G.R. No. L-37365 November 29, 1977
GAUDENCIO BICOMONG, et al., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. GERONIMO ALMANZA, et al., defendants, FLORENTINO CARTENA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Simeon Bagsic had five children from two marriages. From his first marriage to Sisenanda Barcenas, he had Perpetua, Igmedia, and Ignacio. After Sisenanda’s death, he remarried Silvestra Glorioso, with whom he had Felipa and Maura. Maura Bagsic died intestate in 1952 without descendants, ascendants, or a surviving spouse. Her full-blood sister, Felipa, had predeceased her in 1945, leaving a daughter, Cristeta Almanza. Cristeta died in 1959, leaving her father Geronimo Almanza and husband Engracio Manese. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Maura’s half-blood siblings: the Bicomongs (children of Perpetua), the Tolentinos (children of Igmedia), and Francisca Bagsic (child of Ignacio). They filed an action for partition and recovery of their alleged shares in five parcels of land that constituted Maura’s estate, which Cristeta had previously administered.

ISSUE

The sole legal issue is whether the plaintiffs, as nephews and nieces of the half-blood of the deceased Maura Bagsic, have a right to succeed to her estate concurrently with the sole niece of the full-blood (Cristeta Almanza), and if so, how the estate should be distributed among them.

RULING

Yes, the plaintiffs have a right to succeed concurrently with the full-blood niece. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, applying the rules of intestate succession under the New Civil Code. Since Maura died without descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, her collateral relatives inherit under Article 1003. Applying Article 975, nephews and nieces inherit in their own right, not by representation, when no brothers or sisters survive the decedent. This provision makes no distinction between maternal or paternal lines, nor does it exclude half-blood relatives. Therefore, the sole full-blood niece (Cristeta) does not exclude the ten nephews and nieces of the half-blood (the plaintiffs). However, a distinction in the shares exists under Articles 1006 and 1008. Article 1006 provides that full-blood relatives inherit twice the share of half-blood relatives. Consequently, Cristeta (through her heirs) is entitled to a share double that of each of the plaintiffs. The trial court’s allocation of a 10/24 total share to the ten half-blood nephews and nieces, with the remaining 14/24 to the full-blood niece’s heirs, correctly implements this legal principle. The appellant’s argument that the full-blood sister (Felipa) should have excluded the half-blood relatives was erroneous, as it was based on the incorrect fact that Felipa survived Maura; the record showed Felipa predeceased Maura.