1975-2004
The rights of illegitimate
Succession; acceptance, repudiation,
collation
1977 No. XIII-a
Distinguish acceptance and repudiation of
inheritance from collation.
Answer
Acceptance is the act of an heir, legatee or
devisee in manifesting his desire in accordance
with the formalities prescribed by law to
succeed to the inheritance, legacy or devise,
while repudiation is the act of an heir,
legatee or devisee in manifesting his desire
in accordance with the formalities prescribed
by law not to succeed to such inheritance,
legacy or devise.
Collation, on the other hand, refers to the
act of restoring to the common mass of the
hereditary estate, either actually or fictitiously,
any property or right, which a compulsory
heir, who succeeds with other compulsory
heirs, may have received by way of donation
or any other gratuitous title from the
decedent during the lifetime of the latter, but
which is understood for legal purposes as an
advance of his legitime.
(NOTE: The above answer may be stated
substantially).
Succession; barrier between illegitimate and
legitimate relatives 1984 No. 9
A had two sons, one legitimate (B) and the
other illegitimate (C), who both died in a car
accident. At the time of the accident, B was
not married but had an illegitimate son, D.
C also had an illegitimate son, E. Upon
learning of the death of his sons, A suffered a
heart attack and died. Can D and E inherit from
A? Explain
Answer:
A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma,
D, cannot inherit. The illegitimate child
cannot inherit from the legitimate
relatives of his father or mother, {Art. 992).
E can inherit.
children are transmitted upon their
death to their descendants, legitimate or
illegitimate. (Art 990).
Succession; barrier between illegitimate and
legitimate relatives 1996 No. 11:
Cristina. the illegitimate daughter of Jose and
Maria, died Intestate, without any descendant
or ascendant. Her valuable estate is being
claimed by Ana, the legitimate daughter of
Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate son of Maria.
Is either, both, or neither of them entitled to
inherit? Explain.
Answer;
Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit
of ab intestato from Cristina. Both are
legitimate relatives of Cristina's illegitimate
parents and therefore they fall under the
prohibition prescribed by Art. 992, NCC (Manuel
v. Ferrer, 242 SCRA 477; Diaz v. Court of Appeals,
182 SCRA 427).
Succession; barrier between illegitimate and
legitimate relatives 1993 No. 2;
A is the acknowledged natural child of B
who died when A was already 22 years old.
When B's full blood brother, C, died he (C) was
survived by his widow and four children of his
other brother. D. Claiming that he is entitled
to inherit from his father's brother. C, A
brought suit to obtain his share in the estate of
C. Will his action prosper?
Answer:
No, the action of A will not prosper. On the
premise that B, C and D are legitimate
brothers, as an illegitimate child of B, A cannot
inherit in intestacy from C who is a legitimate
brother of B. Only the wife of C in her own
right and the legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the
children of D as C's legitimate nephews
inheriting as collateral relatives) can inherit in
intestacy. (Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975,
Civil Code)
Alternative Answer:
The action of A will not prosper. Being an
illegitimate, he is barred by Article 992 of the
Civil Code from inheriting ab intestato from the
legitimate relatives of his father.
Succession; barrier between legitimate and
illegitimate relatives 1983 No. 9
A, a spurious child, died intestate survived by B,
the brother of his deceased mother, and C, his
mother's legitimate granddaughter. May B and C
inherit from A? Reasons.
Answer
B cannot because uncles have no right to
inherit from their illegitimate nephews. C
cannot succeed either because legitimate
relatives have no right to inherit from an
illegitimate child and vice versa.
Succession; capacity to inherit; conditional
devise 1980 No. VII
(a) In his will, Reverend Father "R' devised a
parcel of riceland in favor of "his nearest male
relative who would study for the priesthood."
The Will was duly probated. No nephew of the
testator claimed the devise and the testate
proceeding remained pending. In the interim,
the riceland was to be administered by the
Parish Priest of the locality pursuant to a project
of partition approved by the Probate Court.
Twenty-one years after the testator's death,
the Parish Priest filed a petition before the
Court for delivery of the rice land to the Church
as trustee. The legal heirs of Father "R" objected
and prayed instead that the bequest be declared
inoperative and that they be adjudged entitled
to the rice land. It also turned out that the
testator had a grandnephew (a grandson of his
first cousin) who was taking the holy orders
in a Seminary. Would you construe the
testamentary provision liberally so as to
render the trust operative and to prevent
intestacy, or would you declare the bequest
inoperative and the legal heirs entitled to the
riceland?
Answer
(a) It depends. If the Seminarian, who is
presently studying for the priesthood, was
born before the death of Father "R", it is
submitted that the testamentary provision
should be liberally construed so as to prevent
intestacy. The land should be delivered to the
Parish Priest as trustee or administrator. The
reason is obvious. There is always the possibility
that the seminarian might not become a
priest. True, Father "K" devised the land to
his nearest nephew male relative who would
study for the priesthood.
Apparently, the condition has already been
fulfilled. It is however, submitted that the
testatorial intention is clear. The devisee must
not only study for the priesthood; he must
become a priest. Once he becomes a priest, the
land should then be delivered to him.
If the seminarian was born after the death of
Father "R", bequest is certainly inoperative and
the legal heirs of the testator shall, therefore, be
entitled to the rice-land. In other -words, the
land shall be merged in the mass of the
hereditary estate, and from there, it shall pass
to the legal heirs in accordance with the
rules of intestacy (Art. 956, Civil Code). The
reason is clear. The seminarian cannot inherit
from Father "R", Under our law, in order to be
capacitated to inherit, the heir, legatee
or devisee must be living at the moment
the succession opens, except in case of
representation when it is proper. (Art. 1025, Civil
Code).
(NOTE: The above problem is obviously a
modification of the problem resolved in
Parish Priest of Victoria vs. Rigor, 89 SCRA
493. Because of the fact that only one out of
several conditions imposed by the testator was
retained by the Honorable Bar Examiner in the
above hypothetical problem, the Committee
respectfully prays that either one of the above
assumptions should be considered as a correct
answer. The Committee further prays that if a bar
candidate assumes that the seminarian was
born before the death of Father "R" and
then advances the opinion that the land should
be delivered to him because the condition has
already been fulfilled, such an answer should be
considered as a correct answer.)
Succession; collation 1993 No. 17;
Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio Cruz a
residential lot of 300 square meters in Quezon
City for which Joaquin paid Julio the amount
of P300,000.00, When the deed was about to
be prepared Joaquin told Julio that it be
drawn in the name of Joaquina Roxas. his
acknowledged natural child. Thus, the deed
was so prepared and executed by Julio.
Joaquina then built a house on the lot
where she, her husband and children resided.
Upon Joaquin's death, his legitimate children
sought to recover possession and ownership
of the lot. claiming that Joaquina Roxas was
but a trustee of their father. Will the action
against Joaquina Roxas prosper?
Answer:
Yes, because there is a presumed donation
in favor of Joaquina under Art. 1448 of the
Civil Code (De los Santos v. Reyes, 27 January
1992, 206 SCRA 437). However, the donation
should be collated to the hereditary estate and
the legitime of the other heirs should be
preserved.
Alternative Answer;
Yes, the action against Joaquina Roxas will
prosper, but only to the extent of the aliquot
hereditary rights of the legitimate children as
heirs. Joaquina will be entitled to retain her
own share as an illegitimate child, (Arts.
1440 and 1453. Civil Code; Art. 176, F. C.)
Succession; collation 1978 No. VII-a
Are the following subject to collation? Explain
fully your answers.
1. Gifts bestowed by the deceased father during
his lifetime for the debts of a son,
2. Money paid by the deceased parent during
his lifetime for the debts of a son.
Answer
1. Gifts bestowed by the deceased father during
his lifetime to the spouse of his son should not
be subject to collation. This means that the law
will not consider such gifts as advances made
by the decedent of the legitime of his son,
and therefore, chargeable against such
legitime during the partition of the hereditary
estate. Instead, the law considers such gifts as
ordinary donations inter vivos made to a
stranger, and therefore, chargeable against
the disposable free portion of the estate. It
would be different if the gifts are bestowed to
the spouses jointly. In such case, one-half (1/2)
of the value of such gifts would then be
charged against the legitime of the son and
the other one-half (1/2) against the disposable
free portion.
2. Money paid by the deceased parent during
his lifetime for the debts of a son should be
brought to collation. In reality, what we have
here is a donation inter vivos made to a
compulsory heir. From the point of view of
the law, the money is considered as an
advance of the legitime. Consequently, in
the portion of the hereditary estate, the
amount should be charged against the legitime
of the son.
(NOTE: The above answers are based on
Arts. 1066 and 1069 of the Civil
Code and on the view sustained by practically all
commentators on the real meaning
of collation under Arts. 1061, et seq., of the Civil
Code.)
Succession; disinheritance 1999 No VIII,
(a.) Mr. Palma, widower, has three daughters D,
D-l and D-3. He executes a Will disinheriting D
because she married a man he did not like,
and instituting daughters D-1 and D-2 as his
heirs to his entire estate of P 1,000,000.00, Upon
Mr, Palma's death, how should his estate be
divided? Explain. (5%)
ANSWER:
(a) This is a case of ineffective disinheritance 50,000 pesos in favor of Ernie is not
because marrying a man that the father did inofficious not having exceeded the free
not approve of is not a ground for portion. Hence, he shall be entitled to receive It.
disinheriting D. Therefore, the institution of D-l The institution of Baldo, which applies only to
and D-2 shall be annulled insofar as it prejudices the free portion, shall be respected. In sum,
the legitime of D, and the institution of D-l and the estate of Lamberto will be distributed as
D-2 shall only apply on the free portion in the follows:
amount of P500,000.00. Therefore, D, D-l and
D-2 will get their legitimes of P500.000.00 Baldo----------------- 450,000
divided into three equal parts and D-l and Wilma--------------- 250,000
D-2 will get a reduced testamentary Elvira----------------- 250,000
disposition of P250,OOO.OO each. Hence, the Ernie----------------- 50,000
shares will be:
(paragraph form!) 1,000,000
D - P166,666.66
D-l P166,666.66 + P25O.OOO.OO ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
D-2 P166,666.66 + P250,000.00 The disinheritance of Wilma was effective
because disrespect of, and raising of voice to,
Succession; disinheritance vs preterition her father constitute maltreatment under
2000 No IV Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code. She is,
In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1) therefore, not entitled to inherit anything. Her
disinherits his daughter Wilma because "she inheritance will go to the other legal heirs. The
is disrespectful towards me and raises her total omission of Elvira Is not preterition because
voice talking to me", 2) omits entirely his she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line.
spouse Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of She will receive only her legitime. The legacy
P100,000.00 to his mistress Rosa and in favor of Rosa is void under Article 1028 for
P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4) institutes his being in consideration of her adulterous relation
son Baldo as his sole heir. How will you with the testator. She is, therefore, isqualified
distribute his estate of P1,000,000.00? (5%) to receive the legacy. Ernie will receive the
legacy In his favor because it is not
SUGGESTED ANSWER: inofficious. The institution of Baldo, which
The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective applies only to the free portion, will be
because the ground relied upon by the respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto shall
testator does not constitute maltreatment under be distributed as follows:
Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code. Hence, the
testamentary provisions In the will shall be Heir Legitime Legacy
annulled but only to the extent that her Institution TOTAL
legitime was impaired. The total omission of
Elvira does not constitute preterition because
Baldo 500,000
she is not a compulsory heir in the direct
200.000 700,000
line. Only compulsory heirs in the direct line
Elvira 250,000
may be the subject of preterition. Not having
250,000
been preterited, she will be entitled only to
Ernie 50,000 50,000
her legitime. The legacy in favor of Rosa is
TOTAL 750,000 50,000 200,000
void under Article 1028 for being in
1,000,000
consideration of her adulterous relation with the
testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive
the legacy of 100,000 pesos. The legacy of
 Succession; disinheritance vs preterition
1993 No. 7:
Maria, to spite her husband Jorge, whom she
suspected was having an affair with another
woman, executed a will, unknown to him,
bequeathing all the properties she inherited
from her parents, to her sister Miguela.
Upon her death, the will was presented for
probate. Jorge opposed probate of the will on
the ground that the will was executed by his
wife without his knowledge, much less
consent, and that it deprived him of his
legitime. After all, he had given her no cause for
disinheritance, added Jorge in his opposition.
How will you rule on Jorge's opposition to
the probate of Maria's will. If you were the
Judge?
