G.R. No. L-40003 October 28, 1986
SHIRLEY YAP, in her own behalf and in her capacity as Administratrix of the estate of MANING YAP, JAIME YAP, and TALINA BIANONG VDA. DE YAP, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NANCY J. YAP, MANING YAP, JR., JULIA YAP, JASMIN YAP, and SAMUEL YAP, respondents.

FACTS

Maning Yap contracted two marriages. The first was in 1939 to Talina Bianong under Muslim rites, which produced two surviving children, petitioners Shirley and Jaime Yap. While this marriage was subsisting, Maning Yap married Nancy J. Yap in a civil ceremony in 1948. Nancy entered the marriage believing Maning was single. This second union produced four children, the private respondents. Upon Maning Yap’s death in 1964, both families claimed inheritance rights to his estate.
The Court of First Instance declared Talina Bianong and her children as the sole legal heirs, dismissing the claim of Nancy Yap and her children. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. Applying the old ruling in Lao v. Dee Tim, which invoked the humane provisions of the Leyes de Partidas, the appellate court ordered the estate to be divided equally into two halves: one for Talina and her children, and the other for Nancy and her children.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the Leyes de Partidas and the ruling in Lao v. Dee Tim in determining the inheritance rights to the estate of Maning Yap.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the applicable law is the New Civil Code, not the Leyes de Partidas or the old jurisprudence. The legal logic proceeds from the validity of the marriages and the consequent determination of heirship. The first marriage between Maning Yap and Talina Bianong was valid. Therefore, upon Maning’s death, the net remainder of their conjugal partnership of gains must first be divided equally, with one-half belonging to Talina as her absolute share. The other half constitutes the net estate of Maning Yap for distribution to his heirs.
The second marriage to Nancy Yap was void ab initio because it was bigamous. Consequently, Nancy has no right to inherit from Maning. However, their children are considered natural children by legal fiction under Article 89 of the New Civil Code and are compulsory heirs. Thus, Maning Yap’s intestate estate (his one-half share of the conjugal property) must be distributed among his compulsory heirs: his legitimate children (Shirley and Jaime Yap), his legitimate spouse (Talina), and his natural children (the children with Nancy). The legitimate children inherit one-half of the net estate, to be divided equally between them. The legitimate widow, Talina, inherits one-fourth from the free portion. The natural children inherit the remaining one-fourth, to be divided equally among them. The Court of Appeals erred in applying an outdated ruling and in granting Nancy Yap a share she was not entitled to under the governing Civil Code.