Short answer. It generally does not pass to that heir's own heirs. Article 856 of the Civil Code says a voluntary heir who predeceases the testator transmits nothing to their heirs, and a compulsory heir who predeceases likewise transmits no right to their own heirs, except in the specific cases the Code separately allows.
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 →
Voluntary heirs: the share simply does not pass on
A voluntary heir is someone named in a will by the testator's free choice, as opposed to someone the law itself entitles to a share. Article 856 is blunt about what happens if that person dies first: they transmit nothing to their own heirs. The gift named in the will was personal to them, and predeceasing the testator means there is no longer anyone alive to receive it under that provision — their children or other heirs do not step into their place automatically.
Compulsory heirs are grouped with a different rule
Compulsory heirs — those the law reserves a legitime for, such as children — are treated in the same article alongside two other categories: a person incapacitated to succeed, and one who renounces the inheritance. All three transmit no right to their own heirs, as a general rule. The Code puts a predeceased compulsory heir in the same basket as someone disqualified or someone who walked away from the inheritance voluntarily, because in each case there is no longer a living person entitled to receive that share directly.
The exception the article itself flags
Article 856 does not claim to be absolute. It says no right is transmitted "except in cases expressly provided for in this Code," which tells you the general rule has recognized carve-outs elsewhere in the law of succession rather than applying without exception in every situation. This article alone does not spell out what those exceptions are or when they apply, so do not assume the general rule automatically covers your specific family situation without checking whether one of those carved-out cases fits.
Why this matters for planning and disputes
For anyone drafting a will, this is a reason to think through what should happen if a named heir does not outlive you, rather than leaving the will silent on it. For anyone administering or contesting an estate where a named heir died first, Article 856 is the starting point for whether that heir's own children have any claim to the share at all — but given the stated exceptions, it is not a question to resolve from this article alone.
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 →