Introduction

When land in the Philippines is titled in the name of a deceased wife, one of the most common legal questions is: How much goes to the surviving husband, and how much goes to the children? The answer is not determined by the title alone. In Philippine law, the name appearing on the title is important, but it is not always conclusive as to whether the property belongs exclusively to the wife or forms part of the spouses’ property regime. The true answer depends on a layered analysis involving:

the property regime of the marriage;
whether the land was exclusive/paraphernal property or conjugal/community property;
whether the wife died with or without a will;
whether the children are legitimate, illegitimate, adopted, or represented by descendants;
whether there are other compulsory heirs such as parents;
whether there are debts, charges, taxes, and expenses;
whether there was a prior partition or other property agreement.

Because of this, the phrase “land titled to the deceased wife” can lead people to the wrong conclusion. A title in the wife’s name does not automatically mean the entire property belongs to her estate. In many cases, only half of the property enters the estate because the other half already belongs to the surviving spouse by reason of the marital property regime. In other cases, the whole land may truly belong only to the wife, and then the husband and children inherit from that entire property.

This article explains the topic comprehensively in Philippine context.

I. The first rule: title in the wife’s name does not automatically settle ownership

A common mistake is to assume:

“The title is in the wife’s name, so when she dies, the entire land is inherited from her alone.”

That is not always correct.

In Philippine family and property law, land titled in one spouse’s name may still be:

exclusive property of that spouse; or
part of the absolute community of property; or
part of the conjugal partnership of gains.

The name on the title is evidence, but the legal character of the property depends on how and when it was acquired, the marriage regime, and the source of funds.

So before computing inheritance shares, the first question is not yet “how much do the husband and children inherit?” The first question is:

What portion of the land actually belongs to the deceased wife’s estate?

Only after that is answered can succession shares be calculated.

II. The second rule: ownership must be separated from inheritance

There are two separate stages in these cases:

Stage 1: Determine the wife’s estate share in the land

This asks: how much of the land was hers at the time of death?

Stage 2: Distribute that estate share to the heirs

This asks: who inherits from that estate share, and in what proportion?

People often jump directly to stage 2 without finishing stage 1. That creates wrong results.

For example:

If the land is actually conjugal/community property, the surviving husband may already own one-half before succession even begins.
Only the wife’s one-half share is inherited.
Then the husband may still inherit again from the wife’s half as a compulsory heir.

This means the surviving husband may receive property in two capacities:

as co-owner under the marriage property regime; and
as heir under succession law.

That distinction is essential.

III. Why the marriage property regime matters

The applicable property regime usually determines whether the land is:

exclusive property of the wife; or
part of the spouses’ common property.

In Philippine context, the most relevant regimes are:

1. Absolute Community of Property (ACP)

This is generally the default regime for marriages celebrated under the Family Code without a valid pre-nuptial agreement providing otherwise.

Under ACP, as a general rule, properties owned by the spouses at the time of the marriage and those acquired thereafter become community property, subject to legal exclusions.

2. Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG)

This often applies to older marriages, especially those governed by earlier rules, unless another valid property regime exists.

Under CPG, the spouses retain their respective exclusive properties, but the fruits, income, and gains, and many acquisitions during marriage, become conjugal.

3. Complete Separation of Property

If there is a valid marriage settlement or lawful basis for separation of property, ownership is separately held.

The inheritance result changes dramatically depending on which regime applies.

IV. If the land was the wife’s exclusive property

The land may be exclusive property of the wife, despite the marriage, if for example it was:

inherited by her;
donated exclusively to her;
acquired by means legally recognized as exclusive;
owned by her under a regime where it remains separate;
paraphernal property under the applicable older regime.

If the land is truly the wife’s exclusive property, then the entire land or the entire net share of that land belongs to her estate upon death. The surviving husband does not get a prior one-half ownership by reason of conjugal/community property, because the land was never part of the common estate to begin with.

In that case, the husband and the children inherit from the whole property according to succession rules.

V. If the land was community or conjugal property

If the land, although titled in the wife’s name, is actually part of the spouses’ common property, the analysis changes.

Step 1: Liquidate the property regime

Before inheritance, the common property must be settled. Usually, the surviving spouse is first recognized as owner of his share.

As a working basic model:

One-half belongs to the surviving husband as his property share;
One-half corresponds to the deceased wife’s share and enters her estate.