Answer;
As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's
opposition should be sustained in part and
denied in part. Jorge's omission as spouse of
Maria is not preterition of a compulsory heir
in the direct line. Hence, Art. 854 of the Civil
Code does not apply, and the institution of
Miguela as heir is valid, but only to the extent of
the free portion of one-half. Jorge is still entitled
to one-half of the estate as his legitime. (Art.
1001, Civil Code)
Succession; disinheritance, ineffective
1982 No. 13
"X’ s only living relatives are his brothers "A"
and "B". "X" executed a will providing as
follows: "I institute my brother "A" as my sole
and universal heir; and I am disinheriting my
brother "B" because he refused to support
me when I had nothing." After "X"' s demise,
is "B" entitled to share in the inheritance on
the ground that the disinheritance was
ineffective because "X" had not proved that
he in fact refused to support the testator?
Reason.
Answer
"B" is not entitled to share in the
inheritance not on the ground that the
disinheritance was ineffective because "X" had
not proved that he in fact refused to support the
testator. The reason is evident, "B" is not a
compulsory heir. The law on disinheritance
applied only to compulsory heirs, never to
voluntary heirs or to legatees or devisees.
Consequently, even assuming that indeed "X"
had not proved that "B" refused to support
him, such fact would not have only effect
whatsoever. The act of "X" in disinheriting "B" is
clearly a surplusage. (Note: The above answer is
based on Arts, 915, et seq. of the Civil Code.)
Succession; disinheritance, ineffective
1984 No, 10
A had two legitimate children, namely, B and C.
He made a will, instituting G and a friend, D, as
his heirs and giving a P10,000 legacy to E, his
former driver. He, however, expressly
disinherited B without specifying the reason
therefore. Assuming that A's net estate is worth
P100,000 upon his death, how will it be
distributed?
Answer.
A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma
The disinheritance of B is invalid, because
there is no specification of the cause
therefore. However, the institution of the
heirs will only be partially annulled
insofar as it may prejudice his legitime (Art.
918). The legacies and other testamentary
dispositions remain valid insofar as it will
not impair his legitime. B therefore gets his
legitime which is 1/4 of the estate, or
P25,000.00. The legacy of P10,000 to E will
be paid. The balance of the estate of
P65,000 will, be divided equally between the
instituted heirs, C and D.
B. Comments and Suggested Answer
We suggest that the following should be
accepted as a correct answer:
The disinheritance of B is defective or
imperfect because there is no
specification of the cause in the will as
required by law. However, the institution of
heirs will only be partially annulled insofar as it
may prejudice his legitime (Art 918,
Civil Code). Therefore B will still be entitled
to his legitime which is 1/2 of 1/2 of
P100,000, or P25,000. The legacies, however,
are valid so long as they are not inofficious
(Ibid.) It is obvious that the legacy of P10,000
given to E is not inofficious because it can
easily be contained in the free portion of
P50,000. Therefore, E will be entitled to such
legacy. Since A had instituted as heirs his child C
and his friend D as heirs without designation
of shares, therefore, applying the view of
Manresa, which has been adopted by
commentators in this country, Tolentino among
them (6 Manresa 98-99; 3 Tolentino 161; Art.
846, Civil Code), the legitime of C, which is 1/2
of 1/2 of P100,000 or P25,000, must first be
separated and allotted to him because the
testator cannot deprive him of not. Then, the
remainder of P40,000 which is the disposable
free portion, will be divided equally between C
and D, the two instituted heirs.
Consequently, the estate of P100,000.00 will be
distributed as follows:
B — P25,000 as compulsory heir; C—P25,000 as
compulsory heir;
P20,000 as voluntary heir; D—P20,000 as
voluntary heir; E— P10,000
as legatee.
Succession; disinheritance; compulsory heirs
1977 No. XII-c
Who are compulsory heirs? Give five (5)
instances which shall be sufficient causes for
the disinheritance of children and
descendants, legitimate as well as illegitimate.
Answer
In general, compulsory heirs are those for
whom the law has reserved a portion of the
testator's estate which is known as the legitime.
In particular, the following are compulsory heirs:
(1) Legitimate children and descendants,
with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate
parents and ascendants, with respect to their
legitimate children and descendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children and natural
children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Art.
287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4, and 5
are not excluded by those in Nos, 1 and 2;
neither do they exclude one another. In all cases
of illegitimate children, their filiation must be
duly proved.
The father or mother of illegitimate children
of the classes mentioned shall
inherit from them in the manner and to the
extent established by the Civil Code. (Art.
887, Civil Code).
The following shall be sufficient causes for the
disinheritance of children and descendants,
legitimate as well as illegitimate:
(1) When a child or descendant has been found
guilty of an attempt against the life of the
testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or
ascendants;
(2) When a child or descendant has accused
the testator of a crime for
which the law prescribes imprisonment for six
years or more if the accusation has
been found groundless;
(3) When a child or descendant has been
convicted of adultery or
concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
(4) When a child or descendant by fraud,
violence, intimidation, or undue
influence causes the testator to make a will or to
change one already made;
(5) A refusal without justifiable cause to
support the parent or ascendant
who disinherits such child or descendant;
(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or
deed, by the child or descendant;
(7) When a child or descendant leads a
dishonorable or disgraceful life;
(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it
the penalty of civil interdiction.
{Art. 919, Civil Code).
Succession; disinheritance; grounds
1989 No. 11:
(2) Jose and Ana are husband and wife. On
January 10, 1980, Jose learned that Ana was
having illicit relations with Juan, In fact, Jose
personally saw his wife and Juan leaving a
motel on one occasion. Despite all the evidence
he had at hand, Jose did not bring any action for
legal separation against Ana. Instead, Jose
simply prepared a will wherein he disinherited
Ana for her acts of infidelity. The validity of
the disinheritance was questioned by Ana upon
Jose's death. If you were the judge, how would
you resolve this question? Give your reasons.
Answer:
The disinheritance is valid. Under the Civil
Code, the legal ground for disinheriting a
spouse is that the spouse has given cause
for legal separation. Therefore, a final judgment
is not needed.
Alternative Answer:
The disinheritance is not valid. The facts indicate
that there was condonation by Jose of Ana's
illicit relationship with Juan since they appear to
have continued to live together,
Succession; donation of a spouse’s share
1982 No. 10
"H" and "W" are husband and wife. They
have neither descendants or ascendants. "H"
died and while the conjugal partnership was
under judicial administration and pending
liquidation, "W" donated all her share in her
husband's estate to a friend "F". "W" died
while the proceeding for the settlement of
the conjugal partnership was pending. The
collateral heirs of "W" and the administrator
of the estate brought an action against the
donee, "F", to set aside the donation on
the ground that it is void, as it is a donation of
future property. Decide with reasons.
Answer:
The contention of the collateral heirs of "W"
and the administrator of the estate that the
donation made by "W" to her friend "F" is void
because the donation is a donation of future
property is untenable. The reason is crystal clear.
According to the Civil Code, by future property is
understood anything which the donor cannot
dispose of at the time of the donation.
Obviously, "W's" share in her husband's
estate does not fall within the purview of the
definition. Because of the principle that
successional rights are transmitted at the very
moment of the death of the decedent,
it is evident that "W" had a perfect right to
donate her share in her husband's estate
to her friend "F". (Note: The above answer is
based on Arts 777 and 751 of the Civil
Code. The Committee recommends most
respectfully that if the bar candidate arrives
at the same conclusion by invoking the
provisions of Art. 493 of the Civil Code, he or
she should be properly credited.)
Succession; incapacity 1988 No. 7:
(b) Suppose that the beneficiary in a will is
the wife of the minister of the gospel who
rendered aid to the testator during the letter's
last illness, would she be disqualified from
inheriting from the testator? Explain.
Answer:
(b) We believe that the wife of the minister
would not be disqualified from
inheriting from the testator. Under No. 2 of
Art. 1027 of the Civil Code, the law
extends the disqualification of priests and
ministers of the gospel to their relatives
within the fourth degree as well as to the
church, order, chapter, community,
organization or institution to which they may
belong. The spouse is not included.
Consequently, such spouse is not disqualified.
Otherwise, we would be reading into the law
what is not found there. Besides, capacity to
succeed is the general rule, while incapacity
to succeed is the exception. Hence, the rules
on incapacity must always be strictly construed.
Suggested Alternative Answer To: No. 7(b):
(b) If the testamentary disposition was actually
intended to favor the Minister as a disqualified
person and was ostensibly made thru an
intermediary, namely, the wife, then the Minister
is considered disqualified as the real and
intended heir.
Succession; incapacity; effect of legal
separation 1976 No. VI-c
In case of a legal separation between A and
the widow, will the surviving widow inherit?
Explain.
Answer
It depends. If the widow is the guilty spouse, she
cannot inherit. If she is the innocent spouse, she
may inherit. (Article 106, paragraph 4 1002)
Succession; intestate heirs 1995 No. 18:
Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both 18 years of
age, were passengers of Flight No. 317 of
Oriental Airlines. The plane they boarded was
of Philippine registry. While en route from
Manila to Greece some passengers hijacked the
plane, held the chief pilot hostage at the cockpit
and ordered him to fly Instead to Libya. During
the hijacking Isidro suffered a heart attack
and was on the verge of death. Since Irma
was already eight months pregnant by Isidro,
she pleaded to the hijackers to allow the
assistant pilot to solemnize her marriage
with Isidro. Soon after the marriage, Isidro
expired. As the plane landed in Libya Irma gave
birth. However, the baby died a few minutes
after complete delivery. Back in the Philippines
Irma Immediately filed a claim for
inheritance. The parents of Isidro opposed
her claim contending that the marriage
between her and Isidro was void ab initio
on the following grounds: (a) they had not
given their consent to the marriage of their
son; (b) there was no marriage license; (c)
the solemnizing officer had no authority to
perform the marriage; and, (d) the
solemnizing officer did not file an affidavit of
marriage with the proper civil registrar.
2. Does Irma have any successional rights at all?
Discuss fully.
Answer;
2. Irma succeeded to the estate of Isidro
as his surviving spouse to the estate of her
legitimate child. When Isidro died, he was
succeeded by his surviving wife Irma, and his
legitimate unborn child. They divided the estate
equally between them, the child excluding the
parents of Isidro. An unborn child is
considered born for all purposes favorable to
it provided it is born later. The child was
considered born because, having an intra-
uterine life of more than seven months, it
lived for a few minutes after its complete
delivery. It was legitimate because it was born
within the valid marriage of the parents.
Succession is favorable to it. When the child
died, Irma inherited the share of the child.
However, the share of the child in the hands of
Irma is subject to reserva troncal for the benefit
of the relatives of the child within the third
degree of consanguinity and who belong to the
line of Isidro.
Alternative Answer:
If the marriage is void. Irma has no successional
rights with respect to Isidro but she would have
successional rights with respect to the child.
Succession; intestate heirs and sharing
1977 No. XIII-b
Should brothers and sisters of the full blood
survive together with brothers and sisters of
the half blood, how much is the former entitled
compared to that of the latter?
Answer
The former shall be entitled to a share
double that of the latter (Art. 1006, Civil
Code).
Succession; intestate heirs; shares
2003 No XII.
(b) Luis was survived by two legitimate
children, two illegitimate children,
his parents, and two brothers. He left an
estate of P1 million. Luis died intestate.
Who are his intestate heirs, and how much is the
share of each in his estate?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The intestate heirs are the two (2)
legitimate children and the two (2)
illegitimate children. In intestacy the estate
of the decedent is divided among the
legitimate and illegitimate children such that
the share of each illegitimate child is
one - half the share of each legitimate child.
Their share are :
For each legitimate child – P333,333.33
For each illegitimate child – P166,666.66
Page 123 of 391
(Article 983, New Civil Code; Article 176, Family
Code)
Succession; intestate succession 1992 No 5:
F had three (3) legitimate children: A, B, and C. B
has one (1) legitimate child X. C has two (2)
legitimate children: Y and Z. F and A rode
together in a car and perished together at
the same time in a vehicular accident, F and
A died, each of them leaving substantial
estates in intestacy.
a) Who are the intestate heirs of F?
What are their respective fractional
shares?
b) Who are the intestate heirs of A? What
are their respective fractional
shares?
c) If B and C both predeceased F, who
are Fs intestate heirs? What are
their respective fractional shares? Do they
inherit in their own right or by
representation? Explain your answer.
d) If B and C both repudiated their shares
in the estate of Ft who are F's
intestate heirs? What are their respective
fractional shares? Do they inherit in their
own right or by representation? Explain your
answer,
Answer:
(a) B = 1/2 (c) X = 1/2 by representation
of B C=l/2 Y
= 1/4 by representation of C
(b) B = 1/2 Z = 1/4 by representation
of C C= 1/2
Article 982 of the Civil Code provides that
grandchildren inherit by right of
representation.
