Santillon vs. Miranda

14 SCRA 563, June 30, 1965, L-19281

Bengzon, C.J.

Facts:

Pedro Santillon died intestate and the principal parties of his estate are his only son Claro Santillon and his wife Perfecta Miranda.

Four years after his dead Claro petitioned for letters of administration but was opposed by the widow Perfecta on the grounds that the properties were conjugal, that she conveyed ¾ of her undivided share to spouses Benito and Rosario, that the administration of the estate was not necessary due to a pending case for partition of the property and she be the one better qualified as administrator. Claro motioned to declare the share of heirs where he invokes that Art. 892 of the New Civil Code where after deducting ½ from the conjugal property for Perfecta’s share, the remaining ½ must be ¼ for her (widow) and ¾ for him (only child). Perfecta, on the other hand, claimed that under Art. 996 she is entitled to ½ of the estate after her conjugal property.

Issue:

Whether or not a surviving spouse concurring with a legitimate child is entitled to ½ of the intestate estate?

Held:

Yes. Art 892 falls under the chapter on Testamentary Succession while Art 996 comes under the chapter on Legal or Intestate Succession. It is obvious that Claro cannot rely on Art 892 because it merely fixes the legitime of the surviving spouse and Art 888 the legitime of children in testate succession, it does not fix the amount of the shares that such child and spouse are entitled to when intestacy occurs.

Bicomong vs. Alamanza

80 SCRA 421

L-37365, November 29, 1977

Guerrerro, J;

Facts:

Maura Bagsic died intestate and one-half undivided share in five parcels of land she inherited from her deceased mother Silvestra Glorioso is the subject matter of the petition. The principal parties to the petition are (1) the Bicomongs, children of Perpetua Bagsic; (b) the Tolentinos, children of Igmelda Bagsic; and (c) Francisca Bagsic, daughter of Ignacio Bagsic against the Almanzas