Step 2: Inherit only from the wife’s half

The heirs do not divide the whole land as though all of it belonged exclusively to the wife. They inherit only from her estate share.

This is one of the most misunderstood points in succession disputes over land titles.

VI. Intestate succession: when the wife died without a will

The most common real-life scenario is that the deceased wife left no will. This is called intestate succession.

In intestate succession, the law determines who the heirs are and what shares they receive.

The primary heirs usually involved are:

the surviving spouse;
the legitimate children;
in some cases, illegitimate children;
in the absence of descendants, possibly parents or ascendants.

When there are children, the children generally exclude more remote relatives from inheriting by intestacy.

VII. The surviving spouse and legitimate children in intestate succession

Where the deceased wife is survived by:

a husband, and
legitimate child or children,

the surviving spouse and the legitimate children generally inherit in equal shares, counted per head at that level, subject to the specific succession framework and any presence of illegitimate children or representation issues.

This is one of the foundational rules.

Basic model if the property is the wife’s exclusive property:

If the wife leaves:

husband;
2 legitimate children;

then the estate is divided into 3 equal shares:

1 share to husband;
1 share to child 1;
1 share to child 2.

Basic model if the property is conjugal/community:

First divide ownership:

1/2 already belongs to husband;
1/2 is wife’s estate.

Then divide the wife’s 1/2 estate share among:

husband;
child 1;
child 2.

So the wife’s half is split into 3 equal parts:

husband gets 1/6 of the whole land from inheritance;
each child gets 1/6 of the whole land.

The husband’s total becomes:

his original 1/2 ownership, plus
1/6 inheritance, for a total of 2/3 of the whole land.

Each child gets 1/6 of the whole land.

This result surprises many people because the husband receives more than each child, but that is because he receives in two capacities: owner first, heir second.

VIII. One child only

If the deceased wife is survived by:

husband;
one legitimate child;

and the land is the wife’s exclusive property, intestate succession ordinarily results in:

husband: 1/2
child: 1/2

If the land is conjugal/community:

husband first gets 1/2 as his property share;
the wife’s 1/2 estate is then divided equally between husband and the one child.

So:

husband inherits 1/4 from the wife’s half;
child inherits 1/4 from the wife’s half.

Final shares in the whole land:

husband: 3/4
child: 1/4

Again, this is because the husband receives both as co-owner and as heir.

IX. Three or more children

If the land is the wife’s exclusive property and she is survived by:

husband;
3 legitimate children;

the estate is divided into 4 equal shares:

husband: 1/4
each child: 1/4

If the land is conjugal/community:

husband gets 1/2 first;
the wife’s 1/2 estate is divided among husband + 3 children = 4 equal shares.

So each gets 1/8 of the whole land from the wife’s half.

Final result:

husband = 1/2 + 1/8 = 5/8
each child = 1/8

The more children there are, the smaller the spouse’s inherited portion from the deceased’s half becomes, but the spouse still keeps his original property share if the property is conjugal/community.

X. If there are no children but there is a surviving spouse

If the deceased wife left:

a surviving husband;
no children or descendants;

then the next question is whether the wife left surviving parents or ascendants.

A. Spouse and ascendants survive

In that case, the surviving spouse may inherit together with the legitimate parents or ascendants, with shares determined by succession rules.

B. Spouse survives, no descendants, no ascendants

Then the surviving spouse may inherit the estate more extensively, potentially taking the estate alone in intestacy, subject to other surviving heirs recognized by law.

For purposes of this topic, however, the usual problem involves spouse and children, so that remains the main focus.

XI. The effect of legitimate versus illegitimate children

This issue significantly changes succession shares.

A deceased wife may leave:

legitimate children;
illegitimate children;
both.

The rights of illegitimate children must be analyzed carefully because they are heirs, but their shares do not always mirror those of legitimate children in the same way across all succession scenarios. Their exact successional participation depends on the governing rules and whether the succession is testate or intestate, as well as the applicable compulsory heir structure.

What matters here is that the presence of illegitimate children prevents a simplistic “just divide equally among all children plus spouse” approach.

In real legal analysis, one must identify:

how many legitimate children;
how many illegitimate children;
whether there is a surviving spouse;
whether the succession is intestate or under a will.

A blunt formula can produce wrong results when illegitimate children are present.

