1. The practical question

A common estate situation looks like this:

A grandparent dies (with or without a will).
One of the grandparent’s children (the grandchildren’s parent) died earlier.
The grandchildren ask: “Do we inherit our parent’s share from Lolo/Lola?”

In Philippine succession law, the doctrinal answer is usually: yes—through the Right of Representation, but only when the law allows representation and no disqualifying rule applies (notably the “iron curtain” for illegitimate relationships in intestacy).

This article focuses on the scenario “grandchildren inheriting when their parent predeceased the grandparent,” and the rules that determine when they inherit, how much, and in what manner.

2. The legal anchor: what “representation” means

Under the Civil Code’s rules on succession, representation is a legal fiction where the law places the representative in the position and degree of the person represented, so the representative can receive what the represented person would have received if still alive and able to inherit.

Key consequences:

The grandchild(ren) inherit from the grandparent directly, not “from the parent’s estate.”
The grandchild(ren) take the parent’s share, not an additional share.
The division is per stirpes (by branch/stock), not automatically per capita (by head).

3. When representation applies for grandchildren

A. The usual trigger: predecease

If the parent (a child of the decedent) died before the grandparent (the decedent), the grandchildren may inherit by representation in the direct descending line.

B. Other triggers the law treats similarly

Representation can also arise (especially relevant when there is a will) where the parent:

is incapacitated / disqualified / unworthy to inherit, or
is disinherited (and the disinheritance is valid).

Important: Representation is a doctrine that shows up most clearly in intestate succession, but it also matters in testate contexts because the law protects legitimes of compulsory heirs and recognizes representation in certain will-related situations (notably disinheritance).

4. Where representation is allowed (and where it is not)

A. Allowed lines

Direct descending line: children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. Representation is strongest here and is the classic “grandchildren step into the shoes of their deceased parent.”
Collateral line (not the focus here): only children of brothers or sisters (nephews/nieces) can represent a deceased sibling of the decedent.

B. Not allowed lines

No representation in the ascending line. Parents do not represent children; grandparents do not represent grandchildren.

5. The core distribution rule: per stirpes

When a child of the decedent predeceases and is represented:

First, determine what the predeceased child’s share would have been if alive.
Then divide that share among that child’s descendants.

Example 1 (basic)

Grandparent G dies intestate leaving three children: A, B, C. A predeceased, leaving two children: A1, A2.

Estate = ₱12,000,000
If A were alive: A, B, C would each get 1/3.
A’s 1/3 passes to A1 and A2 by representation.

So:

B = ₱4,000,000
C = ₱4,000,000
A1 = ₱2,000,000
A2 = ₱2,000,000

That is per stirpes (A’s branch gets A’s portion).

Example 2 (representation can “cascade”)

G dies intestate. Children: A and B. A predeceased; A had two children: A1 and A2. A2 also predeceased, leaving child A2a.

B takes 1/2 (his own right).
A’s branch takes 1/2 total.
Within A’s branch: A1 and A2 would split A’s half; since A2 is deceased, A2a represents A2.

So:

B = 1/2
A1 = 1/4
A2a = 1/4

6. Representation vs. other doctrines people confuse it with

A. Representation vs. “Right of Transmission”

This is a major trap.

Representation requires the parent did not survive the grandparent (or is treated as unable to inherit). Transmission happens when:

the parent survives the grandparent (even briefly), becoming an heir, but
the parent dies later without accepting or repudiating the inheritance.

Then the parent’s own heirs inherit the right to accept (and eventually receive the property). The recipients may include not only children but also the parent’s spouse or other heirs, depending on who inherits from the parent.

Practical impact: Two cases can look similar (“grandchildren end up getting something”), but the legal route changes:

Representation: grandchildren inherit directly from grandparent.
Transmission: grandchildren inherit through the parent’s succession (and sometimes share with the parent’s spouse and other heirs).

B. Representation vs. Accretion

If an heir’s share fails, it may go to co-heirs by accretion—but representation and accretion behave differently:

If the predeceased child has descendants who can represent, the law favors representation (the branch takes).
If there are no representatives, then the share generally accrues to other heirs in the same class/degree or passes to the next heirs in order.

C. Representation vs. Substitution in wills

A will can name a substitute (e.g., “to my son A, and if he cannot inherit, to my grandchildren”). That is substitution, not representation—though in outcome it can resemble representation.

7. Intestate succession: where grandchildren fit when the parent predeceased

A. General order among descendants

If the decedent leaves legitimate children and descendants, they inherit ahead of ascendants and collaterals. Grandchildren inherit only if:

they are the closest descendants, or
they inherit by representation of a nearer descendant who cannot inherit.

B. Grandchildren competing with surviving children of the decedent

If G dies leaving:

one surviving child B, and
grandchildren A1 and A2 representing predeceased child A,

then:

B takes one child share
A1 and A2 split A’s child share

They do not automatically share equally with B per head.