(d) X - 1/3 in his own right Y- 1/3 in his own
right 2 - 1/3 in his own right
Article 977 of the Civil Code provides that
heirs who repudiate their share cannot be
represented.
Succession; intestate succession
1976 No. VI-a
A dies without a will, leaving a modern hotel, a
fleet of air-conditioned buses and three
helicopters. If his widow and brothers
survive, how will they inherit the estate?
Answer
One-half (1/2) to the widow and 1/2 to the
brothers and sisters, regardless of their number.
(Article 1001)
Succession; intestate succession 1976 No. VI-
b
If the widow and three legitimate children
are left, what will be the share of the widow?
Answer
Under Article 996, each shall receive 1/4 as the
Civil Code provides that the widow shall have
the same share as that of each legitimate child.
Succession; intestate succession
2000 No XI
Eugenio died without issue, leaving several
parcels of land in Bataan. He was survived by
Antonio, his legitimate brother; Martina, the
only daughter of his predeceased sister
Mercedes; and five legitimate children of
Joaquin, another predeceased brother. Shortly
after Eugenio's death, Antonio also died, leaving
three legitimate children. Subsequently,
Martina, the children of Joaquin and the
children of Antonio executed an extrajudicial
settlement of the estate of Eugenio, dividing
it among themselves. The succeeding year, a
petition to annul the extrajudicial settlement
was filed by Antero, an illegitimate son of
Antonio, who claims he is entitled to share in
the estate of Eugenio. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that Antero
is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code
from inheriting from the legitimate brother of
his father. How will you resolve the motion? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss should be granted. Article
992 does not apply. Antero is not claiming any
inheritance from Eugenio. He is claiming his
share in the inheritance of his father consisting
of his father's share in the inheritance of Eugenio
(Dela Merced v, Dela Merced, Gr No. 126707, 25
February 1999)
. The legal heirs are A, B, D, and W. C is
Succession; intestate succession 1978 No. VI-
b representation of E who predeceased. F is
A, deceased, is survived by a half-sister B on his
father's aide and an aunt C his mother's sister.
He left as his only property that which was
inherited from his mother. He died intestate.
Who shall succeed to A's estate? Reasons
for your answer.
Answer
B shall succeed to A's estate. The law of
intestate succession is explicit. Since both B
and C are collateral relatives of the decedent A,
therefore, the rule of proximity is applicable.
Relatives nearest in degree exclude the more
distant ones, B is a second degree relative of
A, while C is a third degree relative. Besides,
under the general order of intestate succession,
brothers and sisters, whether of the full or
half blood, are always preferred to uncles or
aunts.
(NOTE: The above answer is based on Art.
967, Civil Code, and on Arts. 1004 to 1009,
Civil Code. It is suggested that if a bar candidate
should also discuss
the question of whether or not there is a
reserva troncal, this should not prejudice
him, provided that he will arrive at the
correct conclusion that A's estate is not
reservable.)
Succession; intestate succession 1997 No. 11:
"T" died intestate on 1 September 1997.He was
survived by M (his mother), W (his widow), A
and B (his legitimate children), C (his
grandson, being the legitimate son of B), D (his
other grandson, being the son of E who was a
legitimate son of, and who predeceased, "T"),
and F (his grandson, being the son of G, a
legitimate son who repudiated the inheritance
from "T"). His distributable net estate is P120.00
0.00.
How should this amount be shared in intestacy
among the surviving heirs?
Answer:
excluded by B who is still alive. D Inherits in
excluded because of the repudiation of G, the
predecessor. M is excluded by the legitimate
children of T. The answer may be premised on
two theories: the Theory of Exclusion and the
Theory of Concurrence.
Under the Theory of Exclusion the legitimes
of the heirs are accorded them and the free
portion will be given exclusively to the
legitimate descendants. Hence under the
Exclusion Theory:
A will get P20.000.00. and P 13.333.33 (1/3 of the
free portion)
B will get P 20,000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of
the free portion)
D will get P20.000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of the
free portion)
W, the widow is limited to the legitime of
P20.000.00
Under the Theory of Concurrence. In addition to
their legitimes. the heirs of A, B, D and W will be
given equal shares in the free portions:
A: P20.000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1 /4 of the free
portion)
B: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (l/4 of the free predeceased him, and two recognized
portlon) illegitimate children.
C: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1/4 of the free Distribute the estate in intestacy. [5%]
portion)
W: P20,000.00 plus P10,000.00 (l/4 of the free Answer:
portion) Under the theory of Concurrence, the shares are
Alternative Answer: Shares in Intestacy as
T - decedent Estate: P120.000.00 follows:
Page 126 of 391 A (legitimate child) = P200.OOO
Survived by: B (legitimate child) = P2OO.OOO
M - Mother............................None C (legitimate child) = P2OO,OOO
W - Widow.............................P 30,000.00 D (legitimate child) = O (predeceased]
A - Son.................................P 30,000.00 E (legitimate child of D) = P100.0OO - by right of
B - Son.................................P3O.OOO.OO representation
C - Grandson (son of B).............None F (legitimate child of D) = P100.OOO - by right
D - Grandson (son of E who predeceased of representation
T)................P 30,000.00 G (illegitimate child) = P1OO.OOO - 1/2 share of
F - Grandson (son of G who repudiated the ft legitimate child
Inheritance from"T").......................None H (illegitimate child) = P100.OOO - 1/2 share of
a legitimate child
Explanation: W (Widow) = P200.0OO - same share as
1) The mother (M) cannot inherit from T legitimate child
because under Art. 985 the ascendants shall Another Answer:
inherit in default of legitimate children and Page 127 of 391
descendants of the deceased. Under the theory of Exclusion the free portion
2) The widow's share is P30.000.00 because (P300.OOO) is distributed only
under Art, 996 it states that if among the legitimate children and is given
the widow or widower and legitimate children or to them in addition to their legitime. All
descendants are left, the surviving other Intestate heirs are entitled only to their
spouse has in the succession the same share as respective legitimes. The distribution is
that of each of the children, as follows:
3) C has no share because his father is Legitime Free Portion
still alive hence succession by Total
representation shall not apply (Art. 975). A [legitimate child) P15O.OOO + P
4) D inherits P30.000 which is the share of his 75,OOO - P225.OOO
father E who predeceased T B {legitimate child) P15O.OOO +
by virtue of Art. 981 on the right of F15O.OOO - P225.OOO
representation. C (legitimate child) P15O.OOO + P
5) F has no share because his father G 75.OOO - P225.OOO
repudiated the inheritance. Under D (legitimate child) 0 0
Article 977 heirs who repudiate their share may 0
not be represented. E (legitimate child of D) P 75,OOO +
P35.5OO - P112.5OO
Succession; intestate succession 1998 No XII F (legitimate child of D) P 75.OOO + P
Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary estate of 37.5OO - P112,5OO
P1.2 million. He is survived by his widow, three G (illegitimate child) P 75.OOO 0
legitimate children, two legitimate -P 75.5OO
grandchildren sired by a legitimate child who
H (illegitimate child) P 75.OOO O the share of A or B. It must be observed that
- P 75.5OO
W (Widow) P15O.OOO 0 from the point of view of Philippine Law
- since the decree of absolute divorce obtained
P15O.OOO
Succession; intestate succession
1984 No, 8
Spouses Guillermo and Pacita had three sons,
namely, A, B and C. Beset by quarrels, their
marriage broke up. Guillermo left for and
obtained a divorce in the United States,
where he subsequently married Juana, by
whom he had a son, D. Guillermo later died
in the United States without even knowing
that C had died earlier, leaving a wife, E, and a
legitimate son, F, State the shares, if any, of the
following: in the estate of Guillermo: A, B, D, E,
F, Pacita and Juana
. A's share will be 2/9 of the estate; D's share
Answers:
A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma
The legitimate sons are entitled to one (1)
share each, together with the surviving
spouse, Pacita. Since divorce is not recognized,
Juana, the second wife, is not an heir and gets
nothing. D is a spurious child and will get 2/5 of
the share of a legitimate son, C having
predeceased Guillermo, F, the legitimate son
of C, will inherit by right of representation. E
the wife of C, has no right of representation and
will get nothing. Hence, the estate will be
divided as follows:
A —5/22
B —5/22
F — 5/22
Pacita — 5/22
D — 2/22
B. Comments and Suggested Answer
We suggest that the following should be
accepted as a correct answer:
A shall be entitled to the share of a legitimate
child. B shall also be entitled to
the share of a legitimate child.
D, being a natural child by legal fiction,
shall be entitled to one-half (1/2) of
Guillermo's marriage to Juana id void
by him against Pacita is not recognized as a valid
decree (see Arts. 15, 71, 80, No. (4).
E shall not participate in the inheritance
because she is not a legal heir of Guillermo.
Pacita however, shall be entitled to the same
share as A or B, being the surviving spouse
of Guillermo (Art. 999, Civil Code). F, the
legitimate son of C, will inherit by right of
representation. Juana shall not participate in
the inheritance because she is not a legal heir of
Guillermo. Hence, the proportionate shares of A,
B, F, Pacita, and D in the inheritance will be: (2
for A, 2 for B; 2 for F, 2 for Pacita, and 1 for F or
(2:2:2:2:1).
will be 2/9 of the estate; F's share will be 2/9
of the estate; Pacita's share will be 2/9 of the
estate; and D's share will be 1/9 of the estate.
Succession; intestate succession 1985 No. 9
A) Among the properties in the estate of
A, who died intestate and without issue,
were a farm, which came from his father, B,
and a house, which he acquired from C,
B's father. In the partition of A's inheritance,
the house was allotted to B and the farm to D,
A's mother. Upon the death of B and D, who
were simultaneously killed in a car accident, the
farm was claimed by C and X, a child of B And D
born after A's death, while the house was laimed
also by C and X and Y, D's child by a prior
marriage. Decide the conflicting claims over the
farm and the house in controversy with reasons.
B) By a letter written before his death, the
deceased distributed and partitioned among
his three (3) legitimate sons. A, B, and C,
his property in such manner that A received
17/24 thereof, B, 1/6 and C, 1/8. The letter not
having been made in accordance with the
formalities required for the execution of wills, B
and C claimed that their father died intestate
and his inheritance should be divided equally
among his children. Decide their claims and
distribute the estate among A, B and C
stating the reasons in support of your
disposition.
C) A, a bachelor, named his brother, B as heir if
his sister, S, dies within 10 years after A's
death. B died 2 years after A's death while
S died 1 year later, A's estate" is claimed by
B's only child and S's 6 children. Who are
entitled to it and how much will each receive?
Discuss.
Answers:
A) 1. As regards the house, this property
was acquired by A from his
grandfather C and was transmitted by A to B, his
father. There is no reserva truncal because there
is no change of line. Hence, X alone is entitled to
inherit the house. With respect to the farm, the
farm originally came from B, the father of A, and
from A it went to his mother D, There is a
change of line from the paternal to the
maternal line. The farm is reservable property
and must be acquired by relatives within the
third degree of the propositus and belonging to
the paternal line.
Regarding the sharing, there are two
theories. In the "delayed intestacy doctrine,"
the preferences in the rules of intestate
succession must be observed. The second
theory is to the effect that relatives in the same
degree inherit in equal shares without distinction
as to the direct or collateral line. Under the first
theory, the "delayed intestacy theory," C alone
will inherit the farm because in intestacy, the
direct line excludes the collateral line. Hence, C,
the grandfather, should exclude X, the brother of
A. Under the second theory; which allows no
distinction as to direct or collateral line, C and X
will inherit the farm in equal shares since they
are both 2nd degree relatives of A, both
belonging to the paternal line. In any case Y
does not inherit, since Y is not a reservatario.
2. With respect to the house, the property was
inherited by B who belongs to the paternal
line. There will be no reason for making the
property reservable because there is no
danger of the property going to another
line. Hence, when B died, C and X belonging to
the same line from which the property came
will inherit it equally. With respect to the
house, not being reservable, the heir of B
will be X alone as the descendant excludes
the ascendant. With respect to the farm
being reservable in character, C and X
belonging to the same line from which the
property came will inherit equally.
3. With respect to the farm it will go to X and
Y. With respect to the house, it will go to X as
the lone child and legal heir of B.
