonging to the deceased forms part of the hereditary estate. As can be seen from the enumeration of compulsory heirs, legitimate parents or ascendants are compulsory heirs of the legitimate children and descendants only if such legitimate children and descendants have no legitimate children and descendants of their
own.
LEGITIME
OF
COMPULSORY
HEIRS IN
LEGTIMES
AND
INTESTACY Survivors
Legitimes
ALL FORCED HEIRS Legitimate parents/ascendants Legitimate children/descendants Spouse
First, their legitimes will be satisfied, then participate in the free 1/2 Equal to legitime of portion in the same free a legitimate child portion as their 1/2 of legitime of legitimes. legitimate child
Illegitimate child ALL FORCED HEIRS, EXCEPT LEGITIMATE CHILDREN AND/OR DESCENDANTS: Legitimate parents or ascendants Spouse Illegitimate children
Intestacy
1/2 1/8 1/4
1/2 1/4 1/4
LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS AND SPOUSE: Legitimate ascendants Spouse
1/2 1/4
1/2 1/2
SPOUSE AND ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN: Spouse Illegitimate children
1/3 1/3
1/2 1/2
SPOUSE ONLY
1/2
1/2
SPOUSE, BROTHERS AND SISTERS: Spouse 1/2 Brothers and sisters -
1/2 1/2
BROTHERS AND SISTERS
-
All
COLLATERAL RELATIVES WITHIN THE FIFTH CIVIL DEGREE
All
STATE
All
-
BASIC RULES TO FOLLOW IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LEGITIMES 1. Legitimate children share equally in their legitime of 1/2 of the hereditary estate. When the spouse survives with one legitimate child only, the legitime of the spouse is 1/4 of the hereditary estate. If there are several legitimate children, the legitime of the spouse is equal to the legitime of a legitimate child. When the surviving spouse was marries in articulo mortis and the testator died within three months from the time of marriage, his or her legitime, if sole compulsory heir, is 1/3 of the hereditary estate, unless they have been living together as husband and wife for more than five years, in which case his or her legitime is 1/2 of the hereditary estate. 2. The legitimes of the legitimate children and descendants and that of surviving spouse take precedence over those of illegitimate children. If the estate is not sufficient to pay in full the legitimes, the legitimate children and spouse shall first be paid their legitimes in full. The balance of the estate shall then be available for legitimes of the illegitimate children. 3. Illegitimate parents are entitled to legitime only if they survive; Alone
Legitime is 1/2
With the spouse of the decedent
Legitime is 1/4
4. In succession, the nearer relative excludes the further relative. Thus, a father excludes the grandfather. In intestacy, a nephew or niece is excluded by a brother or sister. A collateral relative in the fifth degree is excluded by a collateral relative in the fourth degree. 5. In determining the number of degrees that separate a collateral relative from another collateral relative whose relationship is being traced, go up to the nearest common ascendant of the two. Upon reaching the nearest common ascendant, go down to the other collateral relative involved. In going up, each generation is considered one degree. In going down, each generation is considered one degree.
Between the date that a testator executed his last will and testament and the date that he died, the composition of the estate may change, or the composition not changing, the value of the properties in the estate may change. The basis of the legitimes will be the hereditary estate (properties and values) at the time of death. While the values of the properties at the time of executing the last will and testament are immaterial in determining the distributable estate and the legitimes of compulsory heirs, it is still advisable to have the rules on legitimes in mind at that time, so that the last will and testament will be able to provide for, at least as nearly as possible, the legitimes of the compulsory heirs.
HOW ADOPTED CHILDREN ARE TREATED AS REGARD THEIR LEGITIME Art. 189 of the Family Code provides: “Adoption shall have the following effects: (1) For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopters and both shall acquire the reciprocal rights and obligations arising from the relationship of parent and child, including the right of the adopted to use the surname of the adopters x x x” Art. 190 provides: “Legal or intestate succession to the estate of the adopted shall be governed by the following rules: (2) (1) Legitimate and illegitimate children and descendants and the surviving spouse of the adopted shall inherit from the adopted, in accordance with the ordinary
rules
of
legal
or
intestate
succession;
(2) When the parents, legitimate or illegitimate, or the legitimate ascendants of the adopted concur with the adopter, they shall divide the entire estate, one-half to be inherited by the parents or ascendants and the other half, by the adopters; (3) When the surviving spouse or the illegitimate children of the adopted concur
with the adopters, they shall divide the entire estate in equal shares, one-half to be inherited by the spouse or the illegitimate children of the adopted and the other
half,
by
the
adopters.
(4) When the adopters concur with the illegitimate children and the surviving spouse of the adopted, they shall divide the entire estate in equal shares, onethird to be inherited by the illegitimate children, one-third by the surviving spouse,
and
one-third
by
the
adopters;
(5) When only the adopters survive, they shall inherit the entire estate; and (6) When only collateral blood relatives of the adopted survive, then the ordinary rules of legal or intestate succession shall apply. (39(4)a, PD 603) In Rivera vs. Ramirez, the Court held The CA held that based on the article Women Physicians of the World9 found in the record of the case before it, the late Rosita, a physician, had adopted Raymond as her child. An adopted child, said the CA, is deemed a legitimate child of the adopter. This being the case, Raymond’s presence barred Eleuterio and Rosita’s other collateral relatives from inheriting intestate from her. A further consequence is that they also did not have the right to seek the production and examination of the documents allegedly in Robert’s possession. But, whether or not the late Rosita had judicially adopted Raymond as her child is a question of fact that had neither been considered nor passed upon by the RTC in a direct challenge to the claim of Eleuterio and Rosita’s other collateral relatives that they have the right to inherit from her. The relevant issue before the RTC was only whether or not the duly appointed administrator of Rosita’s estate had the right to the production and examination of the documents believed to be in Robert’s possession. Indeed, one of the reasons Robert brought the special civil action of certiorari before the CA is that Eleuterio had no right to inspect the requested documents and have access to Adolfo’s estate when Eleuterio’s authority as administrator extended only to Rosita’s estate.
