Hatian ng Lupa

[j4kst0n3]

Sir memento mori covered the legalities well enough.

However, there are other details that you haven't disclosed. Your case will prosper or fail based on your father's legal position.

You are under no obligation to disclose them. But you need them for introspection and discernment, perhaps in discussing this "inheritance" problem with your father.

Let's cover some of the human and personal elements that may affect your case.

First of, is this your initiative - to look for legal advice - or your father's? What I mean here is that you are not a compulsory heir and you haven't acquired any rights to fight for your father's legal rights.

You need to be sure what your father wants. Does he want to fight her siblings in court? The courts will be the only one who can finally determine who gets what. If he's the one, go ahead and study your options. If you are the one, then stop at this time and talk to your father.

Secondly, you haven't disclosed the circumstances of how your father "administered" the commercial property. Was there a contract between your grandfather - verbal or formal - and were the siblings aware of any such "contract" or agreement?

What was the extent of the agreement? Was leasing the property a formal business? Was there a company established to lease the premises? Who was the "beneficial owner" of the leased premises? In other words, where did the income go? Your grandfather alone? Your father alone? Everyone?

When your grandfather passed away, everything became part of the estate, including the incomes derived from the leased premises. Everything should be accounted for.

If there was a will, the will should go into probate. That is the requirement of the law. The will should have mentioned who is the administrator and/or executor of the estate.

If there is no will, an intestate succession will take effect. All compulsory heirs - the children of the deceased - shall have equal shares. If there are any illegitimate children, also compulsory heirs, they will get, I think, half of a share of a legitimate child.

In an intestate succession, whoever gets the majority "vote" among the siblings will be appointed administrator. But the job of the administrator is to implement the division of the properties according to what the law prescribes or what the heirs unanimously approve in an out-of-court settlement.

If there was a will, by your grandmother, bequeathing the commercial property to the eldest sibling, as the other siblings claim - the reason why your father was "ejected" from the property - that will should have gone into probate when your grandmother passed away.

The requirement of the law on succession is to include all compulsory heirs. The probate process ensures that this is followed. If any compulsory heir was inadvertently omitted, the will may be declared null and void.

So the spirit of the law is "inclusion" of everyone, not exclusion, to protect the interests of all compulsory heirs. However, the law also allows an heir or heirs to be disinherited. This must be done explicitly whether in a validly prepared will (with the help of a lawyer) or a holographic will. The reason for disinheriting someone must be stated. Whatever the case (legal or holographic), there are certain requirements that must be followed, otherwise the will shall be null and void.

So unless there's a valid will disinheriting your father, the eldest cannot appropriate for herself the commercial property even if the other siblings agreed to it. Everyone, including your father must agree to extra-judicial partition of the properties.

Going back to my second point above, was there a perception, from the point of view of the other siblings, that your father took advantage of his role as administrator of the commercial property and appropriated the earnings for himself?

Two reasons why someone would take more than one is entitled for: 1) greed, or 2) perception of an injustice.

You don't have to answer this. Perhaps, something that you may want to discuss privately with your father.

Beyond the legalities, the bigger consideration is the human dimension - the family relationship that may be enhanced or destroyed by the (sense of) entitlement to inheritance. I'm sure that the destruction of the relationship of the siblings is not the intention of your grandparents.

So before you go into a legal battle against family members, have a heart to heart talk with your father. Be very very sure that you will do what he thinks is right, not what you think is right.

[puswekster]

Hi sir j4kst0n3,

Maraming salamat with your reply. To answer a few of your questions,

First of, is this your initiative - to look for legal advice - or your father's? What I mean here is that you are not a compulsory heir and you haven't acquired any rights to fight for your father's legal rights.

--- this is my initiative. This is because my father's siblings have not exerted an effort to contact my father when they talk about the inheritance. What they have agreed upon was only told to me by my uncle and aunt.What I am currently doing is proactively looking up the options that my father would take in case he decides on getting his inheritance. In case he does not want it, then we will also not pursue it as we as his children have no plans to meddle in the issue. I did not have a chance to talk to my father yet due to my work. Furthermore,my father is a technological dinosaur who doesn't own or want access to a cellphone or the net.

Secondly, you haven't disclosed the circumstances of how your father "administered" the commercial property. Was there a contract between your grandfather - verbal or formal - and were the siblings aware of any such "contract" or agreement?

--- to the best of my knowledge, there was no formal contract between my grandfather and/or his siblings regarding the usage of the land. Ang nangyari is like since he is the one near the properties, he would be the one in charge of those just as his 3 other siblings are the one in charge with the riceland in the area. The eldest sister doesn't have any "property" administered since she was in the US for over 30-40 years. My father and his 3 other siblings are using the properties as their source of income/livelihood.

Going back to my second point above, was there a perception, from the point of view of the other siblings, that your father took advantage of his role as administrator of the commercial property and appropriated the earnings for himself?
--- based on my latest contact with my father's 3 other siblings, there appears no such perception basically because, the other siblings were also getting income from the ricelands which if combined will actually worth more than the commercial property. I could not say if the eldest sibling has such perception as she seems to be holding her cards pretty close and seems to be just going along with the conversation, trying to extract as much information as she can.

I agree with you sir that this problem could destroy the relationship within the family which actually is already strained by previous events. I don't want fuel to the fire that is why I am seeking possible reasonable options to my father when I talk to him as he is prone to make drastic decisions.

[j4kst0n3]

Sir Puswekster,

Thanks for the additional info.

Probably the best way to protect the interests, not only of your father, but also all of the siblings equally, lalo na kung walang last will and testament ang grandfather mo ay to go thru an intestate succession.

Bago maging full-blown court proceedings, ia-advise ng judge or fiscal na the siblings go through an extra-judicial settlement, that is magkaroon ng compromise agreement ang magkakapatid.

Kapag walang compromise agreement, ang lahat ng ari-arian ng grandfather mo ay hahatiin para sa lahat ng mga anak at sila ay magkakaroon ng equal share.

Pero dapat ready na ang pambayad ng inheritance taxes (20%). Try to find out kung nabayaran na ang taxes ng mga ari-arian at kung sino ang nagbayad nito. This should be done within 6 months of the death of the estate owner. Pag lumampas sa 6 months, meron ng mga penalties.

In effect, 80% lang ang paghahatian ng magkakapatid kasi yung 20% ay kokolektahin ng gobyerno.

[karlkutu]

 before po mag kakaroon ng dispositon ng inheritance yung administrator ay tasked to pay the taxes.

[crashtest]

pinaka-common case. usually mga magkakamag-anak nagtatalo dito.


Sent from my LT26ii using Tapatalk