Bicomong v. Almanza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Simeon Bagsic was married twice. His first marriage produced three children: Perpetua, Igmedia, and Ignacio. His second marriage produced two children: Felipa and Maura. Sisenanda Barcenas, the first wife, died before Simeon. Silvestra Glorioso, the second wife, also died. Simeon Bagsic died in 1901. Ignacio died in 1939, leaving Francisca Bagsic as his heir. Igmedia died in 1944, survived by Dionisio, Maria, and Petra Tolentino. Perpetua died in 1945, survived by Gaudencio, Felicidad, Salome, and Gervacio Bicomong. Maura Bagsic died intestate on April 14, 1952, without issue, her husband and ascendants having predeceased her. Felipa Bagsic, Maura's full-blood sister, died on May 9, 1945, predeceasing Maura. After Maura's death, her properties, consisting of five parcels of land, passed to Cristeta Almanza, Geronimo Almanza's daughter and Cristeta's husband was Engracio Manese. Cristeta administered the properties. The plaintiffs, heirs of Ignacio, Igmedia, and Perpetua (Maura's half-siblings), requested partition, which Cristeta deferred due to unpaid expenses for Maura's illness and burial. After these were paid, Cristeta died in 1959 without the properties being partitioned, leaving them in the possession of defendants Geronimo Almanza and Engracio Manese. Procedural History: Three sets of plaintiffs (Bicomongs, Tolentinos, and Francisca Bagsic) filed a complaint on December 1, 1959, against Geronimo Almanza and Engracio Manese for recovery of their lawful shares in the properties left by Maura Bagsic. The Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them entitled to a ten twenty-fourth (10/24) share and ordering the defendants to pay P625.00 per annum until delivery. Florentino Cartena, as substitute defendant for Geronimo Almanza, appealed to the Court of Appeals. Engracio Manese did not appeal. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as the sole issue was a question of law. The Petition: The defendant-appellant, Florentino Cartena, contended that the trial court erred in applying Articles 995, 1006, and 1008 of the New Civil Code. He argued that Felipa Bagsic, Maura's full-blood sister, died on May 9, 1955, and thus succeeded to Maura's estate, citing Article 1004 of the Civil Code. The plaintiffs-appellees countered that Felipa's death date was not an issue and was stipulated as May 9, 1945.
Issue(s)
Whether the provisions of Articles 995, 1006, and 1008 of the New Civil Code were correctly applied by the trial court. Whether Felipa Bagsic, as the sole surviving sister of full blood, succeeded to Maura Bagsic's estate to the exclusion of the nephews and nieces of half blood. Whether the date of death of Felipa Bagsic (May 9, 1945, as stipulated by parties) is controlling over the appellant's assertion of May 9, 1955.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiffs-appellees were declared entitled to a ten twenty-fourth (10/24) share on the five parcels of land in dispute. The defendants were ordered to pay P625.00 per annum until the share is delivered, with legal interest from the finality of the decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicable provisions of the Civil Code and the succession of collateral relatives: The Court held that Articles 975, 1006, and 1008 of the New Civil Code are applicable to the admitted facts. In the absence of defendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, collateral relatives succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. Since Maura Bagsic died intestate without issue, and her husband and ascendants had predeceased her, she is succeeded by her surviving collateral relatives. These include the daughter of her sister of full blood and the ten children of her brother and two sisters of half blood, in accordance with Article 975 of the Civil Code. The Court clarified that nephews and nieces inherit by representation if they survive with uncles or aunts, but if they alone survive, they inherit in equal portions. The Court cited Abellana-Bacayo vs. Ferraris-Borromeo to emphasize that nephews and nieces alone do not inherit by right of representation unless they are concurring with brothers or sisters of the deceased. On the exclusion of nephews and nieces of half blood by a full-blood sister: The Court ruled that Article 975 of the Civil Code makes no qualification as to whether nephews or nieces are on the maternal or paternal line, nor does it provide preference based on whole or half blood relationship to the deceased. Therefore, the sole niece of whole blood does not exclude the ten nephews and nieces of half blood. The distinction in their right of succession is provided by Article 1008 in relation to Article 1006 of the Civil Code, which entitles the sole niece of full blood to a share double that of the nephews and nieces of half blood. This distinction between whole and half blood relationships has been recognized in previous cases such as Dionisia Padura, et al. vs. Melanie Baldovino, et al. and Alviar vs. Alviar. On the date of death of Felipa Bagsic: The Court found the appellant's contention that Maura Bagsic should be succeeded by Felipa Bagsic, her sister of full blood, to the exclusion of the nephews and nieces of half blood, to be unmeritorious and erroneous. This contention was based on the factual assumption that Felipa Bagsic died in 1955. However, the Court noted that the stipulation of the parties in the trial court clearly indicated that Felipa Bagsic died on May 9, 1945, thus she predeceased her sister Maura Bagsic. This factual finding negates the appellant's argument that Felipa succeeded to Maura's estate.
Main Doctrine
Under Article 975 of the Civil Code, nephews and nieces inherit by representation if they survive with uncles or aunts, but if they alone survive, they inherit in equal portions. In the absence of ascendants, descendants, or a surviving spouse, collateral relatives succeed. The sole niece of whole blood does not exclude nephews and nieces of half blood; however, the former is entitled to a share double that of the latter as provided by Articles 1006 and 1008 of the Civil Code.