Article 395 - Family Code and Case: Victory Shipping Line Inc. vs. WCC et. al., G.R. No. L-9268

 

Article 395

          The provisions of the preceding article are understood to be without prejudice to the action or petition for inheritance or other rights which are vested in the absentee, his representatives or successors in interest. These rights shall not be extinguished save by lapse of time fixed for prescription. In the record that is made in the registry of real estate which accrues to the co-heirs, the circumstance of its being subject to the provisions of this article shall be stated.

This law has something to do with the rules on succession. It says that if an absentee is called upon to inherit, his share shall accrue to his co-heirs, as a rule.

Illustration:

A and B are married. They have three (3) children named X, Y, and Z. Upon the death of A, X, Y, and Z werecalled upon to succeed A, but X is an absentee. His share of   the estate of his father shall accrue to Y and Z.

Accretion is a right by virtue of which, when two or more persons are called to the      same inheritance, devise or legacy, the part assigned to the one who renounces or cannot receive his share, or who died before the testator, is added or incorporated to that of his co-heirs, co-devi- sees or co-legatees. (Art. 1015, New Civil Code).

In order that the right of accretion may take place in a testamentary succession, it shall be necessary:

(1) That two or more persons be called to the same inheritance or to the same         portion thereof, pro indiviso; and

(2) That one of the persons thus called die before the testator, or renounce the inheritance, or be incapacitated to receive it. (Art. 1016, New Civil Code).

          Among the compulsory heirs the right of accretion shall take place when the free portion is left to two or more of them, or to any one of them and to a stranger.

          Should the part repudiated be the legitime, the other co-heirs shall succeed to it in their own right, and not by the right of representation.

In testamentary succession, when the right of accretion does not take place, the vacant portion of the instituted heirs, if no substitute has been designated, shall pass to the legal heirs of the testator, who shall receive it with the same charges and obligations. (Art. 1022, New Civil Code).

          The heirs to whom the portion goes by the right of accretion take it in the same proportion that they inherit. (Art. 1019, New Civil Code).

          The heirs to whom the inheritance accrues shall succeed to all the rights and obligations which the heir who renounced or could not receive it would have had. (Art. 1020, New Civil Code).

          The rule cited in the example does not apply if X has his own heirs or representatives. Hence, if X in the problem above is married to M and they have children N and O, then, his share shall accrue to his heirs by right of representation.

          If in the meantime Y and Z obtained titles over the share of X, the heirs of X can still recover the same since the provisions of Article 395 of the Civil Code state that the share of the absentee shall accrue to his co-heirs without prejudice to the action or petition for inheritance or other rights which are vested in the absentee, his representatives or successors in interest. Since the heirs of X inherited the share by right of representation, they can commence an action to recover the same, unless the action has prescribed. The period of prescription is 10 years.

          But suppose Y and Z obtained a title to the said share that accrued to them and sold the same to a buyer in good faith and for value, then the children of X cannot recover anymore because of the protection afforded to a buyer in good faith and for value by the Torrens System.

VICTORY SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL., respondents.

G.R. No. L-9268, November 28, 1959

Facts:

          On February 23, 1954, Pedro Icong, an employee of the petitioner Victory Shipping Lines, Inc, was sleeping on board the latter’s vessel, M/V “Miss Leyte”, when it caught fire. Awakened by the fire, Pedro Icong jumped overboard and has not been heard of.

          Pedro Icong was unmarried and his father Juan Icong was his partial dependent. On April 30, 1954, the latter filed with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and a petitioner a notice of claim for death compensation. The petitioner reported the matter to the Commission only on August 17, 1954. The Commission rendered an award in favor of respondent Juan Icong in the sum of P2,038.40, plus P200.00 for burial expenses and P20.00 as legal fee.

Issue:

          Whether or not Article 391 of the New Civil Code applies in the case at bar.

Held:

          According to Article 391 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the person to be presumed dead must be unheard of for at least four years; that inasmuch as Pedro Icong had been missing only for a few months from the alleged accident, there is as yet legal presumption of death on which to base any award for compensation.

          The respondent Workmen’s Compensation Commission obviously did not apply the rule on presumption of death because in the employer’s report of the accident submitted by petitioner, laborer Pedro Icong was reported as the only casualty, and in transmitting said report petitioner’s counsel had implicitly admitted the fact of Pedro Icong’s death.

          The court ruled that the act of Pedro Icong in jumping overboard upon waking up and finding the vessel on fire is not constitutive of gross negligence. Respondent Commission correctly termed it as “rather impelled by fright or by the instinct of self-preservation.”

The decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with cost against the petitioner.