Short answer. Yes, provided nobody in the closer classes survives. The Civil Code calls collateral relatives to the entire estate only where there are no descendants, no ascendants, no illegitimate children and no surviving spouse. If any one of those exists, the brothers and sisters do not take everything.
What the law says
If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following articles.
Civil Code, Article 1003 — When Collaterals Succeed. Read the full provision →
Collaterals inherit last, and only if the list is empty
Intestate succession runs in an order, and brothers and sisters are far down it. Article 1003 of the Civil Code lets collateral relatives succeed to the entire estate only when there are no descendants, no ascendants, no illegitimate children and no surviving spouse. Every one of those four has to be absent. This is where families go wrong: a child your uncle acknowledged but never lived with, a mother still living in the province, or a wife he had long been separated from but never legally untied himself from will each displace or dilute the siblings' claim. Separation in fact does not remove a spouse from the list.
How this article reads today
The classifications used in Article 1003 date from when the Civil Code took effect in 1950. The Family Code has since modified them. It provides that the legitime of each illegitimate child is one half of the legitime of a legitimate child, and that except for that modification the Civil Code's provisions on successional rights remain in force. The Family Code also recognises a single class of illegitimate child, so the older Civil Code sub-classifications of children born outside marriage no longer apply. Read Article 1003 subject to that. For your question the practical effect is unchanged in one respect: any illegitimate child of your uncle keeps the collateral relatives out of the whole estate.
Among the collaterals, the nearest exclude the rest
Article 1003 closes with the words in accordance with the following articles, and those articles do the sorting. Brothers and sisters come first among the collaterals, together with the children of deceased brothers and sisters, who take their parent's portion by representation. Only if none of them survives does the estate pass to the more distant collaterals — uncles, aunts, cousins — and the Civil Code cuts off collateral succession at relatives within the fifth degree. Beyond that, and where nobody at all qualifies, the estate goes to the State. The general principle is that the nearer relative in degree excludes the more remote.
Before dividing anything
The estate that gets divided is the net estate. Debts, funeral and medical expenses and the estate tax come off first, and if your uncle was ever married, the property regime of that marriage has to be liquidated before his own share can be identified. Where all heirs are of age and agree, families commonly settle among themselves in a written instrument, published as the law requires; where there is disagreement, a minor heir, or a will, it goes to court. Gather the death certificate, birth and marriage records of everyone in the family tree, and the titles. Nothing here predicts how a particular estate will be settled.
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.
- Amadea Angela K. Aquino vs. Rodolfo C. Aquino and Abdulah C. Aquino/Rodolfo C. Aquino, G.R. No. 208912 / G.R. No. 209018, December 7, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Benny and Normita Rol vs. Isabel Urdas Racho, G.R. No. 246096, January 13, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Nieves Navarro, in her capacity as one of the Vendees of a portion of, G.R. No. 228854, March 17, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Bernardina P. Bartolome vs. Social Security System and Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc, G.R. No. 192531, November 12, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →