DISINHERITANCE

(parents/ ascendants, spouse & ineffective disinheritance)

Noreen T. Claro
Beia Garnette S. Coste
Vanessa T. Dalafu
Racel S. Jose
Annie M. Ombajin
 PURPOSE

 Not vengeance but RETRIBUTION

To punish the ungrateful, culpable,
cruel, unnatural or unfaithful spouse
 SUCCESSION

 The legitime cannot be impaired.

Preterition invalidate the institution of
heirs but the devises and legacies shall be
valid in so far as they are not inofficious.
 COLLATION = Any property which the
deceased gave or donated to other
persons before death must be returned to
his estate.
 DISINHERITANCE

What ? the process or act LEGAL / INTESTATE

of disinheriting =
Who ? any compulsory
heir of his legitime
How ? through
testamentary disposition
DISINHERITANCE
of Parents/
Ascendants
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
NOTES
 Parental authority terminates
upon the death of the parents
upon emancipation
adoption of the child
appointment of a general guardian
LOSS OF judicial declaration of abandonment
final judgement of a competent court
PARENTAL judicial declaration of absence or incapacity

AUTHORITY  When parental authority is temporarily

suspended

“A literal interpretation of the law would reveal that this is a ground,

although the phrase “for causes specified by this Code” is very sweeping.”
 “mutual restoration of feelings to the status quo”

• Attempt should be against the life of the other

SUBSEQUENT parent, otherwise the proviso finds no
application.
Reconciliation
• Reconciliation between the parents will
deprives the child of the right to disinherit.

• When parents live together again in the same

house, there is presumed reconciliation.

• Applies only to parents and does not apply to

other ascendants like the grandparents.
DISINHERITANCE OF SPOUSE
GROUNDS
NOTES
Ineffective or Ineffectual
Disinheritance
Ineffective Disinheritance
• No cause stated
• Not true cause
• Not a legal cause
 Effects of Ineffective Disinheritance

• Institution of heirs is annulled, but only in so far as the legitime of the person disinherited is impaired.
• Devises, legacies and other testamentary dispositions shall be valid.
• The effect is the same as that of preterition of a compulsory heir

“There can be valid preterition through disinheritance”

 Preterition Imperfect Disinheritance
The institution remains valid,
The institution of heirs is but must be reduced in so
completely annulled. far as the legitime has been
impaired.
 Preterition Valid Disinheritance
may be an implied
an express deprivation
deprivation
omitted heirs may inherit
a will is always required
with or without a will
institution is always void -
may be valid when all
except when preterited
requirements of law are
heir predeceased
followed
testator
 First Effect

Hereditary estate: 900,000.00.

How much will each child receive?

If B and C as instituted receive 375, 000, is this valid? Why?

 Second Effect

Hereditary estate: 1,000,000.00.

B is given a legacy of 700, 000.00

How much should A & B receive?

 Effect on the FDP

Hereditary estate: 1,000,000.00.

A is given his legitime of 1/4

How much should B receive?

 ISSUE: Should there be cancellation of the will, in
view of the omission of heirs? Is there disinheritance
in this case?
HELD: Yes. The Court annulled the institution of heirs
and declared a total intestacy on the ground that
NERI v. AKUTIN testator left all his property by universal title to the
GR No.L-47799 21 May 1943 children by his second marriage, without expressly
disinheriting the children by his first marriage but
upon the erroneous belief that he had given them
already more shares in his property than those given
to the children by his second marriage.
Disinheritance made without a statement of the
cause, if contested, shall annul the institution of heirs
in so far as it is prejudicial to the disinherited person.
This is but a case of preterition which annuls the
institution of heirs.
 ISSUE: Was Bernardo preterited?
HELD:
In the instant case, a crucial issue that calls for resolution is
whether under the terms of the decedent’s will, private
MANINANG v. CA respondent had been preterited or disinherited, and if the
GR No. L-57848,19 June 1982 latter, whether it was a valid disinheritance. Preterition
and disinheritance are two diverse concepts.
By virtue of the dismissal of the testate case, the
determination of that controversial issue has not been
thoroughly considered. The conclusion of the trial court
was that Bernardo has been preterited. The SC is of
opinion, however, that from the face of the will, that
conclusion is not indubitable. Such preterition is still
questionable.
 ISSUE: Is the will void on the ground of preterition?

HELD: YES. The decedent left no decendants,

legitimate or illegitimate. But she left forced heirs in
NUGUID v. NUGUID the direct ascending line, her parents. And, the will
GR No. L-23445, 23 June 1966 completely omits both of them; thus, receiving
nothing by the testament, depriving them of their
legitime; neither were they expressly disinherited.
This is clear case of preterition.
 ISSUE: Whether the estate, after deducting the deducting the
legacies, should be equally divided or whether the inheritance
of Lucy as instituted heir should be merely reduced to the
extent necessary to cover the legitime of Helen Garcia,
equivalent to ¼ of the entire estate.

In re: AZNAR v. HELD: The inheritance of Lucy should be merely reduced to

DUNCAN cover the legitime of Helen Garcia. Christensen refused to
acknowledge Helen Garcia as his natural daughter and limited
GR No. L-24365,10 June 1971 her share to a legacy of PHP3,600.00. When a testator leaves to
a forced heir a legacy worth less than the legitime, but without
referring to the legatee as an heir or even as a relative, and
willed the rest of the estate to other persons, the heirs could
not ask that the institution of the heirs be annulled entirely, but
only that the legitime be completed the same. The will is void.
Thank you!