Text of the provision
Art. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation.
(814a)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
The preterition or omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line who is living at the testator's death annuls the institution of heir — but legacies and devises stand insofar as they are not inofficious. If the omitted heir dies before the testator, the institution is effective. One of the most consequential rules in Philippine succession.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 853 — Shares Reduced Proportionally.
- Article 855 — Share of an Omitted Child.
Cases citing this article
- Nelfa Delfin Trinidad, et al. vs. Salvador G. Trinidad, et al, G.R. No. 254695, December 6, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Flora L. Tubera-balintec vs. Heirs of Cesar L. Tubera, G.R. No. 235701, February 15, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Araceli Mayuga vs. Antonio Atienza, G.R. No. 208197, January 10, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Iris Morales vs Ana Maria Olondriz, et al, G.R. No. 198994, February 3, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Hiers of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr., namely: Conrado B. Ureta, et al. vs. Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta, namely: Teresa F. Ureta, et al./Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta, namely: Teresa F. Ureta, et al. vs. Heirs of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr., namely: Conrado B. Ureta, et al, G.R. No. 165748 / G.R. No. 165930, September 14, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.