Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Solano Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    pja_14
    1) This case involves the recognition of Bienvenido and Emeteria Garcia as the illegitimate children of Meliton. Meliton's will named his daughter Sonia as sole heir, but the court declared this null and void since the Garcias were preterited as compulsory heirs. 2) As compulsory heirs, the Garcias' omission from the will annuls the institution of Sonia as sole heir pursuant to Article 854 of the Civil Code. 3) The court ruled Sonia's share is 4/6 of the estate, while the Garcias each receive 1/6. The usufruct in favor of Sonia in the will is still valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Solano Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    pja_14
    1K views1 page
    1) This case involves the recognition of Bienvenido and Emeteria Garcia as the illegitimate children of Meliton. Meliton's will named his daughter Sonia as sole heir, but the court declared this null and void since the Garcias were preterited as compulsory heirs. 2) As compulsory heirs, the Garcias' omission from the will annuls the institution of Sonia as sole heir pursuant to Article 854 of the Civil Code. 3) The court ruled Sonia's share is 4/6 of the estate, while the Garcias each receive 1/6. The usufruct in favor of Sonia in the will is still valid.

    Original Description:

    Succession

    Original Title

    9. solano vs ca

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) This case involves the recognition of Bienvenido and Emeteria Garcia as the illegitimate children of Meliton. Meliton's will named his daughter Sonia as sole heir, but the court declared this null and void since the Garcias were preterited as compulsory heirs. 2) As compulsory heirs, the Garcias' omission from the will annuls the institution of Sonia as sole heir pursuant to Article 854 of the Civil Code. 3) The court ruled Sonia's share is 4/6 of the estate, while the Garcias each receive 1/6. The usufruct in favor of Sonia in the will is still valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Solano Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    pja_14
    1) This case involves the recognition of Bienvenido and Emeteria Garcia as the illegitimate children of Meliton. Meliton's will named his daughter Sonia as sole heir, but the court declared this null and void since the Garcias were preterited as compulsory heirs. 2) As compulsory heirs, the Garcias' omission from the will annuls the institution of Sonia as sole heir pursuant to Article 854 of the Civil Code. 3) The court ruled Sonia's share is 4/6 of the estate, while the Garcias each receive 1/6. The usufruct in favor of Sonia in the will is still valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Solano vs.

    CA, Bienvenido/Emeteria Garcia GR L 41971

    November 29, 1983

    FACTS: Bienvenido and Emeteria filed an action for recognition against Melita Solano Meliton died during the pendency of the petition and his
    daughter substituted him while asking for the probate of the will of the decedent. RTC specified the legal issues as 1) the recognition of Garcias, 2)
    correct status of Zonia, 3) the hereditary share of each of them in view of the probated will. In deciding, RTC declared Garcias as illegitimate children
    of late Meliton.; the institution of Sonia as sole heir declared null and void, the 3 children shall share equally the estate CA affirmed.
    ISSUE: Whether or not total intestacy resulted from the declaration that the institution of sole heir from decedents will.
    RULING: That being compulsory heirs, the Garcias were preterited from Melitons will, and as a result, Sonias institution as sole heir is null and void
    pursuant to Art. 854
    The preterition or omission of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born
    after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir, but the devises and legacies shall be valid
    The intention of the decedent is to favor Sonia with certain portions of his property which the testator had the right to such so that it
    should be upheld as to the one-half portion of the property that the testator could freely dispose of Sonias share is hereby declared to be 4/6 of the
    estate and Garcias 1/6 each. The usufruct in favor of will should not be invalidated all together.

    preterition of illegitimate children should annul the institution of the heir only insofar as the legitime of the omitted heirs is impaired.

    TAYAG VS CA G.R. No. 95229 Regalado, J. June 9, 1992


    Facts: Chad Cuyugan, son of the deceased Atty. Ricardo Ocampo, the fruit of his illicit amorous relationship with EMILIE, the plaintiff and legal
    guardian, was born in Angeles City on October 5, 1980 bad been sired, showered with exceptional affection, fervent love and care by his putative
    father for being his only son as can be gleaned from indubitable letters and documents of the late Atty. Ocampo to herein plaintiff. CORITO, the
    daughter of the deceased and herein defendant, is the known administratrix of the real and personal properties left by her deceased father, said Atty.
    Ocampo, who died intestate in Angeles City on September 28, 1983. The defendant contended that the suit as barred by prescription and Cuyugan
    has no legal and judicial personality to bring the suit. Petitioner submits that Article 175 of the Family Code applies in which case the complaint
    should have been filed during the lifetime of the putative father, failing which the same must be dismissed on the ground of prescription. Private
    respondent, however, insists that Article 285 of the Civil Code is controlling and, since the alleged parent died during the minority of the child, the
    action for filiation may be filed within four years from the attainment of majority of the minor child.
    Issue: Whether or not Article 175 of the Family Code should be given a retroactive effect.
    Ruling: Article 256 of the Family Code states that "this Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired
    rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws." It becomes essential, therefore, to determine whether the right of the minor child to file an
    action for recognition is a vested right or not. The Supreme Court ruled that under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, the right of action
    of the minor child has been vested by the filing of the complaint in court under the regime of the Civil Code and prior to the effectivity of the Family
    Code. The court adopts the ruling in the recent case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al., the fact of filing of the petition already
    vested in the petitioner her right to file it and to have the same proceed to final adjudication in accordance with the law in force at the time, and such
    right can no longer be prejudiced or impaired by the enactment of a new law. The trial court is therefore, correct in applying the provisions of Article
    285 of the Civil Code and in holding that private respondent's cause of action has not yet prescribed. Petition Denied

    You might also like