8. The surviving spouse: how it affects the branch shares

When a surviving spouse concurs with legitimate children/descendants in intestacy, the spouse typically takes a share equivalent to one legitimate child’s share (in basic Civil Code intestacy structure).

So in computations, you often treat it as:

(number of “child shares,” counting represented branches) plus one spouse share
divide accordingly.

Example 3 (with surviving spouse)

G dies intestate leaving:

spouse S
children: A (predeceased), B (alive), C (alive)
A left two children A1 and A2

Treat as shares of: S, A, B, C = 4 equal shares

Each share = 1/4
A’s 1/4 goes to A1 and A2 (1/8 each)
B gets 1/4, C gets 1/4, S gets 1/4

9. The “iron curtain” problem: illegitimate grandchildren in intestacy

One rule can completely block what many families assume is automatic: the Civil Code’s barrier between illegitimate and legitimate relatives in intestate succession (often called the “iron curtain rule”).

The typical harsh scenario

G (legitimate) has child A (legitimate).
A has child X (illegitimate).
A predeceases G.
G dies intestate.

Even though X is biologically a grandchild, X may be barred from inheriting from G by intestacy, because intestate inheritance between an illegitimate child and the legitimate relatives of his/her parent is generally not allowed under that barrier rule.

Result: A’s supposed “branch share” may not pass to X by representation in intestacy, and the distribution shifts to other heirs.

Important nuances

The barrier is primarily an intestate problem.
A will (testamentary provisions) can change outcomes, subject to legitime rules and formalities.
Filiation status (legitimate/illegitimate) matters immensely; so does the legal relationship, not only biology.

10. Testate succession: what changes when there is a will

A will introduces two big layers:

What the will says (institutions of heirs, legacies, devises, substitution)
What the law reserves as legitime for compulsory heirs, which the will cannot impair

A. Grandchildren as compulsory heirs

Grandchildren are not always compulsory heirs by default, but they become compulsory heirs as descendants when:

their parent (a compulsory heir) is predeceased, or
their parent is validly disinherited, or
they are otherwise the descendants entitled under legitime structure.

This is why representation matters even in will cases: the law prevents a simple “wipeout” of a branch’s legitime merely because the nearer heir is gone.

B. Disinheritance: descendants of the disinherited

If a parent is validly disinherited, the parent loses the legitime, but the parent’s descendants generally step in for the legitime portion by representation. This prevents disinheritance from punishing innocent descendants beyond what the law permits.

C. Predecease of an instituted heir in a will (and partial intestacy)

If a will institutes A as heir, but A predeceases the testator and there is no substitution for A, that institution fails as to A. The portion may:

pass to substitutes (if any),
pass by accretion (if conditions exist), or
fall into intestate succession as to that portion (mixed succession), where representation can become decisive.

11. Requirements and proof issues that decide real cases

A. Proof of filiation

Grandchildren must establish their relationship to:

the predeceased parent, and
the grandparent (through that parent)

In practice, this means civil registry documents (birth, marriage, death), and where disputed, evidence recognized by law for establishing filiation.

B. Capacity and disqualification

Even if representation is available structurally, a representative must still be qualified to inherit from the decedent. Disqualifications (unworthiness, etc.) can matter.

C. Adoption

Adoption reshapes legal family ties for succession:

An adopted child is generally treated as a legitimate child of the adopter for succession purposes.
The adopted child’s descendants can inherit through that line, consistent with the adoptive relationship’s legal effects.

12. Collation and lifetime gifts to the predeceased parent

If the grandparent gave substantial lifetime donations to the predeceased parent (e.g., land, money), the rules on collation and imputation can require that donation to be brought into the accounting when partitioning the estate among compulsory heirs.

In representation cases, this can effectively mean:

what the parent already received during life can reduce what the parent’s branch receives at death, depending on the nature of the transfer and the applicable collation rules.

13. Quick “branch logic” checklist for the common scenario

When a grandchild claims the predeceased parent’s share, the analysis usually runs:

Is the succession intestate, testate, or mixed?
Did the parent predecease the grandparent, or survive (triggering transmission instead)?
Is representation legally allowed in this line? (direct descending line: generally yes)
Is there any barrier rule that blocks intestate inheritance? (especially illegitimacy issues under the iron curtain rule)
Compute shares per stirpes:
- determine the predeceased parent’s share
- divide it among that parent’s descendants
Adjust for concurring heirs (surviving spouse, other children, illegitimate children where applicable, etc.)
Check legitime impairment if there is a will
Check collation/imputation if there were lifetime donations

14. Key takeaways

Representation is the main doctrine that lets grandchildren inherit the share of a parent who predeceased the grandparent.
It operates by branch (per stirpes): grandchildren take exactly what their parent would have taken, divided among them.
It must be distinguished from transmission, which applies when the parent survived the grandparent but died before accepting/repudiating.
In intestacy, the legitimacy/illegitimacy framework can decisively change outcomes, including outright bars in classic “iron curtain” situations.
In will cases, representation interacts heavily with legitime protection and the treatment of disinheritance and failed institutions.