XII. Representation by grandchildren

If one of the wife’s children predeceased her but left children of his or her own, those grandchildren may inherit by right of representation in proper cases.

This means:

the share that would have gone to the deceased child does not simply disappear;
the descendants of that child may step into the child’s place.

So if the wife had:

husband;
3 children, but one child died earlier leaving 2 children;

the line of that deceased child may still inherit the share that the child would have received.

This is important in family settlements because surviving siblings sometimes incorrectly claim the entire inheritance and ignore representation rights.

XIII. If the wife left a will

If the deceased wife left a valid will, the analysis changes again.

Philippine succession law protects compulsory heirs, meaning the wife cannot freely dispose of the entire property if she leaves heirs whom the law reserves portions for.

The husband and children are generally compulsory heirs. This means:

they are entitled to their legitime;
only the free portion may be freely disposed of by will.

So even if the wife executes a will saying:

“I leave all my land to one child,” or
“I exclude my husband,”

that will may be reduced or impaired to the extent it violates the legitime of compulsory heirs.

Thus, in testate succession, one must distinguish between:

legitime; and
free portion.

A title in the wife’s name does not allow her to defeat the legally protected shares of compulsory heirs if the property truly belongs to her estate.

XIV. The legitime of the surviving spouse and children

When there is a will, the surviving spouse and legitimate children are generally compulsory heirs entitled to legitime.

The precise amount depends on the combination of heirs and whether the surviving spouse concurs with legitimate children, ascendants, or illegitimate children. The system is technical, and the key point is this:

The wife cannot validly deprive the husband and children of the portions reserved to them by law, unless there is a lawful cause for disinheritance and proper compliance with the legal requirements.

So a will does not simply erase the husband’s and children’s rights.

XV. Disinheritance is not easy

Sometimes families assume that because the wife was angry at a spouse or child, she can simply exclude that person from inheritance.

That is not enough.

In Philippine law, disinheritance generally requires:

a legal cause recognized by law;
proper expression in a valid will;
proof if contested.

Without proper disinheritance, the compulsory heir keeps the legitime.

So in land succession involving spouse and children, a will cannot be read casually. One must ask:

Was the will valid?
Did it respect legitime?
Was any disinheritance lawful and properly made?

XVI. Debts and expenses must be paid before distribution

Heirs inherit net estate, not automatically the gross value of the property.

Before partition, the estate may need to satisfy:

debts of the deceased;
funeral expenses;
administration expenses;
taxes and charges;
obligations attached to the property;
estate settlement expenses.

Thus, even if a wife owned land, the heirs’ shares may be affected if:

the land is mortgaged;
estate liabilities exist;
there are taxes or expenses to settle.

In legal terms, succession is to the net hereditary estate after proper deductions.

XVII. Estate tax and settlement are separate from ownership shares

A frequent confusion is to mix:

inheritance share;
estate tax;
transfer of title.

These are related but different matters.

Inheritance share

This answers who owns what after death.

Estate tax and settlement compliance

These concern tax and documentary requirements before property can be validly transferred or registered to heirs.

Transfer of title

This is the registration step that reflects the result of the settlement.

A person can be an heir in law even before the title is transferred, but registration and tax compliance are needed to formalize and enforce ownership in practice.

XVIII. Extrajudicial settlement versus judicial settlement

If the deceased wife left no will and no dispute exists, the heirs may in proper cases settle the estate through extrajudicial settlement, provided the legal requirements are satisfied.

If there is:

a will;
disagreement among heirs;
a need to determine ownership disputes;
issues involving minors, missing heirs, or contested shares;

then judicial settlement may be necessary.

The mode of settlement does not change the substantive inheritance shares, but it affects how those shares are established and enforced.

XIX. Why land titled only to the wife often becomes disputed

Disputes arise for several recurring reasons:

1. The children argue the land is exclusively the wife’s

They claim the surviving husband has no prior one-half share.

2. The husband argues the land is conjugal/community

He claims only the wife’s half is inheritable.

3. The title alone is treated as conclusive

One side says, “Her name is on the title, so that ends the matter.”

4. Purchase source is unclear

Was the land bought before marriage, during marriage, with whose money, or through inheritance?

5. Improvements and possession complicate the picture

Who built on the land? Who paid taxes? Who maintained it? These facts can influence evidence, though not always the ultimate legal rule.

