Below is a comprehensive discussion of the “Extent of Right of Representation in Succession” under Philippine law, primarily governed by the Civil Code of the Philippines. This article covers the concept, legal basis, scope, limitations, and relevant jurisprudence.

I. Definition and General Concepts

1. Right of Representation
Under Philippine law, representation is a legal mechanism by virtue of which the representative (usually a descendant) is raised to the place and degree of the person represented (usually an heir who has predeceased the decedent or is otherwise unable to inherit). The representative thus acquires the inheritance rights that the person represented would have had if still living or capable of inheriting.

Article 970, Civil Code of the Philippines:
“Representation is a right created by legal fiction, by virtue of which the representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented, and acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have inherited.”

2. Intestate vs. Testamentary Succession

Intestate Succession: The right of representation most commonly applies in intestate succession, where the law governs the distribution of the estate in the absence of a valid will (or with respect to portions of the estate not disposed of by will).
Testamentary Succession: In principle, representation does not automatically operate under a will unless (a) expressly provided by the testator through substitute heirs or other forms of substitution, or (b) there are lacunae (gaps) in the will that end up being governed by intestate rules.

Thus, the full mechanism and extent of representation are primarily relevant to intestate succession.

II. Who May Be Represented and Who May Represent

1. Persons Who May Be Represented
By general rule, a predeceased heir or a person declared incapable of inheriting may be “represented” by his or her own descendants. For instance:

A child of a deceased heir may represent that deceased heir in inheriting from a grandparent.
Where the original heir is disqualified (for example, due to unworthiness to inherit), his or her descendants may step into his or her position if the law so allows.

2. Persons Who May Exercise the Right of Representation

The right of representation arises primarily in the direct descending line (i.e., children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren of the deceased heir).
Additionally, representation operates in the collateral line under specific circumstances. For example, children of a deceased brother or sister of the decedent may represent their parent in the estate of their uncle or aunt (the decedent).

Article 972, Civil Code:
“The right of representation takes place in the direct descending line, but never in the ascending line. In the collateral line it takes place only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full or half blood.”

Key Takeaway

Direct Ascendants (e.g., a father in relation to an inheritance from his child) cannot represent a deceased heir. Ascendants inherit in their own right, not via representation.
Representation is recognized in the descending line without limit as long as filiation is proven (e.g., grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc.).
In the collateral line, only nephews and nieces can represent a deceased uncle or aunt (who would have been an heir), but that representation does not extend indefinitely (i.e., the children of a nephew or niece cannot continue to represent in the uncle’s or aunt’s estate).

III. Extent and Limits of Representation in the Direct Line

A. Representation is Per Stirpes

When representation occurs, it follows the per stirpes rule. This means that the representatives collectively take the share that would have pertained to the person they replace.

Example: If A (the deceased) has three children (B, C, and D), and B dies earlier, leaving two children (X and Y), then X and Y will represent B. The estate portion that B would have received had he survived (one-third of A’s estate) now goes entirely to X and Y, to be divided equally between them (each receiving half of B’s one-third share).

B. Unlimited Descending Representation

The right of representation in the direct descending line applies indefinitely (i.e., as far down as there are living direct descendants who can prove their line of descent from the predeceased heir).

Article 973, Civil Code:
“In the direct descending line, the division of the inheritance is made per stirpes.”

IV. Extent and Limits of Representation in the Collateral Line

A. Limited to Children of Brothers or Sisters

As stated, representation in the collateral line is confined to nephews and nieces, whether they be of full or half blood. The children of a nephew or niece, in turn, do not get to represent the nephew or niece. Once a generation is “skipped,” representation in the collateral line ends.

Example: If the decedent A is survived by a brother B, who predeceased A, leaving a child X. X can represent B in A’s inheritance. However, if X also predeceased A (or died simultaneously) and left children, those grandchildren of B (through X) do not represent B in A’s estate. Their claim does not extend that far in the collateral line.

Article 972, Civil Code (quoted earlier) clearly provides the limitation.

B. Per Capita Rule in the Same Degree

Where representation in the collateral line places several representatives in the same degree of relationship to the decedent, they typically inherit per capita if they represent different “stems” of the same degree. However, if they belong to the same stirps, they inherit per stirpes. Judicial rulings have clarified these distinctions over time, but the bedrock principle is that representatives collectively take only what the person represented would have received.

V. Exclusions and Restrictions

1. Persons Incapacitated or Unworthy
A person who is legally declared incapable or unworthy to inherit (e.g., due to certain criminal acts against the decedent) cannot exercise representation. One cannot pass on or claim rights one never had (or was barred from asserting).

If the primary heir is unworthy, his or her child may still represent if that child is personally qualified. The unworthiness of the parent does not automatically bar the child’s right to represent. But if the child, too, is unworthy, that child cannot inherit.

2. Express Renunciation
If the person who is supposed to be represented expressly renounced his or her inheritance while alive, the representation generally does not take place. There is simply no transmissible share left for the representatives to claim. The law treats a valid and voluntary renunciation as eliminating that share from the would-be heir’s estate.

Article 977, Civil Code:
“Heirs who repudiate their share may not be represented.”

3. Testamentary Dispositions Contrary to Representation
If the testator (the deceased) leaves a will making a valid disposition of the entire estate (or specifically cutting off or altering representation through a valid substitution clause), the statutory right of representation may yield to that testamentary freedom, except for legitime concerns. However, if a portion is intestate, representation can apply to that portion.

VI. Practical Examples

Direct Descendants
- Situation: Grandfather (G) dies intestate. His only son (S) died earlier, leaving two children (C1 and C2).
- Outcome: C1 and C2 will represent S. The share that would have belonged to S (the entire estate if S was G’s only child) is now divided equally between C1 and C2.
Collateral Line (Nephews/Nieces)
- Situation: A dies without descendants, leaving assets. A also had a sister (B), who is predeceased, leaving a child (N).
- Outcome: N can inherit in the place of B, because N is the direct child of A’s sister B. N steps into B’s shoes, receiving what B would have received had B survived.
No Ascending Representation
- Situation: A child (C) dies, leaving no will, no spouse, no descendants. C is survived by father (F) and mother (M). The father’s father (GF) cannot represent father if the father is alive, and indeed, no “representation” occurs in the ascending line. Instead, any ascendants inherit in their own right directly from the decedent.
Renunciation
- Situation: B, who would have been an heir of X, renounces X’s estate before dying. B then passes away, leaving children. When X eventually dies, B’s children try to represent B.
- Outcome: Because B validly renounced, B had no inheritable share to pass on. Hence, B’s children cannot represent B in X’s estate.

VII. Relevant Jurisprudence and Interpretations

Application of the Per Stirpes Rule
Courts have consistently upheld the principle that descendants representing a predeceased heir collectively take only what that heir would have received (i.e., per stirpes). For instance, in disputes among siblings where one branch tries to claim more than the others, courts will strictly apply per stirpes to keep distributions equitable.
Collateral Representation Strictly Construed
Philippine courts, guided by the Civil Code, have consistently held that collateral representation does not extend beyond nephews and nieces. Children of nephews and nieces (i.e., grandnephews and grandnieces of the decedent) cannot represent. This principle is strictly followed to avoid indefinite extension of collateral claims.
Unworthiness and Effects on Representation
Judicial rulings confirm that a child of an unworthy heir can still represent that unworthy heir, provided the child is personally qualified (i.e., no direct unworthiness with respect to the decedent). The unworthiness is personal, and does not necessarily bar the next generation, unless that next generation likewise commits an act of unworthiness.

VIII. Practical Implications

Estate Planning
Those preparing wills should note how the statutory rules of representation can significantly alter the distribution of their estate if any heirs predecease them. Testamentary dispositions that either confirm or override representation should be carefully drafted.
Intestate Consequences
Where a person dies without a will (or with a will that partially fails), the automatic operation of the right of representation can substantially redistribute shares among grandchildren or nephews/nieces. Families need to be aware of this possibility to avoid confusion or prolonged litigation.
Documenting Relationship and Filiation
Since representation requires proof of blood relationship in both direct and collateral lines, maintaining clear and official records (birth certificates, marriage certificates, etc.) is crucial to establish rightful claims when the time comes.
Timing of Death (Predecease vs. Simultaneous Death)
Philippine law also provides rules for situations where heirs die simultaneously with or very close in time to the decedent. Typically, if there is no way to determine who died first, both are presumed to have died at the same time, and representation may not arise. Clear factual or medical evidence on the sequence of deaths can become crucial in deciding whether representation is triggered.

IX. Conclusion

The right of representation is an essential concept in Philippine succession law that ensures the issue (descendants) of a predeceased or disqualified heir can step into the latter’s place. Its primary application is in the direct descending line, with limited extension in the collateral line (only to the children of brothers or sisters). It is governed largely by the provisions of the Civil Code—particularly Articles 970 to 980—and is bounded by important legal doctrines regarding unworthiness, renunciation, and proof of filiation.

For individuals involved in estate planning, understanding representation rules helps in anticipating potential shifts in how an inheritance might devolve, especially if an intended heir dies before the testator or is legally disqualified. For heirs asserting rights, the correct application of the representation doctrine can significantly affect their share in the distribution of the decedent’s estate.

In sum, the extent of the right of representation under Philippine law is that it acts as a legal fiction to maintain the integrity of the bloodline’s inheritance rights, ensuring that the next generation can succeed to what their deceased parent or ascendant would have received, but it remains confined by statutory limits as to who may represent and what portion is taken through that representation.

References

Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386), particularly Articles 970–977, 979–980.
Interpretations of the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding intestate succession, unworthiness, and rules of representation.

Disclaimer: This article provides a general overview based on the Civil Code of the Philippines and pertinent jurisprudence. For specific cases or legal advice, consultation with a licensed attorney in the Philippines is strongly recommended.