GAUDENCIO BICOMONG, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. GERONIMO ALMANZA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, FLORENTINO CARTENA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Bicomong versus Almanza

The Case

This is a lecture on Bicomong versus Almanza, a 1977 decision of the Supreme Court on intestate succession. The plaintiffs are the nephews and nieces of the deceased Maura Bagsic — the Bicomong children of her sister Perpetua, the Tolentino children of her sister Igmedia, and Francisca Bagsic, daughter of her brother Ignacio. They sued Geronimo Almanza and Engracio Manese to recover their lawful shares in five parcels of land left by Maura. The case matters because it settles a clean question of succession law: when a deceased person leaves no descendants, ascendants, or spouse, do her nephews and nieces of half blood inherit alongside her niece of full blood, and if so, in what proportion? The answer turns on the interplay of Articles 975, 1006, and 1008 of the New Civil Code.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 1, 1959, in the Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City. After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them entitled to a ten twenty-fourths share of the five parcels of land, and ordering the defendants to pay 625 pesos per annum from July 23, 1959, until delivery of that share, with legal interest. Florentino Cartena, the substitute defendant for the deceased Geronimo Almanza, appealed to the Court of Appeals. The other defendant, Engracio Manese, did not appeal, so execution issued as to the parcels in his possession, and the appeal was limited to three parcels in Cartena's possession. The Court of Appeals found that the facts were duly established and that only a purely legal question remained, so it certified the case to the Supreme Court under the Judiciary Act of 1948.

Facts

Simeon Bagsic was married to Sisenanda Barcenas, and they had three children: Perpetua, Igmedia, and Ignacio. After Sisenanda died, Simeon remarried Silvestra Glorioso, and they had two children: Felipa and Maura. Simeon died in 1901, and Silvestra also died.

Ignacio died in 1939, survived by his daughter Francisca Bagsic. Igmedia died in 1944, survived by her children Dionisio, Maria, and Petra Tolentino. Perpetua died in 1945, survived by the Bicomong children. Felipa died on May 9, 1945. Maura died in 1952, without issue, her husband having predeceased her. Felipa's daughter Cristeta Almanza took charge of administering the properties and asked the plaintiffs to defer partition until the debts for Maura's last illness and burial were paid. When the plaintiffs raised the matter again in 1959, Cristeta agreed, but she died before any division was made, leaving possession to the defendants.

Issues

• Whether or not the nephews and nieces of the half blood may inherit from Maura Bagsic together with her niece of full blood, rather than being excluded by the nearer collateral.
• Whether or not the niece of full blood is entitled to a share double that of the nephews and nieces of half blood.
• Whether or not Article 1004 of the New Civil Code, on brothers and sisters of the full blood inheriting in equal shares, applies to exclude the half blood nephews and nieces.

Applicable Provisions

Article 975 of the New Civil Code provides:

When children of one or more brothers or sisters of the deceased survive, they shall inherit from the latter by representation, if they survive with their uncles or aunts. But if they alone survive, they shall inherit in equal portions.

This is the core provision: it lets the nephews and nieces inherit in their own right when they alone survive.

Article 1006 of the New Civil Code provides:

Should brothers and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and sisters of the half blood, the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter.

This fixes the proportion between whole blood and half blood collaterals.

Article 1008 of the New Civil Code provides:

Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per capita or per stripes, in accordance with the rules laid down for brothers and sisters of the full blood.

This extends the double share rule to the children of half blood brothers and sisters.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the nephews and nieces inherit in their own right under Article 975. Since Maura died intestate without issue, and her husband and ascendants predeceased her, she is succeeded by her collateral relatives — the daughter of her full blood sister and the ten children of her half blood siblings. The Court quoted its earlier ruling that nephews and nieces alone do not inherit by right of representation unless concurring with brothers or sisters of the deceased.

On the second issue, the Court held that the sole niece of full blood does not exclude the ten nephews and nieces of half blood. Article 975 makes no qualification as to line or blood, so the only difference is in the share: under Article 1008 in relation to Article 1006, the niece of full blood receives a share double that of the half blood nephews and nieces.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the appellant's reliance on Article 1004. His argument rested on the false assumption that Felipa died in 1955. The evidence showed she died on May 9, 1945, predeceasing Maura, so she could not have succeeded to Maura's estate.

Doctrine

First, when a deceased leaves no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or spouse, the collateral relatives succeed to the entire estate. Second, nephews and nieces who alone survive inherit in their own right, per capita, and not by representation. Third, a niece or nephew of full blood does not exclude nephews and nieces of half blood; the full blood relative merely takes a share double that of the half blood relatives, by force of Articles 1006 and 1008 in relation to Article 975.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: nephews and nieces alone inherit in their own right, and the full blood collateral takes double the share of the half blood. Examiners use this case to test the interplay of Articles 975, 1006, and 1008, and the rule that nearness in degree does not let a full blood niece exclude half blood nephews and nieces.