Thus, succession cases often begin as ownership characterization disputes rather than pure inheritance computations.

XX. Property acquired before marriage

If the wife acquired the land before the marriage, it may be her exclusive property, depending on the applicable regime and surrounding facts.

If so, upon her death:

the whole land may enter her estate;
the husband and children inherit from that whole property according to succession rules.

But if the applicable property regime and factual circumstances support a different characterization, the conclusion may differ. The date and mode of acquisition are therefore crucial.

XXI. Property acquired during marriage

Land acquired during marriage is often presumed or argued to belong to the common property regime, depending on the marriage’s governing law and facts.

Even if the title is only in the wife’s name, the husband may still argue:

it was paid from common funds;
it forms part of the community or conjugal partnership;
the wife’s title was nominal or administrative, not proof of exclusivity.

This is why families should not compute inheritance based solely on the title.

XXII. Property inherited by the wife during marriage

If the wife inherited land from her parents or relatives during marriage, that land is often treated as exclusive property, not common property, unless unusual facts change the analysis.

In that case, when she dies:

the whole inherited land generally forms part of her estate;
the husband and children inherit from it according to succession law.

This is a classic example of why title plus source of acquisition matters.

XXIII. Property donated exclusively to the wife

If a donor gave land specifically and exclusively to the wife, the land may remain her exclusive property.

Again, this means the whole property generally enters her estate upon death, subject to debts and legal charges.

Then the husband and children inherit from that whole estate share.

XXIV. Possession does not equal ownership

A surviving husband may say:

“I possessed the land for years, so it is mine.”

Children may say:

“Mother’s name is on the title, so father gets only a child’s share.”

Neither statement is automatically correct.

Possession, tax declarations, payment of real property tax, or actual cultivation may be evidence of claims, but they do not by themselves override the legal characterization of the property and the rules of succession.

XXV. If the husband paid for the land but title was in the wife’s name

This is another common dispute.

If the husband proves that the property, although titled to the wife, was actually acquired with conjugal/community funds or under circumstances that make it common property, he may have a prior ownership claim beyond mere inheritance.

But if the facts show that the husband made a transfer or donation to the wife, or that the property legally became her exclusive property, the result may differ.

This is a fact-intensive question. The title is important, but funding source and intent also matter.

XXVI. Home lot versus agricultural land versus commercial land

The type of land usually does not change the basic succession principles. What changes are the practical issues:

valuation;
indivisibility;
actual possession;
use by one heir;
partition feasibility;
need for sale.

For example, if the land is a single residential lot where the surviving spouse lives, the ideal fractional shares may still exist in law even if physical partition is difficult in practice.

So “share” means legal ownership share, not always physically divided land area.

XXVII. The difference between fractional ownership and physical partition

If the husband and children inherit undivided shares, they usually become co-owners until the property is partitioned.

This means:

each owns an ideal or undivided share;
no one automatically owns a specific corner of the land unless partition is made;
sale, subdivision, or adjudication may later be needed.

Thus, saying:

“the husband owns 2/3” or
“each child owns 1/6”

means they own those fractions in the whole property, not necessarily separately fenced portions.

XXVIII. When minors are heirs

If one or more children are minors, estate settlement becomes more sensitive. A surviving spouse cannot simply disregard the children’s shares or unilaterally appropriate the property.

Transactions involving minors’ hereditary shares may require stricter legal handling, and settlements must protect their interests.

This is especially important where the surviving spouse tries to execute deeds as though the children have no vested hereditary interest.

XXIX. Waiver, renunciation, and sale of hereditary rights

An heir may later waive, renounce, or transfer hereditary rights, subject to legal rules and formalities. But that is different from saying the heir never had a share in the first place.

For example:

a child may later agree to waive a share in favor of the father;
a spouse may renounce in favor of the children.

But absent a valid waiver or partition, the legal shares arise by operation of law upon succession.

XXX. Common computational examples

Example 1: Land is wife’s exclusive property; husband and 2 legitimate children survive

Estate = whole land.

