Short answer. No. Article 856 provides that a voluntary heir who dies before the testator transmits nothing to his heirs, so a person merely named in the will drops out and his children take nothing through him. The exceptions the Code reserves concern compulsory heirs, not voluntary ones.
What the law says
A voluntary heir who dies before the testator transmits nothing to his heirs.
Civil Code, Article 856 — Death of an Heir Before the Testator. Read the full provision →
What the law says
A compulsory heir who dies before the testator, a person incapacitated to succeed, and one who renounces the inheritance, shall transmit no right to his own heirs except in cases expressly provided for in this Code.
Civil Code, Article 856 — Death of an Heir Before the Testator. Read the full provision →
Nothing to transmit, because nothing was ever acquired
The first sentence is categorical: a voluntary heir who dies before the testator transmits nothing to his heirs. A voluntary heir is someone the testator chose to benefit but whom the law did not oblige him to provide for — a friend, a godchild, a nephew, a favoured neighbour. Until the testator dies there is nothing to inherit, only an expectation. If the named person dies first, that expectation never ripens into a right, so there is no right in his estate for his own children to receive. Their claim would have to come from the will itself, and the will names their father.
The second sentence, and the exception it reserves
The article then groups three situations together: a compulsory heir who dies before the testator, a person incapacitated to succeed, and one who renounces the inheritance, shall transmit no right to his own heirs except in cases expressly provided for in this Code. The general rule is the same — nothing passes through them — but the closing words matter. Where a compulsory heir predeceases the testator, the Code elsewhere allows his descendants to take the legitime by representation. That reserved exception is why the status of the person named in the will is the first thing to establish.
Voluntary or compulsory changes the answer
So the practical question is not whether the deceased beneficiary had children, but what he was to the testator. A child or descendant of the testator is a compulsory heir and the reserved exception is in play as to the legitime. Someone outside that class, however close the family felt to him, is a voluntary heir and the first sentence applies without qualification. Grandmothers' wills often name nephews, in-laws and long-serving companions in the same breath as children, and the same clause can therefore produce quite different results for different beneficiaries.
Then find out where the lapsed portion goes
A portion that fails does not stay in limbo. Read the will first for a substitution clause naming someone to take if the named heir cannot — a well-drafted will usually has one, and it settles the matter. Failing that, the rules on accretion may pass the portion to the other instituted heirs, and failing those it is distributed by intestate succession, which may put it back in the hands of the family the testator was trying to provide around. Confirm the two dates of death from the certificates before any of this is argued.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Heirs of Fedelina Sestoso Estella represented by Virgilia Estella Poliquit, et al. vs. Jesus, G.R. No. 245469, December 9, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Tirso D. Monteroso vs. Court of Appeals, et al. / Sofia Pendejito Vda De Monteroso, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 105608 / G.R. No. 113199, April 30, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →