8/12/2019 Succession Batch 1 Digests

1/3

Hu Niu v Collector of Customs (G.R. No. L-12379)

Widowed wife and children want to enter the Philippines. They argue that they

acquired merchant status upon the death of the husband as his merchant business was

left to them.

The assumption of the appellant is that the mere fact of the death of a merchant makes

his wife and children also merchants, as it leaves to them as heirs and next of kin a

mercantile business as a part of their inheritance. We do not believe that this

necessarily follows. But if it does, the fact remains that she is not a resident merchant.

She is still outside of the Philippine Islands and has never held the status of a resident

merchant. She must, therefore, establish her right to enter as a merchant in the first

instance. This she did not do. She did not present the section six certificate which is the

only evidence upon which her right to enter can be based.

AU: Status is a personal right extinguished upon death.

Limjoco v Estate of Fragante (G.R. No. L-770)

Pedro Fragante applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience to operate an ice plant.

He died but the commission granted the certificate to his estate. Petitioner now

questions the validity of such grant to the estate.

Xxx decedent's rights which by their nature are not extinguished by death go to make

up a part and parcel of the assets of his estate which, being placed under the control and

management of the executor or administrator, can not be exercised but by him in

representation of the estate for the benefit of the creditors, devisees or legatees, if any,

and the heirs of the decedent. And if the right involved happens to consist in the

prosecution of an unfinished proceeding upon an application for a certificate of publicconvenience of the deceased before the Public Service Commission, it is but logical that

the legal representative be empowered and entitled in behalf of the estate to make the

right effective in that proceeding.

AU: SC cited the ROC to show that rights may be part of the estate and should be

managed by the executor or administrator. Lots of other contentions by petitioners but

this is the relevant portion.

Fule v Fule (G.R. No. 21859)

Saturnino Fule died intestate but he left no debts and his property has already beenpartitioned among his children during his lifetime. Ciriaco Fule, an heir, petitioned the

court for the appointment of an administrator. The children of Saturnino opposed this.

The RTC eventually revoked the appointment and refused to appoint an administrator.

Was the RTC correct in refusing?

In this jurisdiction and by virtue of the provisions of articles 657, 659 and 661 of the

Civil Code, all of the property, real and personal, of a deceased person who dies intestate,

is transmitted immediately to his heirs. Xxx When the heirs are all of lawful age and

there are no debts there is no reason why the estate should be burdened with the cost

and expenses of an administrator. The administrator has no right to intervene in any

way whatsoever in the division of the estate among the heirs when they are adults andwhen there are no debts against the estate.

8/12/2019 Succession Batch 1 Digests

2/3

8/12/2019 Succession Batch 1 Digests

3/3

DKC holdings entered into a contract of lease with the option to purchase the property

of Encarnacion Bartolome. The option was limited to a 2 year period with 3000 peso

monthly consideration exclusive of the rent. Encarnacion died and Victor was the sole

heir of all her properties. Victor refused to accept the 3000 monthly reservation as well

as the rent. DKC sent by registered mail a notice that it was exercising their option to

purchase the leased property. Victor refused. Is the contract entered into byEncarnacion binding upon Victor?

The general rule, therefore, is that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their

predecessors-in-interest except when the rights and obligations arising therefrom are

not transmissible by (1) their nature, (2) stipulation or (3) provision of law. In the case

at bar, there is neither contractual stipulation nor legal provision making the rights and

obligations under the contract intransmissible. More importantly, the nature of the

rights and obligations therein are, by their nature, transmissible. Xxx In the case at bar,

there is no personal act required from the late Encarnacion Bartolome. Rather, the

obligation of Encarnacion in the contract to deliver possession of the subject property to

petitioner upon the exercise by the latter of its option to lease the same may very wellbe performed by her heir Victor. He only succeeds to what rights his mother had and

what is valid and binding against her is also valid and binding as against him.

Heirs of Ypon v Gaudioso Ponteras a.k.a. Gaudioso Ypon (G.R. No. 198680)

Magdaleno Ypon died intestate and according to the petitioners, childless. They sought

to have the TCT issued in the name of Gaudioso (respondent) annulled. The respondent

alleged that he is the lawful son of Magdaleno and caused the transfer of the latters

properties to him as compulsory heir.

Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceasedmust be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for

recovery of ownership and possession of property. This must take precedence over the

action for recovery of possession and ownership. The Court has consistently ruled that

the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason

that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Xxx Thus, concordant

with applicable jurisprudence, since a determination of heirship cannot be made in an

ordinary action for recovery of ownership and/or possession, the dismissal of Civil Case

No. T-2246 was altogether proper. In this light, it must be pointed out that the RTC

erred in ruling on Gaudiosos heirship which should, as herein discussed, be threshedout and determined in the proper special proceeding. As such, the foregoing

pronouncement should therefore be devoid of any legal effect.

AU: Not a total loss for petitioners. They will now proceed to determine through a

special proceeding the legitimate heirs.