Divide among husband + 2 children = 3 equal shares:

husband: 1/3
child A: 1/3
child B: 1/3

Example 2: Land is conjugal/community; husband and 2 legitimate children survive

Whole land:

husband’s own share first: 1/2
wife’s estate share: 1/2

Then divide wife’s half among husband + 2 children:

each gets 1/6 of whole land

Final:

husband: 2/3
child A: 1/6
child B: 1/6

Example 3: Land is wife’s exclusive property; husband and 1 legitimate child survive

husband: 1/2
child: 1/2

Example 4: Land is conjugal/community; husband and 1 legitimate child survive

husband’s property share: 1/2
wife’s half divided equally between husband and child = 1/4 each

Final:

husband: 3/4
child: 1/4

Example 5: Land is wife’s exclusive property; husband and 4 legitimate children survive

Divide estate into 5 equal shares:

husband: 1/5
each child: 1/5

Example 6: Land is conjugal/community; husband and 4 legitimate children survive

husband’s own share: 1/2
wife’s half divided among 5 heirs = 1/10 each

Final:

husband: 3/5
each child: 1/10

These examples assume no will, no illegitimate children, no ascendants competing, no debts changing the net estate, and no special facts altering ownership characterization.

XXXI. If there are illegitimate children together with spouse and legitimate children

This requires special caution. The rules become more technical because different classes of compulsory heirs and intestate heirs interact differently. Their rights cannot be ignored, but the exact computation must be done carefully based on the heir structure.

The safest legal approach is not to assume that every child automatically gets the exact same share in every scenario. Inheritance involving illegitimate children must be separately analyzed using the applicable succession rules.

What remains constant is:

illegitimate children are heirs;
they cannot be erased from the succession picture merely because the family dislikes them;
their participation affects the shares of others.

XXXII. If there are no children but the wife’s parents survive

If the wife died without descendants but with surviving parents or ascendants, the surviving husband does not necessarily inherit alone. The ascendants may concur with the spouse in succession.

This changes distribution significantly. Thus, whenever children are absent, one must ask:

Are the parents still alive?
Are there legitimate ascendants?

The answer changes the shares.

XXXIII. The rights of compulsory heirs arise by law

One of the most important principles in Philippine succession is that the rights of heirs, especially compulsory heirs, do not depend merely on family agreement.

This means:

the surviving husband cannot simply say all land is his;
the children cannot simply exclude the husband because the title bears only the wife’s name;
siblings of the deceased usually cannot inherit ahead of children and spouse in ordinary intestacy where descendants exist.

The law determines the order and extent of succession.

XXXIV. The surviving spouse is not just an “administrator”

Another mistake is to think the husband merely “manages” the land after the wife dies but has no ownership unless the children allow it.

That is wrong where the husband is a compulsory heir or co-owner under the property regime. He is not a mere caretaker. He may have:

a direct property share as spouse under the marriage regime;
an inheritance share from the deceased wife;
rights in settlement and partition proceedings.

Conversely, the husband cannot lawfully absorb the children’s hereditary shares merely by staying in possession.

XXXV. The children become co-heirs immediately in principle

Upon the wife’s death, succession rights arise by operation of law, subject to settlement, liquidation, and payment of obligations.

This means the children do not have to wait for generosity from the father to become heirs. They are heirs because the law makes them heirs.

But practical enforcement still requires:

settlement,
documentation,
tax compliance,
and, where necessary, court proceedings.

XXXVI. Can the surviving husband sell the land alone?

Usually not safely, unless he is truly the sole owner of the whole land or has authority covering the full interests involved.

If the land is:

partly his by property regime;
partly inherited by children and/or himself from the wife;

then he generally cannot validly dispose of the entire property as though only he owns it.

He can usually deal only with:

his own share; or
the whole property with participation or authority of the co-heirs, subject to legal requirements.

A buyer who relies only on the father’s signature in such situations risks buying less than the whole title.

XXXVII. Transfer of title to heirs does not create inheritance rights; it reflects them

Some families assume:

“The title is still in the wife’s name, so no one inherits yet.”

That is incorrect.

Inheritance rights arise by law upon death, although formal transfer and partition still need to be completed.

So the fact that the title remains in the wife’s name does not mean the heirs have no rights. It means the estate has not yet been fully settled and registered.

XXXVIII. Partition can be by agreement or by court

If all heirs agree, they may partition the estate according to law or a lawful arrangement. If they do not agree, partition may require judicial action.

Partition issues commonly arise when:

the spouse claims a bigger share;
one child claims the land was exclusively the mother’s;
another claims prior advances or donations must be considered;
one heir occupies the property and refuses partition.