4. There is no reserva and the properties will
go by intestate succession, the farm going to
X and the house going to C, since there is
no showing that the properties were received
by B and D by operation of law as the
question merely says that they were "allotted"
in the partition, and by the propositus A by
gratuitous title as the question merely says
that the farm "came" from his father B and
a house which he "acquired" from C, B's father
without stating whether it "came" or was
"acquired" by gratuitous title.
6. In the event that both farm and house were
acquired by gratuitous title and were inherited
by B and D by operation of law, there is in
both cases reserva because reserva can exist
although the properties come from the same
line. Hence, the farm will go to C because the
direct line excludes the collateral line. As regards
the house, there is also reserva although it came
from the same line and will also go to C for the
same reason.
8. The farm should be awarded to X, the
legitimate child of B, who is preferred over
C, the surviving parent of B. The farm is not
reservable property having origin-ally come
from a line to which B likewise belongs (B
in fact, was the donor of the property). The
house shall be awarded to C as the
preferred reservatario. The requisites of
reserva troncal concurred in the case of the
house since the property was acquired by
gratuitous title by B from C, a paternal
ascendant, and upon the death of A
(propositus) the same property went by
operation of Law to D (reservista), his mother.
Both X and C are reservatarios since they belong
to the line where the property originally
came from and related within three degrees
from the propositus but since C belongs to the
direct line of A and X being only a collateral
relative, C would be preferred over X.
B) 1. Under Art, 1080 of the Civil Code, a person
may partition his property by an act inter vivos
or by will. Under our present law, there is no
need for the owner of the property to make a
valid will. However, the partition inter vivos
made by him must not prejudice the
legitimes. In this particular case, the partition
prejudices the legitime of C because actually
each one should get 1/6, or 1/3 of 1/2, of his
estate or 4/24. The partition made here is 17/24
which is 1/24 in excess of what he ought to
get, therefore, the final distribution should be:
A = 16/24 which includes the whole
1/2 plus 1/3 of the other half B = is entitled
only to 4/24 and C = 4/24
2. Since the letter was not made in accordance
with the formalities required for the execution of
wills, the father died intestate. Hence, A, B and C
will divide the inheritance equally.
3. Despite the fact that a will is no longer
required for the execution of a partition
inter vivos within the meaning of the law,
nevertheless, the different formalities which
are necessary in order to convey property
must still be complied with. Hence, A, B and C
will divide the inheritance equally.
4. B and C are correct. While it is very true that
the letter of the deceased did not comply with
the formalities required for the, execution of the
wills, nevertheless, under the law, a partition
inter vivos may be effected provided, of course,
that there will be compliance with all of the
formalities required for ordinary conveyance
of properties such as when real properties
are involved. In other words, the partition
that was effected by means of a letter does
not state that all of the formalities prescribed
for ordinary conveyances of properties are
complied with.
5. This is not a partition because partition
presupposes a division/separation of a property.
This is merely assigning an aliquot portion of the
property. Therefore, it is not a real partition
contemplated under Article 1080. It should
follow the requirements of a will, and because it
does not comply with the requirements of the
will, intestate succession will follow.
6. A shall be entitled to 4/6, B to 1/6 and
C to 1/6 of the estate. Under Art, 1080 of
the Civil Code, a person may partition his
estate during his lifetime. Unlike that which
obtained during the regime of the old Civil
Code, the present Code would appear to permit
a person to distribute his estate during his
lifetime without having to execute a will. A
conflict of views among Civil Law commentators
arises only where the participants in the
partition, or some of them, are voluntary
heirs. Since those who were given entitlement
under the partition were all legitimate children,
and there being no one apparently preterited
the partition can take effect but without
prejudice to their respective legitimes. The share
given to C is less than his legitime for which
reason that share must be increased to 1/6 of
the estate.
C) 1. The estate of A will be distributed in
intestacy among the 6 children of S
and the child of B. The condition embodied
by A was ineffective because B died
ahead of S. Hence, the condition was not
fulfilled while B was alive. Intestate
succession for B and S will be determined
as to the rights existing on A's death,
hence, one-half will go to the children of S and
the other half to the child of B.
2. Only the 6 children of 3 will get the property
because the heir died before the fulfillment of
the condition.
3. From the wording of the facts in the case, it
would appear that S is the heir and that if 3 died
within 10 years after A's death, then B gets it, not
the children of S. If S died after B, the children of
S get it.
4. In a conditional institution, such as what has
arisen in the problem, the instituted heir must
survive not only the testator but likewise the
fulfillment of the condition in the will (Art.
1034). Since B did not survive that condition, the
institution in his favor could not be operative.
The estate, therefore, assuming that there are no
other relatives other than those named in the
problem, would be the child of B and the six
children of S, who would get it in equal
shares (per capita), each receiving 1/7 of the
estate (Art. 975).
Succession; intestate succession 1998 No XI.
Tessie died survived by her husband Mario,
and two nieces, Michelle and
Jorelle, who are the legitimate children of an
elder sister who had predeceased her.
Page 131 of 391
The only property she left behind was a
house and lot worth two million pesos,
which Tessie and her husband had acquired with
the use of Mario's savings from his
income as a doctor. How much of the property
or its value, if any, may Michelle and
Jorelle claim as their hereditary shares? [5%]
Answer:
Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides, "Should
brothers and sisters or their children survive
with the widow or widower, the latter shall be
entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the
brothers and sisters or their children to the other
half." Tessie's gross estate consists of a
house and lot acquired during her marriage,
making it part of the community property.
Thus, one-half of the said property would
have to be set aside as Mario's conjugal share
from the community
property. The other half, amounting to one
million pesos, is her conjugal share (net
estate), and should be distributed to her
intestate heirs. Applying the above
provision of law, Michelle and Jorelle, Tessie's
nieces, are entitled to one-half of her
conjugal share worth one million pesos, or
500,000 pesos, while the other one-half
amounting to P5OO,OOO will go to Mario,
Tessie's surviving spouse. Michelle and
Jorelle are then entitled to P250,000 pesos each
as their hereditary share.
Succession; intestate succession
1977 No. XII-a
X is the adulterous son of A and B and when he
died in 1970 without a will,
he was survived only by his father A and
his widow W: How would you divide his
estate valued at P100,000.00?
Answer
A shall be entitled to 1/2 of the estate,
while W shall be entitled also to 1/2.
True, there is no express provision of the New
Civil Code which directly governs this
situation, but this solution is the most
equitable. Besides, in testamentary
succession, the legitime of A is 1/2 of X's estate,
while the legitime of W is also 1/2
(Art. 903, Civil Code); and in intestate
succession, had A been a legitimate parent,
his share would have been only 1/2, while
the share of W would also be 1/2 (Art.
997, Civil code). These rules should be applied
by analogy.
Succession; intestate succession 1977 No.
XI-c
State the order of intestate succession. Answer
We must distinguish between the order of
intestate succession if the decedent is a
legitimate person and the order if said
decedent is an illegitimate person,
If the decedent is a legitimate person, the order
is:
(1) Legitimate children or descendants.
(2) Legitimate parents or ascendants,
(3) Illegitimate children or descendants.
(4) The surviving spouse subject to the
concurrent right of brothers and
sisters, nephews and nieces.
(5) Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces.
(6) Other collateral relatives within the fifth
degree.
(7) The state.
If the decedent is an illegitimate person, the
order is:
(1) Legitimate children or descendants.
(2) Illegitimate children or descendants.
(3) Parents by nature,
(4) The surviving spouse subject to the
concurrent right of brothers and
sisters, nephews and nieces.
(5) Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces.
(6) The State.
If the decedent is an adopted person, and
his natural parents are already dead, then
the adopter shall take the place of such
parents in the above orders of succession
(Art. 39, No. 4, P.D. No. 603),
Succession; intestate succession 1999 No II.
Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are childless, met
with a serious motor vehicle
accident with Mr. Cruz at the wheel and
Mrs. Cruz seated beside him, resulting in
the instant death of Mr. Cruz. Mrs. Cruz was still
alive when help came but she also died on the
way to the hospital. The couple acquired
properties worth One Million (PI,000,000.00)
Pesos during their marriage, which are being
claimed by the parents of both spouses in
equal shares. Is the claim of both sets of
parents valid and why? (3%)
ANSWER:
(a) No, the claim of both parents is not
valid. When Mr. Cruz died, he was
succeeded by his wife and his parents as his
intestate heirs who will share his estate
equally. His estate was 0.5 Million pesos
which is his half share in the absolute
community amounting to 1 Million Pesos.
His wife, will, therefore, inherit O.25
Million Pesos and his parents will inherit 0.25
Million Pesos. When Mrs. Cruz died, she was
succeeded by her parents as her intestate
heirs. They will inherit all of her estate consisting
of her 0.5 Million half share in the
ab-solute community and her 0.25 Million
inheritance from her husband, or a total of
0.750 Million Pesos. In sum, the parents of Mr.
Cruz will inherit 250,000 Pesos while the parents
of Mrs. Cruz will inherit 750,000 Pesos.
Succession; intestate succession 1999 No VIII,
(b.) Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten
Million (PI 0,000,000.00) Pesos, His widow gave
birth to a child four months after Mr, Luna's
death, but the child died five hours after birth.
Two days after the child's death, the widow
of Mr. Luna also died because she had suffered
from difficult childbirth. The estate of Mr. Luna is
now being claimed by his parents, and the
parents of his widow. Who is entitled to Mr.
Luna'a estate and why? (5%)
ANSWER:
(b.) Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go to the
parents of Mrs. Luna as their inheritance from
Mrs. Luna, while the other half will be
inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna as the
reservatarios of the reserved property
inherited by Mrs. Luna from her child.
When Mr. Luna died, his heirs were his wife and
the unborn child. The unborn child inherited
because the inheritance was favorable to it and it
was born alive later though it lived only for
five hours. Mrs. Luna inherited half of the 10
Million estate while the unborn child inherited
the other half. When the child died, it was
survived by its mother, Mrs. Luna. As the only
heir, Mrs. Luna inherited, by operation of law,
the estate of the child consisting of its 5
Million inheritance from Mr. Luna. In the
hands of Mrs. Luna, what she inherited from her
child was subject to reserva troncal for the
benefit of the relatives of the child within
the third degree of consanguinity and who
belong to the family of Mr. Luna, the line where
the property came from.
When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived by her
parents as her only heirs. Her parents will inherit
her estate consisting of the 5 Million she
inherited from Mr. Luna. The other 5 Million she
inherited from her child will be delivered to the
parents of Mr. Luna as beneficiaries of the
reserved property. In sum, 5 Million Pesos of
Mr. Luna's estate will go to the parents of
Mrs. Luna, while the other 5 Million Pesos
will go to the parents of Mr. Luna as
Reservatarios.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the child had an intra-uterine life of not less
than 7 months, it inherited from the father. In
which case, the estate of 10M will be divided
equally between the child and the widow as
legal heirs. Upon the death of the child, its share
of 5M shall go by operation of law to the
mother, which shall be subject to reserva troncal.
Under Art. 891, the reserva is in favor of
relatives belonging to the paternal line and
who are within 3 degrees from the child. The
parents of Mr, Luna are entitled to the reserved
portion which is 5M as they are 2 degrees
related from child. The 5M inherited by Mrs.
Luna from Mr. Luna will be inherited from her by
her parents.
However, if the child had intra-uterine life of
less than 7 months, half of the estate of Mr.
Luna, or 5M, will be inherited by the widow (Mrs.
Luna), while the other half, or 5M, will be
inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna. Upon
the death of Mrs. Luna, her estate of 5M will be
inherited by her own parents.
Succession; intestate succession 1986 No. 12:
Carlos, legitimate son of Jaime and Maria,
was legally adopted by Josefa. Both Jaime and
Maria died soon after the adoption. Carlos,
himself died in 1986. His survivors are Josefa, his
legitimate maternal grandparents Daniel and
Rosa, his wife Fe and his acknowledged natural
son, Gerardo. How should the estate of Carlos
worth P800,000.00 be apportioned among
the above survivors? Explain.
Answer:
The estate of Carlos worth P800,000 should be
apportioned as follows: 1. Josefa - one-half, or
P400.000.00;
2. Fe - one-fourth, or P200.000.00, and
3. Gerardo - one-fourth, or P200.000.00.
As a rule, the adopter cannot inherit from
the adopted child by intestate succession. If
the adopted child dies intestate, leaving no
child or descendant, his parents and relatives
by consanguinity and not by adoption shall be
his legal heirs.
There is, however, an exception to has rule
According to the law, if the parents by
nature of the adopted child are both dead, the
adopter takes place of such parents in the line
of succession, whether testate or intestate.
Therefore, in the instant problem, Josefa shall
take place of Jaime and Maria. The grandparents
Daniel and Rosa are therefore- excluded.
