NUGUID VS NUGUID

GRN L-2344 17 SCRA 449

JUNE 23, 1966

SANCHEZ, J.:

FACTS:

Rosario Nuguid , single, died in December 30, 1962.She was without descendants but was survived by her parents and siblings. On May 18, 1963, Remedios Nuguid, her sister filed in CFI a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario on November 17, 1951 or 11 years ago, said will instituted Remedios as the universal heir thereby, compulsory heirs, the ascendants of the decedent, filed their opposition to the probate proceeding. They contend that they were illegally preterited and as a consequence, the institution is void. The court’s order held that “the will in question is a complete nullity.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the compulsory heirs were preterited , thereby rendering the holographic will void.

Whether the court may rule on the intrinsic validity of the will.

RULING:

The statute we are called upon to apply in article 854 of the civil code which states:

“The preterition or omission of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct time, 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 d and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious

The forced heirs, parents of the deceased, were received nothing by the testament. The one-sentence will institutes petitioner as the universal heir. No specific legacies or bequest are therein provided for. It is in this posture that we say that the nullity is complete.

Preterition consists in the omission in the testator’s will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not mentioned therein or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. Disinheritance is a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir his/her share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law.

On the second issue, the case is for the probate of the will and the court’s area of inquiry is limited to the extrinsic validity of the will comes after the will has been duly authenticated. However if the case is to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing will be gained. The practical conditions: time, effort, expenses and added anxiety, induced us to a belief that we might as well meat head-on the issue of the validity of the provisions of the will in question.

DE PAPA ET AL VS CAMACHO

GRN L-28032

SEPTEMBER 24, 1986

NARVASA, J.:

FACTS:

Plaintiffs and respondents of this case are legitimate relatives, plaintiffs being aunt and uncles of the respondent. Camacho inherited her property from her mother Trinidad, a descendant of Dizon, first degree cousin of defendants.

ISSUE:

Whether or not uncles and aunts, together with niece who survived the reservista would be considered reservatorios.

RULING:

The court ruled that the uncles and aunts shall not share in the reserveable property, since, under the law of intestate succession a descendant’s uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestate so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to inherit. The rule on proximity applies. (The relatives in the direct ascending shall exclude relatives in the collateral line.)

MANG-OY VS CA

G.R. 144 SCRA 35

SEPTEMBER 12, 1986

CRUZ, J.:

FACTS:

Old Tumpao begot 3 children (respondents) with his first wife. Upon her death, he took himself a second wife but without issues. However she had adopted 2 children according to the practice of Igorots. On September 4, 1937, Old Tumpao executed what he called “last will and testament which were read to and thumb mark affixed by all of the beneficiaries who at the time were already occupying the portions respectively allotted to them. After the death of Old Tumpao, the parties remained to be in possession of the lots assign to them which was in accordance of the wishes of old Tumpao which was also agreed upon by the parties in a public document.

On November 4, 1960, respondents executed an extra-judicial partition in which they divided the property of Old Tumpao among the three of them only. Petitioners sued for reconveyance , sustained by trial court but reversed by CA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the “ will and testament” of Old Tumpao be duly allowed even without being proved in the court

RULING:

In accordance with the rules of court, no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved or allowed in court.

However the document maybe sustained by art 1056 of the Old Civil Code which was the law in force at the time the document was made. The law says: “If the testator should make a partition of his properties by an act inter vivors, or by will such partition shall stand in so far as it does not prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs.”

Such partition is not governed by the rules of wills or donation inter vivos, which is a consequence of its special nature. Thus, the last will and testament of Old Tumpao is sustained by the provision of Art 1056, Old Civil Code, which became a binding law when the beneficiaries, parties herein, agreed and confirmed with the disposition made by Old Tumpao.

This song reminds me of our vacation place in Sampaloc, Manila during break from school. We have our favorite aunt living there with our lola (grandmother, God bless her soul). Summertime is during May, the same time feast (or fiesta) is celebrated there. At an early age, we were trained to sing and one of the songs I remember singing with our friends there was this one. I believe this was a contest piece for that fiesta celebration to be sung by a girl friend Maricel. I wonder where they are now.

I haven't heard or seen them for a long time already but soon I'll be able to search them in social networking sites perhaps. Well, I found a lot of old friends and schoolmates in those sites.

Anyway, here is the song.

You Got It All

I, I was a game he would play
He brought the clouds to my day
Then like a ray of light you came my way one night
Just one look and I knew
You would make everything clear
Make all the coulds disappear
Put all your fear to rest,
Who do I love the best?

Don't you know, don't you know?
You've got it all over him
You got me over him
Honey it' true, there's just you
You must have been heaven sent,
Hearing me call you when out on a limb
And you're all that he's not,
Just look what I got
'Cause you got it all over him

No, don't let him worry you so
Once I met you I let go
Oh, you can surely see you're so much more to me
Just one look and I knew
You would make everything clear
Make all the clouds disppear
You're better than all the rest
Who do I love the best?

Don't you know, don't you know?
You've got it all over him
You got me over him
Honey it' true, there's just you
You must have been heaven sent,
Hearing me call you when out on a limb
And you're all that he's not,
Just look what I got
'Cause you got it all (you've got it all) all over him (you've got it all over him, you got me over him)
Honey it's true, there's just you
You must have been heaven sent,
Hearing me calling you out on a limb

Taxation

Philam Asset vs CTA

G.R. 156637 / 62004 Dec. 14, 2005

Facts:

Petitioner acts as invesment manager of PFI &PBFI. It provides management &technical services and thus respectively paid for it’s services. PFI & PBFI withhold the amount of equivalent to 5% creditable tax regulation. On April 3, 1998, filed itr with a net loss thus incurred with holding tax. Petitioner filed for refund from BIR but was unanswered . CTA denied the petition for review. CA held that to request for either a refund or credit of income taxpaid, a corporation must signify it’s intention by marking the corresponding box on it’s annual corporate adjustment return.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund of it’s creditible taxes.

Ruling:

Any tax income that is paid in excess of it’s amount due to the government may be refunded, provided that a taxpayer properly applies for the refund. One can not get a tax refund and a tax credit at the same time for the same excess to income taxes paid. Failure to signify one’s intention in Final Assessment Return (FAR) does not mean outright barring of a valid request for a refund

Requiring that the ITR on the FAR of the succeeding year be presented to the BIR in requesting a tax refund has no basis in law and jurisprudence. The Tax Code likewise allows the refund of taxes to taxpayer that claims it in writing within 2 years after payment of the taxes. Technicalities and legalism should not be misused by the government to keep money not belonging to it, and thereby enriched itself at the expense of it’s law-abiding citizens.

Samahan vs. Sec. of Labor and Filsystems , Inc
GRN.: 128067 June 5,1998
Puno J.:

Facts:
Samahan (union petitioner) , a registered union filed a petition for certification election. Private responded questioned the status of petitioner as LLO on the ground of lack of proof that its contract of affiliation with NAFLU-KMU has been submitted to BLR. Samahan averred that as an independent and duly registered union, it has all the rights and privileges to act as a representative of its members for the purpose of collecting bargaining with employers. Med-arbiter dismissed the petition. Meanwhile FWU was allowed to conduct certification election, and eventually negotiated a CBA Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss.

Issue:
Whether or not legal personality of the union (Samahan) having been established could be subject to collateral attack.

Ruling:

Petitioner is an independently registered labor union thus its right to file petition for certification election on its own is beyond question. Its failure to prove its affiliation with NAFLU-KMU cannot affect its right to file petition as an independent union.

Petitioner seasonably appealed, thus it stopped the holding of any certification election. Accordingly, there was an unresolved representation case at the time the CBA was entered by FWU and private respondent. There should be no obstacle to the right of the employees of petitioner for a certification election at the proper time, that is within 60 days prior to the expiration of the life of a certified CBA… not even by a collective agreement submitted during the pendency of the representation case… (ALU-TUCP vs Trajano)