The law of succession provides the shares; partition provides the practical implementation.

XXXIX. Donations made during the wife’s lifetime may affect equality

If during her lifetime the wife gave substantial property to one child, questions may arise about collation or accounting, depending on the legal context and heir structure.

This does not automatically change title to the land now under discussion, but it can affect broader estate settlement if the estate is being equalized among compulsory heirs.

This is a more advanced issue, but it is part of the fuller succession picture.

XL. Land registration documents are not the only evidence

In disputes over whether land titled to the wife was exclusive or common property, relevant evidence may include:

date of acquisition;
deed of sale;
deed of donation;
extrajudicial settlement from which she inherited;
source of funds;
marriage date;
pre-nuptial agreement, if any;
tax declarations;
receipts and mortgage records;
family admissions and prior transactions.

A clean legal answer requires ownership characterization before succession computation.

XLI. The safest legal method in these cases

The correct legal method is:

Step 1

Identify the marriage property regime.

Step 2

Determine whether the land was:

exclusive property of the wife; or
community/conjugal property.

Step 3

If common property, liquidate first and determine the wife’s estate share.

Step 4

Identify all heirs:

spouse;
legitimate children;
illegitimate children;
descendants by representation;
ascendants if no descendants.

Step 5

Determine whether there is a will.

Step 6

Pay debts, taxes, and expenses of the estate.

Step 7

Partition the net estate share accordingly.

This sequence avoids the most common mistakes.

XLII. The most common wrong assumptions

Wrong assumption 1:

“The title is in the wife’s name, so the husband gets only the same share as a child.” Not always. If the property is conjugal/community, the husband may already own half before inheritance.

Wrong assumption 2:

“The husband automatically owns all because he is the surviving spouse.” Wrong. Children are heirs too.

Wrong assumption 3:

“Children inherit only after title transfer.” Wrong. Succession rights arise upon death.

Wrong assumption 4:

“All children always inherit equally regardless of status.” Not necessarily. The analysis can change if illegitimate children are involved.

Wrong assumption 5:

“If the wife made a will, she can leave everything to one person.” Not if that violates the legitime of compulsory heirs.

XLIII. Practical legal conclusion from the title alone

If the only known fact is:

“The land is titled to the deceased wife.”

that fact alone is not enough to determine final inheritance shares.

The legally correct response is:

determine whether the land was exclusive or conjugal/community;
if conjugal/community, separate the husband’s property share first;
distribute only the wife’s estate share to heirs according to succession law.

Without this analysis, any percentage given is only a guess.

XLIV. Core scenarios summarized

Scenario A: Land truly belonged exclusively to the wife

Then the entire land forms part of her estate. If she is survived by husband and legitimate children, the husband and the children inherit from the whole estate according to the applicable succession rules.

Scenario B: Land titled to wife but actually conjugal/community

Then the husband first receives his own half. Only the wife’s half is inherited. The husband may then still inherit from that half together with the children.

This is the single most important distinction on the topic.

XLV. Bottom line

In Philippine law, the inheritance share of the surviving spouse and children in land titled to a deceased wife cannot be determined by the title alone. The first question is whether the land was the wife’s exclusive property or part of the spouses’ conjugal/community property. If it was exclusive, the whole land enters the wife’s estate and is inherited by the husband and children according to succession rules. If it was conjugal or community property, the surviving husband first receives his ownership share, usually one-half, and only the wife’s remaining share is inherited. After that, the husband and children inherit from the wife’s estate share in the proportions fixed by law, subject to the presence of other heirs, a will, debts, taxes, and the exact family situation.

Condensed rule statement

When land in the Philippines is titled in the name of a deceased wife, the surviving spouse and children do not automatically divide the whole property just because it is under her name. The property must first be characterized as either the wife’s exclusive property or common spousal property. If it is common property, the surviving husband gets his property share first, and only the wife’s share is distributed by succession. If it is the wife’s exclusive property, the whole property is inherited according to the rules on testate or intestate succession, with the surviving spouse and children as compulsory or intestate heirs, as the case may be.

Practical takeaway

The most important legal question is not “Whose name is on the title?” but “What portion of the land actually belonged to the deceased wife’s estate at the moment of death?” Once that is answered, the shares of the husband and children can be computed properly.