Consequently, applying the rules of intestacy,
Josefa shall be entitled to one-half (1/2) of the
estate by substitution; Fe shall be entitled to
one-fourth (1/4) as surviving spouse; and
Gerardo shall be entitled to one-fourth
(1/4) as illegitimate child, (Note: The above
answer is based upon Arts, 984 and 100
Civil Code and upon Art. 39, No. (4), P.D. 603).
Answer - Under P.D. 603, the adopter takes place
of the parents by nature if the latter are dead,
both as a compulsory and a legal heir. Therefore,
as the adopted is survived by his wife, an
acknowledged son and his maternal
grandparents, adopter inherits in the same
way as a legitimate parent, and they will
share as follows:
Josefa-----------------------------1/2
Fe(wife)—---------------------- 1/4
Gerardo-------------------------- 1/4
(acknowledged natural child)
Succession; intestate succession 1987 No. 4:
Angel died intestate leaving considerable
properties accumulated during 25 years of
marriage. He is survived by his widow, a legally
adopted son, the child of a deceased legitimate
daughter, two illegitimate children duly
recognized by Angel before his death and his
ailing 93-year old mother who has wholly
dependent on him. How would you distribute
the estate indicating by fractions the portions of
the following who claim to be entitled to inherit:
(a) the widow?
(b) the adopted son?
(c) the child of the deceased legitimate
daughter?
(d) the two recognized illegitimate children?
(e) the mother? Answer:
a. the widow - 1/4
b. the adopted son - 1/4
c. the child of the deceased legitimate daughter
- 1/4
d. the two "recognized illegitimate children" —
we must distinguish:
Assuming that the two recognized
illegitimate children are natural children,
then each of them will get 1/8.
Upon the other hand, if they are recognized
spurious children then each of
them will get 2/5 of 1/4 of the estate. The
remaining 1/5 of 1/4 will be distributed as
follows:
Under the theory of concurrence, that 1/5 of 1/4
will be divided equally among
the widow, the adopted son and the child of the
deceased legitimate daughter.
Under the theory of exclusion that 1/5 of 1/4 will
be divided equally between
the adopted son and the child of the deceased
legitimate daughter.
e. the mother - will get nothing,
Succession; intestate succession 1979 No. II
RD and BG, both Filipinos were married and
lived in Manila. They begot 2 children and
after some years of marriage, RD, being a
physician, went to the United States. After
staying there for two years, RD got attached to a
Filipina nurse. He got a quick divorce on the
ground of desertion and then married the
Filipina nurse with whom he also begot 2
children. RD died intestate in an automobile
accident in the
United States leaving valuable properties in
the Philippines both inherited by him
from his parents as well as acquired during his
marriage to BG. How would BG and
her two children and the Filipina nurse and
her two children share in the estate of
RD. Give reasons for your answer.
Answer
Before we can determine the shares of the
claimants to the estate of RD, let
us first determine what is the estate of RD and
what is the status of the claimants in
relation to RD,
Estate of RD: As far as the properties acquired by
RD during his marriage to
BG are concerned, 1/2 thereof should be
included in his estate and 1/2 should be
given to BG since they are conjugal in
character. As far as the properties inherited
by him from his parents are concerned,
since they are exclusive or separate in
character, they must also be included in his
estate,
Status of the claimants: BG is the surviving
spouse of RD. The decree of
absolute divorce secured by RD in the
United States is not valid. In the first place,
we adhere to the nationality theory.
Philippine laws shall be binding upon Filipino
citizens wherever they are with respect to family
rights and duties as well as status,
condition and legal capacity. And in the second
place, there is a declaration of public
policy in this country against absolute
divorce. Such a declaration of public policy
cannot be rendered nugatory by the decree
of absolute divorce secured RD in a
foreign country. Therefore, the marriage of RD to
the Filipina nurse is not valid. It is
bigamous under the Philippine law. Hence, the
nurse is not related to RD under our
law of succession. It is different in the case of the
two children. Being born of a void
marriage, they are classified as natural
children by legal fiction, and are, therefore,
entitled to the same rights as acknowledged
natural children,
Division of the estate of RD: It is clear that only
BG, as surviving spouse, the two legitimate
children of RD and BG, and the two natural
children by legal fiction of RD will be able to
inherit. The Filipina nurse cannot. Since RD
died intestate, the proportions established
under our law on legitime is applicable. In the
instant case, the proportions will be 10 for
BG; 10 for each of the legitimate children;
and 5 for each of the natural children. Stated in
another way, the two legitimate children shall
be entitled to 1/2, or 1/4, each, of the entire
estate of RD; BG shall be entitled to the same
share as each of the legitimate children, or
1/4 of the entire estate; and the two natural
children by legal fiction shall be entitled to the
balance of 1/4 or 1/8 each of the entire estate.
Succession; intestate succession; order of
succession and sharing 1982 No. 14
"X" died intestate, leaving two sons "A" and
"B"; two grandchildren "C" and "D", the
children of the deceased daughter of "B";
and another grandchild "F", the daughter of
"A". Who will succeed to the estate of "X"
and how will they divide the inheritance?
Answer:
Among the survivors, only the following shall
participate in the division of the
inheritance: "A", in his own right; "B", in his
own right; and "C" and "D", by right of
representation, "F", the daughter of "A", cannot
participate because she is excluded by the
latter applying the rule of proximity.
Consequently, the inheritance shall be
divided as follows:
"A" — one-third (1/3) of the inheritance;
"B" — one-third (1/3) of the inheritance; "C" —
one-half (1/2) of one-third
(1/3) of the inheritance by right of
representation;
"D" —one-half (1/2) of one-third (1/3)
of the inheritance by right of
representation.
Succession; joint wills
2000 No III.
a} Manuel, a Filipino, and his American wife
Eleanor, executed a Joint Will in Boston,
Massachusetts when they were residing in
said city. The law of Massachusetts allows the
execution of joint wills. Shortly thereafter,
Eleanor died. Can the said Will be probated
in the Philippines for the settlement of her
estate?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER;
Yes, the will may be probated in the
Philippines insofar as the estate of Eleanor is
concerned. While the Civil Code prohibits the
execution of Joint wills here and abroad, such
prohibition applies only to Filipinos. Hence,
the joint will which is valid where executed
is valid in the Philippines but only with
respect to Eleanor.
Under Article 819, it is void with respect to
Manuel whose joint will remains void in
the Philippines despite being valid where
executed.
Succession; legal separation; effect 1982 No.
5
The husband was granted a decree of legal
separation on the ground of adultery on the
part of the wife. May the wife inherit from the
husband —
(a) By intestate succession?
(b) By will? Reasons.
Answer
(a) The wife in the instant case cannot inherit
from her husband by intestate
succession. According to the Civil Code, the
offending spouse shall be disqualified
from inheriting from the innocent spouse by
intestate succession.
(b) It depends. If the will was executed prior to
the legal separation, it is clear
that in effect the wife cannot inherit from her
husband. According to the Civil Code,
provisions in favor of the offending spouse
made in the will of the innocent one shall
be revoked by operation of law. However, if the
will was executed subsequent to the legal
separation, undoubtedly, the wife will then be
able to inherit from her husband.
The reason is obvious. There is a tacit or implied
pardon. (Note: The above answers are based
on No. 4 of Art. 106 of the Civil. The
last part regarding tacit pardon — is based on
Art. 1033 by analogy.)
Succession; legitime 2003 No XII.
(a) Luis was survived by two legitimate
children, two illegitimate children, his parents,
and two brothers. He left an estate of P1
million. Who are the compulsory heirs of Luis,
how much is the legitimate of each, and how
much is the free portion of his estate, if any?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The compulsory heirs are the two
legitimate children and the two illegitimate
children. The parents are excluded by the
legitimate children, while the brothers are not
compulsory heirs at all. Their respective
legitimate are:
(1) The legitimate of the two (2) legitimate
children is one half (1/2) of the estate
(P500,000.00) to be divided between them
equally, or P250,000.00 each.
(2) The legitimate of each illegitimate child
is one-half (1/2) the legitimate of each
legitimate child or P125,000.00. Since the total
legitimate of the compulsory heirs is
P750,000.00, the balance
of P250,000.00 is the free portion.
Succession; legitime 1997 No. 12:
"X", the decedent, was survived by W (his
widow). A (his son), B (a granddaughter,
being the daughter of A) and C and D (the
two acknowledged illegitimate children of the
decedent). "X" died this year (1997) leaving a net
estate of PI 80.000.00. All were willing to
succeed, except A who repudiated the
inheritance from his father, and they seek
your legal advice on how much each can
expect to receive as their respective shares in
the distribution of the estate.
Give your answer.
Answer:
The heirs are B, W, C and D. A inherits nothing
because of his renunciation.
B inherits a legitime of P90.000.00 as the
nearest and only legitimate descendant,
inheriting in his own right not by representation
because of A's renunciation. W gets
a legitime equivalent to one-half (1 / 2) that
of B amounting to P45.000. C and D
each gets a legitime equivalent to one-half (1/2)
that of B amounting to P45.000.00 each. But
since the total exceeds the entire estate, their
legitimes would have to be reduced
corresponding to P22.500.00 each (Art. 895. CC).
The total of all of these amounts to P180.000.00.
Alternative Answer:
INTESTATE SUCCESSION
ESTATE: P180,000.00
W- (widow gets 1/2 share) P90.000.00
(Art. 998)
A- (son who repudiated his inheritance)
None (Art. 977)
B - (Granddaughter) None
C - (Acknowledged illegitimate child)
P45.000.00 (Art.998)
D - (Acknowledged illegitimate child)
P45,000.00 (Art. 998)
The acknowledged illegitimate child gets 1/2
of the share of each legitimate
child.
Succession; legitime 1982 No. 12
The testator has three children "A", "B", and "C";
a wife "W"; a father "F"; an acknowledged
natural child "N"; and an adulterous child
"T". "A" is a handicapped child, and the
testator wants to leave to him as much of his
estate as he can legally do under the law. State
the specific aliquot parts of the estate that the
testator can leave "A", "B", and "C", as well as to
his other aforementioned relatives. State how
you arrive at the result. (Assume a net
estate of P1,200,000.00 and that all of the
above named relatives survived the testator.)
Answer
Under the law on legitime, the survivors
shall be entitled to the following legitime:
1. "A", "B" and "C"-one-half of the estate
which they shall divide in equal
shares. Since the net value of the estate is
Pl,200,000.00 each of them shall,
therefore, be entitled to P200,000.00.
2. "W" — the same as each of the legitimate
children, or P200,000.
3. "F" — none.- "F" cannot participate in
the succession because he is
excluded by the legitimate children of the
testator.
4. "N" — one-half of the legitime of each
of the legitimate children, or
P100,000.00.
5. "T" _ four-fifths of the legitimate of "N" or
two-fifths of the legitime of either
"A" or "B" or "C", or P80,000.00
Thus, the disposable free portion is P220,000.
If the testator so desires, he
can leave this disposable portion to his son "A".
(Note: The above answer is based on Art. 888,
892, 895, 897 and 898 of the
Civil Code,)
Succession; order of succession and sharing;
right of representation, institution, accretion
1985 No. 8
In a will executed in 1970, A instituted his two (2)
legitimate brothers, B and C, as sole heirs to all
the properties he then owned. B died in 1975,
survived by his legitimate daughter, D, while A
died last year, leaving an estate, 1/2 of
which was acquired after the execution of his
will.
Who will succeed A, how much and by what
right will the heir or each of the heirs, if more
than one, inherit? Reason out your answer.
Answer:
1. Regarding 1/2 acquired after the execution of
the will it will be inherited by
both D and C( C in his own right and D by right
of representation because this 1/2 is inherited
by intestate succession. With regard to the 1/2
already owned at the time of the execution of
the will, C alone will get the property by
right of institution and accretion.
2. The half of the property existing at the
time of the execution of the will should go
to C, the portion pertaining to him in his
own right and the portion pertaining to B by
right of accretion.
The other half acquired after the execution
of the will passes by intestacy, equally to C in
his own right and to D in representation of B.
3. The whole estate will go to the second brother
C by right of accretion and B gets nothing.
4. With respect to the will as made by the
testator B is a voluntary heir. He transmits no
right to his heir D, therefore his share in the will
'goes to the other heir by right of accretion. As
to the properties which are not covered by the
will, intestate succession will follow and herefore
the legal heirs will be the brother and the niece
to inherit equally.
5. The 1970 will appears to have only covered
the property which the testator had at the time
of its execution. Accordingly, the half which
wag acquired by him after the execution of the
will would be governed by the law on intestacy.
As regards the other half, disposed under the
will, the property should go to C by right of
accretion considering that the institution in
favor of B and C was pro-indiviso (Art. 1015).
The other half, acquired after the execution
of the will, will be distributed in intestacy
and assuming that the only legal heirs are
those named in the problem, such portion
shall be equally divided between C (legitimate
brother of the deceased) and D (niece of the
deceased) by right of representation (Art. 1005).
Succession; partition 1977 No. XI-b
Discuss briefly the right of a testator to partition
his estate among his heirs in the last will.
Answer
(NOTE: Either of the following should constitute
a sufficient answer.)
First Answer
If the testator has no compulsory heirs, he may
partition his estate in favor of any person having
capacity to succeed. If he has compulsory heirs,
he may partition his estate provided that he
does not contravene the provisions of the Civil
Code with regard to the legitime of said heirs.
(See Art. 842, Civil Code,)
Second Answer
Under the Civil Code, the testator may
partition his estate either by an act
inter vivos or by a will. In either case, such
partition shall be respected, insofar as it
does not prejudice the legitime of his
compulsory heirs (Art. 1080). He may even
entrust the mere power to make the partition to
a third person (Art. 1081); and if he
so desires, he may even prohibit the partition, in
which case the period of indivision
shall not exceed -twenty years (Art. 1083).
Succession; preterition 1999 No VII.
(a) Mr. Cruz, widower, has three legitimate
children, A, B and C. He executed a Will
instituting as his heirs to his estate of One
Million (P1,QOO,000.00) Pesos his two children
A and B, and his friend F. Upon his death,
how should Mr. Cruz's estate be divided?
Explain. (3%)
(b) In the preceding question, suppose Mr.
Cruz instituted his two children A and B as his
heirs in his Will, but gave a legacy of P
100,000.00 to his friend F. How should the
estate of Mr, Cruz be divided upon his death?
Explain, (2%)
ANSWER:
(a) Assuming that the institution of A, B and F
were to the entire estate, there was preterition of
C since C is a compulsory heir in the direct line.
The preterition will result in the total annulment
of the institution of heirs. Therefore, the
institution of A,
B and F will be set aside and Mr. Cuz's estate will
be divided, as in intestacy, equally
among A, B and C as follows: A •
P333,333.33; B - P333.333.33; and C -
P333,333.33.
(b| On the same assumption as letter (a),
there was preterition of C. Therefore, the
institution of A and B is annulled but the legacy
of P100.000.00 to F shall be respected for not
being inofficious. Therefore, the remainder of
P900.000.00 will be divided equally among A, B
and C.
Succession; preterition 2001 No VI
Because her eldest son Juan had been
pestering her for capital to start a business,
Josefa gave him P100,000. Five years later,
Josefa died, leaving a last will and testament
In which she instituted only her four younger
children as her sole heirs. At the time of her
death, her only properly left was P900,000.00
in a bank. Juan opposed the will on the
ground of preterition. How should Josefa's
estate be divided among her heirs? State briefly
the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
There was no preterition of the oldest son
because the testatrix donated 100,000 pesos
to him. This donation is considered an
advance on the son's inheritance. There being
no preterition, the institutions in the will shall be
respected but the legitime of the oldest son has
to be completed if he received less.
After collating the donation of P100.000 to
the remaining property of P900,000, the
estate of the testatrix is P1,000,000. Of this
amount, one-half or P500,000, is the legitime of
the legitimate children and it follows that the
legitime of one legitimate child is P100,000.
The legitime, therefore, of the oldest son is
P100,000. However, since the donation given
him was P100,000, he has already
received in full his legitime and he will not
receive anything anymore from the
decedent. The remaining P900,000, therefore,
shall go to the four younger children
by institution in the will, to be divided
equally among them. Each will receive
P225,000.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Assuming that the donation is valid as to
form and substance, Juan cannot invoke
preterition because he actually had received
a donation inter vivos from the testatrix (III
Tolentino 188,1992 ed.). He would only have a
right to a completion of his legitime under Art.
906 of the Civil Code. The estate should be
divided equally among the five children who
will each receive P225,000.00 because the
total hereditary estate, after collating the
donation to Juan (Art. 1061, CC), would be
P1 million. In the actual distribution of the
net estate, Juan gets nothing while his
siblings will get P225,000.00 each.
Succession; preterition; substitutions;
compulsory heirs 1988 No. 6:
(a) What is preterition? What are its requisites?
What is its effect?
(b) What are the different limitations
imposed by law upon fideicommissary
substitutions?
(c) Who are compulsory heirs?
Answer:
Preterition or pretermission, as it is sometimes
called may be defined as the omission in the
testator's will 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
(Art. 854, CC). Stated in another way, it
consists in the omission in the testator's will of
the compulsory heirs in the direct line, or of
anyone of them, either because they are not
mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they
are neither instituted as heir nor expressly
disinherited (Neri vs. Akutin, 74 Phil 185; Nuguid
vs. Nuguid, 17 SCRA449). Its requisites are:
(1) The heir omitted must be a compulsory heir
in the direct line;
(2) The omission must be total and complete;
and
(3) The omitted heir must survive the testator.
The effect is to annul entirely the institution of
heirs but legacies and devises
shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious,
(Art, 854, CC.)
(b) There are four limitations. They are:
(1) The substitution must not go beyond one
degree from the heir originally instituted (Art.
863, CC).
(2) The fiduciary and the fideicommissary
must be living at the time of the death of
the testator (Ibid).
(3) The substitution must not burden the
legitime of compulsory heirs (Art. 864, CC).
(4) The substitution must be made expressly
(Art. 865, par. l. CC.)
(c) In general, compulsory heirs are those for
whom the law has reserved a portion of the
testator's estate which is known as the legitime.
In particular, the following are compulsory heirs:
{1} Legitimate children and descendants, with
respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate
parents and ascendants, with respects to their
legitimate children and descendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children and natural
children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in
article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in numbers 3, 4,
and 5 are not excluded by those in numbers 1
and 2; neither do they exclude one another.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in numbers 3,
4, and 5 are not excluded by those in
numbers 1 and 2; neither do they exclude one
another. In all cases of illegitimate children, their
filiation must be duly proved.
The father or mother of illegitimate children
of the classes mentioned shall inherit from
them in the manner and to the extent
established by the Civil Code. (Art. 887, CC.)
Succession; probate 1988 No. 5:
(a) In probate proceedings, what are the
only questions which a probate court can
determine?
(b) A presented for probate a will purporting to
be the last will and testament of his deceased
wife. The will was admitted to probate
without any opposition. Sixteen months later,
the brothers and sisters of the deceased
discovered that the will was a forgery. Can A
now be prosecuted for the criminal offense
of forgery? Give your reasons.
Answer:
(a) Under our law, there are only three
possible questions which can be
determined by the probate court. They are;
(1) Whether or not the instrument
which is offered for probate is the last
will and testament of the decedent; in
other words, the question is one of
identity.
(2) Whether or not the will has
been executed in accordance with
the formalities prescribed by law; in
other words, the question is one of due
execution.
(3) Whether or not the testator had
the necessary testamentary capacity
at the time of the execution of the will;
in other words, the question is one of
capacity. Consequently, the probate
court cannot inquire into the intrinsic
validity of testamentary dispositions.
(b) A can no longer be prosecuted for the
criminal offense of forgery. This is so because,
according to the last paragraph of Art. 838 of
the Civil Code, subject to the right of appeal the
allowance of the will, either during the lifetime of
the testator or after his death, shall be conclusive
as to its due execution. Since sixteen months
have already elapsed from the allowance of the
will to the time when the forgery was discovered,
there is now no possible remedy of
impugning the validity of the will.
Even a petition to set aside a judgment or order
of a Court of First Instance on the ground of
fraud in accordance with Secs. 2 and 3 of Rule 38
of the Rules of Court is no longer possible
because more than six months from the time of
the promulgation of the judgment or order have
already elapsed. (Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil
215.)
Succession; probate of notarial and
holographic wills 1997 No. 10:
Johnny, with no known living relatives,
executed a notarial will giving all his estate
to his sweetheart. One day, he had a serious
altercation with his sweetheart. A few days
later, he was introduced to a charming lady
who later became a dear friend. Soon after, he
executed a holographic will expressly revoking
the notarial will and so designating his new
friend as sole heir. One day when he was
clearing up his desk, Johnny mistakenly
burned, along with other papers, the only
copy of his holographic will. His business
associate, Eduardo. knew well the contents of
the will which was shown to him by Johnny
the day it was executed. A few days after
the burning Incident, Johnny died. Both wills
were sought to be probated in two separate
petitions. Will either or both petitions prosper?
Answer:
The probate of the notarial will will prosper.
The holographic will cannot be admitted to
probate because a holographic will can only be
probated upon evidence of the will Itself
unless there Is a photographic copy. But
since the holographic will was lost and there
was no other copy, it cannot be probated
and therefore the notarial will will be admitted
to probate because there is no revoking will.
Additional Answers;
1. In the case of Gan vs. Yap (104 Phil 509), the
execution and the contents of a lost or
destroyed holographic will may not be
proved by the bare testimony of witnesses
who have seen or read such will. The will
itself must be presented otherwise it shall
produce no effect. The law regards the
document itself as material proof of authenticity.
Moreover, in order that a will may be revoked by
a subsequent will, it is necessary that the
latter will be valid and executed with the
formalities required for the making of a will.
The latter should possess all the requisites
of a valid will whether it be ordinary or a
holographic will, and should be probated in
order that the revocatory clause thereof may
produce effect. In the case at bar, since the
holographic will itself cannot be presented, it
cannot therefore be probated.
Since it cannot be probated, it cannot
revoke the notarial will previously written by
the decedent.
2. On the basis of the Rules of Court, Rule
76, Sec. 6, provides that no will shall be
proved as a lost or destroyed will *** unless
its provisions are clearly and distinctly proved
by at least two (2) credible witnesses. Hence, if
we abide strictly by the two-witness rule to
prove a lost or destroyed will, the
holographic will which Johnny allegedly
mistakenly burned, cannot be probated, since
there is only one witness, Eduardo, who can
be called to testify as to the existence of
the will. If the holographic will, which
purportedly, revoked the earlier notarial will
cannot be proved because of the absence of the
required witness, then the petition for the
probate of the notarial will should prosper.
Succession; probate of wills of aliens
1989 No. 10:
(2) "X", a Spanish citizen and a resident
of Los Angeles, California, executed a will in
Tokyo, Japan. May such will be probated in the
Philippines? May his estate located in the
Philippines be distributed in conformity with
the provisions of the said will? Give your
reasons.
Answer:
A. Yes, it may be made according to the
formalities of Spanish law,
California law, Japanese law, or Philippine law.
B. Yes, provided that the provisions conform to
the order of succession and the amount of
successional rights as regulated by Spanish law.
Succession; probate; intrinsic validity 1990
No 9:
H died leaving a last will and testament wherein
it is stated that he was legally married to W by
whom he had two legitimate children A and B. H
devised to his said forced heirs the entire
estate except the free portion which he gave
to X who was living with him at the time of his
death.
In said will he explained that he had been
estranged from his wife W for more than 20
years and he has been living with X as man
and wife since his separation from his
legitimate family. In the probate proceedings, X
asked for the issuance of letters testamentary
in accordance with the will wherein she is named
sole executor. This was opposed by W and her
children.
(a) Should the will be admitted in said probate
proceedings?
(b) Is the said devise to X valid?
(c) Was it proper for the trial court to
consider the intrinsic validity of the
provisions of said will? Explain your answers,
Answer:
(a) Yes. the will may be probated if
executed according to the formalities
prescribed by law.
(b) The institution giving X the free portion
is not valid, because the prohibitions under
Art. 739 of the Civil Code on donations also
apply to testamentary dispositions (Article 1028,
Civil Code), Among donations which are
considered void are those made between
persons who were guilty of adultery or
concubinage at the time of the donation.
(c) As a general rule, the will should be
admitted in probate proceedings if
all the necessary requirements for its extrinsic
validity have been met. and the court
should not consider the intrinsic validity of
the provisions of said will. However, the
exception arises when the will in effect
contains only one testamentary disposition.
In effect, the only testamentary disposition
under the will is the giving of the free
portion to X, since legitimes are provided by law.
Hence, the trial court may consider
the intrinsic validity of the provisions of said
will. (Nuguid v. Nuguid, etal.. No. L-
23445, June 23, 1966, 17 SCRA; Nepomuceno
v. CA, L-62952, 9 October 1985.
139 SCRA 206).
Succession; renunciation; compromise
1979 No. XIII
MN, a wealthy haciendero died leaving to his
four legitimate children and his widow an estate
worth about P2 million. When the proceedings
for the settlement of his estate were pending,
Rosie, a child he begot with his lavandera, filed a
claim for a share in the estate. The widow
and four children contested the claim on the
ground that in a previous action for support filed
by the lavandera when Rosie was still a minor,
the lavandera agreed to dismiss the case
and signed an agreement acknowledging that
the sum of P50,000.00 paid thereunder
included payment for whatever inheritance
Rosie was to have. Should Rosie's claim be
granted? Why?
Answer
Rosie's claim should be granted but subject
to the condition that the portion
of the P50,000 paid to her mother as her
inheritance shall be brought to collation. It
must be observed that the agreement is
actually a renunciation or compromise as
regards a future legitimate or inheritance
between the person owing it and a
compulsory heir. According to the Civil Code,
such a renunciation or compromise is
void, and the latter may claim the same
upon the death of the former, but he must
bring to collation whatever he may have
received by virtue of the renunciation or
compromise. (Art. 905, Civil Code).
(NOTE: If the bar candidate invokes either Art.
1347, par. 2, or Art. 2035, No. 6 of the Civil
Code, instead of Art. 905, his answer should
be considered correct because the result would
be the same).
Succession; representation 1988 No. 7:
(a) When does the right of representation take
place?
Answer:
The right of representation shall take place in the
following cases:
(1) In testamentary succession:
(a) In case a compulsory heir in the
direct descending line dies before the
testator survived by his children or
descendants (Art. 856, CC).
(b) In case a compulsory heir in the
direct descending line is incapacitated to
succeed from the testator and he has
children or descendants. (Arts. 856,1035,
CC).
(c) In case a compulsory heir in
the direct descending line is
disinherited
and he has children or descendants. (Art.
923, CC).
(2) In intestate succession:
(a) In case a legal heir in the direct
descending line dies before the
decedent survived by his children or
descendant (Arts. 981, 982, CC), or in
the absence of other heirs who can
exclude them from the succession, a
brother or sister dies before the
decedent survived by his or her own
children. (Arts. 972,975, CC).
(b) In case a legal heir in the direct
descending line is incapacitated to
succeed from the decedent and he has
children or descendants (Art. 1035, CC),
or in the absence of other heirs who can
exclude them from the succession, a
brother or sister is incapacitated to
succeed from the decedent and he or
 she has children, (Arts, 972, 975,1035,
CC),
Succession; reserva troncal 1987 No. 13:
Lilia and Nelia are relatives, Ulia being the grand
niece of Nelia. They had a common ancestor,
Bonong, father of Nelia and great-
grandfather of Lilia. Bonong had a sister,
Rosa, who donated gratuitously a parcel of
land to her niece Mely, sister of Nelia and
grandmother of Lilia. Mely died intestate, leaving
aforementioned parcel of land, survived by her
husband Jose and their two children, Rico and
Nina. Bonong died intestate survived by his
legitimate grandchildren, Rico and Nina. In the
adjudication of his estate, the portion pertaining
to Mely, who had predeceased her father, went
to her two legitimate children, Rico and Nina.
Rico died intestate, single, and without any
issue, leaving his share in the inheritance to
his father, Jose, subject to a reserva troncal
duly annotated on the tide. Thereafter Nina
died intestate and her rights and interests were
inherited by her only legitimate child, Lilia.
Thereafter, Jose died intestate survived by his
only descendant, Lilia. Nelia, aunt of Rico, would
like to lay claim as reservatario to a portion of
the one-half pro indiviso share of the property
inherited by Jose from his son Rico, How should
the estate of Jose, including the property
subject to reserva troncal be adjudicated?
Explain.
Answer:
This is a proper case of reserva troncal. The
propositus is Rico, the reservista is Jose and
the reservatarios are-Lilia (a niece) and Nelia
(an aunt), both of them being relatives within
the 3rd degree of Rico (the propositus)and
belonging to the maternal line represented
by Mely. Accordingly, Nelia as reservatario
cannot claim any portion of the pro-indiviso
share of the property inherited by Jose from
Rico. Lilia alone should inherit because in
reserva troncal, the successional rights of
relatives who are reservatarios are determined
by the rules of intestate succession. In
intestacy, nephews and nieces exclude uncles
and aunts. Hence, Lilia the niece,
excludes Nelia, the aunt, from the reservable
property (De Papa vs. Camacho 144
SCRA 281), The rest of Jose's estate, not
subject to reserva, will be inherited by his
granddaughter Lilia as sole intestate heir.
Answer;
This is. a proper case of reserva troncal. The
propositus is Rico, the reservista and the
reservatarios are Lilia and Nelia, both of
them being relatives within the 3rd degree
computed from Rico and belonging to the
maternal line represented by Mely. Under the
doctrine of "reserva integral'" all the
reservatarios in the nearest degree will inherit
in equal shares the reservable portion of the
pro-indiviso share of the property inherited
by Jose from Rico. The properties transmitted
to Jose by Rico are-the following:
Firstly, the property which Rico obtained from
Mely consisted of his share in Mely's interest as
donee of Rosa's land. The interest acquired
by Rico was 1/3, because 1/3 thereof was
inherited by Jose and 1/3 by Nina. So the
property that was obtained by Jose from Rico is
the latter's 1/3 interest of the land. In the case of
Bonong's estate, the share of Mely was 1/2 and
Nelia's was the other half. Out of Mely's share,
1/2 belonged to Rico and the other half
belonged to Nina, both Inheriting by right of
representation. Summarizing, the reservable
estate is the 1/3 share of Rico in Rosa's
land which was donated to Mely, and the 1/2
interest of Rico in Mely's share of the estate
of Bonong. These reservable properties
should be divided equally between Nelia
and Lilia (Article 891).
Succession; reserva troncal 1979 No. XIV
A married B in 1950 bringing into the
marriage a 10-hectare piece of unregistered
land in Antipolo which he inherited from his
father. Of the marriage two daughters were
born. On February 10, 1956 A and his two
daughters went to Baguio. On the way they
met an accident and A died instantly on the spot
while the two daughters died two days later in
the hospital where they were brought. In 1960
B sold the land .to C. In 1977 B died so D,
the only brother of A, asked C to reconvey
the land to him. Upon C's refusal, D filed a
complaint for recovery of the land. C raised
the defense of prescription. Should the defense
be sustained? Why?
Answer
The defense should be sustained but only
with respect to one-third of the subject
property; however, with respect to the other
two-thirds, it should not be sustained.
It must be observed that when A died the
subject property passed by intestate
succession to his wife B and his two
daughters in the proportion of one-third for
each. When the two daughters died two
hours later, their one-third shares passed by
intestate succession to their mother B. These
shares which B acquired by operation of law
from her two daughters became reservable.
In other words, by mandate of the law, upon
acquiring the two-thirds share of her
daughters she was obliged to reserve such
share for the benefit of relatives of her two
deceased daughters who are within the third
degree and who belong to the live from whence
the reservable property came. All of the
requisites of reserva troncal are, therefore,
present. In the first place, the property was
acquired by a descendant from an
ascendant or from a brother or sister by
gratuitous title; in the second place, said
descendant died without any legitimate issue in
the direct descending line who can inherit from
him; in the third place, the property is inherited
by another ascendant by operation of law; and in
the fourth place, there are relatives of the
descendant who are within the third degree
and who belong to the line from which said
property came. Consequently, when C bought
the subject property from B in I960, he
acquired only that which B had and nothing
more. In other words, when B, the ascendant
reservista sold the property to C in 1960, the
latter acquired the one-third share which B had
inherited from A without any condition
whatsoever. However, with respect to the other
two-thirds share which is reservable, C
acquired a limited and revocable title only.
Therefore, when B, the ascendant-reservista
vendor finally died in 1977, automatically, by
operation of law, the two-thirds share which is
reservable passed to D, who is the reservee or
reservatario. Premises considered, the defense of
prescription can only be sustained with respect
to the one-third share of B which she had
inherited from A in 1955. The computation of
the 10-year period of prescription must
commence from 1960. In the case of the two-
thirds share which is reservable, the
computation must commence from 1977
when B, the ascendant-reservista, died. When
D, the reservatario, therefore, filed his action
after the death of B, he was very much in
time to do so. (Chua vs. CFI, 78 SCRA 412).
Succession; reserva troncal 1982 No. 4
(A) What is the reason or rationale for
reserva troncal?
(B) May the reservor/reservista dispose of the
reservable property —
(1) By acts inter vivos?
(2) By acts mortis causa.? Reasons.
Answer
(A) The reason or rationale for reserva
troncal is evident: it is to reserve
certain property in favor of certain relatives.
Hence, its name reserva lineal or troncal. It
seeks to prevent persons outside a family from
securing, by some special accident of life,
property that would otherwise remained therein.
Its principal aim is to maintain as absolutely as is
possible, with respect to the property to which it
refers, a separation between the paternal and
maternal lines, so that property of one line
may not pass to the other, or through them to
strangers.
(B) (1) The reservista may dispose of the
reservable property by acts inter vivos. This is
logical because he acquires the ownership of the
reservable property upon the death of the
descendant-propositus subject to the resolutory
condition that there must exist at the time of his
death relatives of the descendant who are within
the third degree and who belong to the line
from which the property came. He can,
therefore, alienate or encumber the property
if he so desires, but he will only
alienate or encumber what he has and
nothing more. As a consequence, the
acquirer will only receive a limited and
revocable title. Therefore, after the death of
the reservista, the reservatarios may then
rescind the alienation or encumbrance,
because the resolutory condition to which
the reserva is subject has already been
fulfilled.
(2) The reservista cannot dispose of the
reservable property by acts mortis causa. The
reason is crystal clear. Upon the death of
said ascendant-reservist, reservable property
does not belong to his or her estate.
Because the resolutory condition to which the
reserva is subject has already been fulfilled,
therefore, the reservatarios or reservees nearest
the descendant- propositus have already
become automatically and by operation of law
owners of the reservable property.
Succession;right of representation 1977 No.
XIII-c
What is meant by the right of representation in
succession? In what line does it take place?
Representation is a right created by fiction
of law, 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 (Art. 970, Civil Code).
The right of representation takes place in
the direct descending line, but never in the
ascending.
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. (Art. 972, Civil
Code).
When children of one or more brothers or
sisters of the deceased survive, they shall
inherit from the latter by representation, if they
survive with their uncles or aunts. But if they
alone survive, they shall inherit in equal
portions. (Art, 975, Civil Code).
Succession; testate succession; institution of
heirs; substitution of heirs 2002 No VIII.
By virtue of a Codicil appended to his will,
Theodore devised to Divino a tract of sugar land,
with the obligation on the part of Divino or his
heirs to deliver to Betina a specified volume of
sugar per harvest during Betina’s lifetime. It
is also stated in the Codicil that in the event
the obligation is not fulfilled, Betina should
immediately seize the property from Divino
or latter’s heirs and turn it over to
Theodore’s compulsory heirs. Divino failed to
fulfill the obligation under the Codicil. Betina
brings suit against Divino for the reversion of the
tract of land.
A. Distinguish between modal institution and
substation of heirs. (3%)
B. Distinguish between simple and
fideicommissary substitution of heirs.
(2%)
C. Does Betina have a cause of action against
Divino? Explain (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. A modal institution is the institution of
an heir made for a certain purpose or cause
(Arts. 871 and 882, NCC). Substitution is the
appointment of another heir so that he may
enter into the inheritance in default of the heir
originality instituted. (Art. 857, NCC).
B. In a simple substitution of heirs, the
testator designates one or more persons to
substitute the heirs instituted in case such heir or
heirs should die before him, or should not
wish or should be incapacitated to accept
the inheritance. In a fideicommissary
substitution, the testator institutes a first heir
and charges him to preserve and transmit
the whole or part of the inheritance to a
second heir. In a simple substitution, only one
heir inherits. In a fideicommissary substitution,
both the first and second heirs inherit. (Art. 859
and 869, NCC)
C. Betina has a cause of action against
Divino. This is a case of a testamentary
disposition subject to a mode and the will
itself provides for the consequence if the
mode is not complied with. To enforce the
mode, the will itself gives Betina the right to
compel the return of the property to the heirs of
Theodore. (Rabadilla v. Conscoluella, 334 SCRA
522 [2000] GR 113725, 29 June 2000).
Succession; testate succession; order of
succession and sharing 1983 No. 7
The deceased, A left a gross estate worth
P360,000 and debts amounting to P60,000. He
was survived by his widow, three legitimate
children, an acknowledged natural child and an
adulterous child. In his will, he bequeathed
P6,000 to a friend, leaving the remainder of his
estate to his widow and children, legitimate
as well as illegitimate.
Divide A's estate among the persons entitled
thereto. Give reasons for your division.
Answer
The net estate is worth P300,000.00
[P360.000.00 (gross estate) --
P60,000.00 (debts)]
Each of the legitimate children will receive
P50,000 as legitime.
The widow will receive the same amount as
legitime.
The legitime of the acknowledged natural
child is 1/2 of that of each
legitimate child or P25.000.00
The share of the spurious child is 4/5 of
that of the acknowledged natural
child or P20,000.00,
In addition, the legitimate children, the
widow, the acknowledged natural
child, and the adulterous child will each receive
P8,166.66 2/3 as their share of the
remainder of the free portion, after deducting
therefrom the legitimes of the surviving
spouse, the illegitimate children and the legacy.
The legatee, will get P6,000.00-Explanation:
Since the legitime of the legitimate children,
which is 1/2 of the estate, cannot
be impaired, only the free portion, the other half
of A's property, is available for the
satisfaction of the shares of the other
distributees. From that part must first be taken
the legitimes of the surviving spouse and of the
illegitimate children which total P95,-
000,00. To the remainder of the free portion, or
P55,000 is likewise chargeable the legacy. The
remainder of the free portion will then be
P49,000.00 which shall be divided equally
among the children, legitimate as well as
illegitimate and the widow, it having been left to
them without any designation of the shares,
Succession; transmission of rights to
succession 1983 No. 8
On A's death last year, his nearest of kin were a
legitimate daughter born in 1945 and a spurious
son born and recognized by A in 1949. May the
daughter oppose her brother's claim to their
father's estate on the ground that it would
impair her right under the old Civil Code to
succeed him to the exclusion of spurious
children? Why?
Answer
No. The rights to the succession are transmitted
only from the moment of the death of the
decedent. Since A died last year when the old
Civil Code was no longer in force, she did not
acquire the right granted by it to exclude
her brother from A's inheritance. Her right
thereto is governed by the new Civil Code, the
statute in force at the time of the opening of
the succession of A, under which spurious
children inherit together with legitimate
descendants.
Succession; when death takes place;
pesumptive legitime 1991 No 6:
(a) For purposes of succession, when is
death deemed to occur or take place?
(b) May succession be conferred by contracts or
acts inter vivos? Illustrate.
(c) Is there any law which allows the
delivery to compulsory heirs of their
presumptive legitimes during the lifetime of
their parents? If so, in what instances?
Answer:
A. Death as a fact is deemed to occur when it
actually takes place. Death is presumed to take
place in the circumstances under Arts. 390-391
of the Civil Code. The time of death is
presumed to be at the expiration of the 10-
year period as prescribed by Article 390 and at
the moment of disappearance under Article 391
B. Under Art. 84 of the Family Code
amending Art 130 of the Civil Code,
contractual succession is no longer possible
since the law now requires that
donations of future property be governed by
the provisions on the testamentary
succession and formalities of wills,
Alternative Answer:
B. In the case of Coronado vs.CA(l91 SCRA81), it
was ruled that no property passes under a will
without its being probated, but may under
Article 1O58 of the Civil Code of 1898, be
sustained as a partition by an act inter vivos
[Many-Oy vs. CA 144SCRA33).
And in the case of Chavez vs, IAC 1191
SCRA211), it was ruled that while
the law prohibits contracts upon future
inheritance, the partition by the parent, as
provided in Art. 1080. is a case expressly
authorized by law. A person has two
options in making a partition of his estate: either
by an act inter vivos or by will. If the
partition is by will, it is imperative that such
partition must be executed in accordance
with the provisions of the law on wills; if by
an act inter vivos, such partition may
even be oral or written, and need not be in the
form of a will, provided the legitime is
not prejudiced, "Where several sisters execute
deeds of sale over their 1 /6 undivided share
of the paraphernal property of their mother,
in favor of another sister, with their
mother not only giving her authority thereto but
even signing said deeds, there is a
valid partition inter vivos between the
mother and her children which cannot be
revoked by the mother. Said deeds of sale
are not contracts entered into with
respect to future inheritance. "It would be unjust
for the mother to revoke the sales to a son and
to execute a simulated sale in favor of a
daughter who already benefited by the
partition."
Answer:
C. Yes, under Arts. 51 and 52 of the New
Family Code. In case of legal
separation, annulment of marriage,
declaration of nullity of marriage and the
automatic termination of a subsequent marriage
by the reappearance of the absent
spouse, the common or community property
of the spouses shall be dissolved and
liquidated.
Art, 51. In said partition, the value of the
presumptive legitimes of all common
children, computed as of the date of the
final judgment of the trial court, shall be
delivered in cash, property or sound
securities, unless the parties, by mutual
agreement, judicially approved, had already
provided for such matters.
The children of their guardian, or the trustee of
their property, may ask for the enforcement of
the judgment. The delivery of the presumptive
legitimes herein prescribed shall In no way
prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the
children accruing upon the death of either or
both of the parents; but the value of the
properties already received under the decree of
annulment or absolute nullity shall be
considered as advances on their legitime.
Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of
absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition
and distribution of the properties of the
spouses, and the delivery of the children's
presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in
the appropriate civil registry and registries of
property; otherwise, the same shall not affect
third persons.
Succession; wills 1989 No. 10:
(1) What are the characteristics of a will?
Answer:
A will is —
1. Personal
2. Unilateral
3. Formal or Solemn
4. Ambulatory or revocable
5. Individual, not joint 6. Free and voluntary 7.
Mortis causa
Succession; wills; codicil 1977 No. XII-b
What is a codicil and how shall it be
executed in order that it may be effective?
A codicil is a supplement or addition to a
will, made after the execution of a
will and annexed to be taken as a part thereof,
by which any disposition made in the
original will is explained, added to, or altered
(Art. 825, Civil Code). The formalities
which are required in the execution of a codicil
are the same as those required in the
execution of a will (Art. 826, Civil Code).
Succession; wills; formalities 1975 No. XII
The attestation clause of the will omits to
state that testator signed in the presence of
the witnesses and that the latter signed in the
presence of the testator and of one another.
May evidence aliunde be admitted to prove
these facts to allow the probate of the will?
Explain.
Answer
No, evidence aliunde may not be admitted to
prove that the testator and the witnesses signed
in one another's presence because such fact
cannot be determined from an examination
of the will itself. The reason for this is that
oral evidence does not possess the reliability of
an express statement in the attestation clause. It
is for this reason that Article 805 of the Civil
Code requires the attestation clause to state
these facts
Succession; wills; formalities 1986 No. 14:
Busalsal executed a will in his handwriting,
signed by him at the end of each page on the
left marginal space of every page except the last
page. The document bore no date. However,
below Busalsal's every signature, were the
signatures of two witnesses, who later testified
that the will was executed in their presence on
January 1, 1985, New Year's Day, and that
Busalsal was in full possession of his faculties at
that time and even explained to them details of
the will he was writing down. Is the will formally
valid? Explain.
Answer:
The will is not valid either as a notarial will or a
holographic will. It is not valid as a notarial will
because this requires 3 attesting witnesses.
Neither is it a valid holographic will because
the will must be entirely written, dated and
signed in the handwriting of the testator. The
fact that the witnesses testified as the date
of execution did not cure the defect.
Answer - The will is not formally valid.
Whether we consider the will in the instant
problem as a notarial will or as a holographic
will, it cannot be considered as a valid will. If we
consider it as a notarial will, it is not be valid
because there are only two instrumental
witnesses. Under the law on notarial or
ordinary wills, the will should have been
subscribed to and attested by three or more
credible witnesses. Therefore, it is void. If we
consider it as a holographic will, it is not
also valid because it is not dated. Under the
law on holographic wills, the will should
have been entirely written, dated and signed
by the hand of the testator himself.
Therefore, it is void.
(Note: The above answer is based upon Arts. 805
and 810 of the Civil Code and upon decided
cases.)
Answer - The C.C. provides that a
holographic will must be entirely in the
handwriting of the testator, signed and
dated by him. It need not be witnessed.
Hence lacking the date, it cannot be allowed
to probate. The law does not allow
extrinsic evidence to supply the omission.
Succession; wills; formalities 1990 No 11;
(1) If a will is executed by a testator who is a
Filipino citizen, what law will govern if the will
is executed in the Philippines? What law will
govern if the will is executed in another
country? Explain your answers.
(2) If a will is executed by a foreigner, for
instance, a Japanese, residing In the
Philippines, what law will govern if the will
is executed in the Philippines? And what law
will govern if the will is executed in Japan,
or some other country, for instance, the
U.S.A.? Explain your answers.
Answer:
(1) a. If the testator who is a Filipino citizen
executes his will in the Philippines, Philippine
law will govern the formalities.
b. If said Filipino testator executes his will in
another country, the law of the country
where he maybe or Philippine law will
govern the formalities. (Article 815,
Civil Code}
(2) a. If the testator is a foreigner residing in the
Philippines and he executes his will in the
Philippines, the law of the country of which he is
a citizen or Philippine law will govern the
formalities. b. If the testator is a foreigner and
executes his will in a foreign country, the
law of his place of residence or the law of the
country of which he is a citizen or the
law of the place of execution, or Philippine
law will govern the formalities (Articles
17. 816. 817. Civil Code).
Possible Additional Answers:
a. In the case of a Filipino citizen,
Philippine law shall govern substantive
validity whether he executes his will in the
Philippines or in a foreign country.
b. In the case of a foreigner, his national law
shall govern substantive validity
whether he executes his will in the Philippines or
in a foreign country.
Succession; wills; formalities 1975 No. XI
Through negligence, one of the three witnesses
to a will forgot to sign on the third page of the
original of a five-page will, but was able to sign
on all the pages of the duplicate. All other
requisites were complied with. Can the will
be admitted to probate? Explain.
Answer
The will may be admitted to probate. Although
the requirements of Article 805 of the Civil Code
were not strictly complied with, the purposes of
the law have been satisfied. Impossibility of
substitution is assured by the fact that the
testator and the two other witnesses signed
the defective page. The law should not be
strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize
the testator on account of the inadvertence
of a single witness over whose conduct he had
no control, where the purpose of the law
to guarantee the identity of the testament
and its component pages is sufficiently
attained and no intentional or deliberate
deviation exists. (Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11
SCRA 422) Besides, the signed duplicate copy
has the same effect as the original.
Succession; wills; formalities; Holographic
wills; effect of unauthenticated insertions and
cancellations 1996 No. 10:
1) Vanessa died on April 14. 1980. leaving
behind a holographic will which is entirely
written, dated and signed in her own
handwriting. However, it contains Insertions
and cancellations which are not authenticated
by her signature. For this reason, the probate
of Vanessa's will was opposed by her
relatives who stood to inherit by her intestacy.
May Vanessa's holographic will be probated?
Explain.
Answer;
Yes, the will as originally written may be
probated. The insertions and alterations were
void since they were not authenticated by
the full signature of Vanessa, under Art. 814,
NCC. The original will, however, remains valid
because a holographic will is not invalidated
by the unauthenticated insertions or
alterations (Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 468].
Alternative Answer:
It depends. As a rule, a holographic will is
not adversely affected by Insertions or
cancellations which were not authenticated by
the full signature of the testator (Ajero v. CA, 236
SCRA 468). However, when the insertion or
cancellation amounts to revocation of the
will, Art.814 of the NCC does not apply but
Art. 830. NCC. Art. 830 of the NCC does not
require the testator to authenticate his
cancellation for the effectivity of a revocation
effected through such cancellation (Kalaw v.
Relova, 132 SCRA 237). In the Kalaw case,
the original holographic will designated only
one heir as the only substantial provision
which was altered by substituting the original
heir with another heir. Hence, if the
unauthenticated cancellation amounted to a
revocation of the will, the will may not be
probated because it had already been revoked.
Succession; wills; formalities; revocation of
wills 2003 No XI.
Mr. Reyes executed a will completely valid as to
form. A week later, however, he executed
another will which expressly revoked his first will,
which he tore his first will to pieces. Upon the
death of Mr. Reyes, his second will was
presented for probate by his heirs, but it was
denied probate due to formal defects. Assuming
that a copy of the first will is available, may
it now be admitted to probate and given
effect? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the first will may be admitted to
probate and given effect. When the testator
tore first will, he was under the mistaken
belief that the second will was perfectly valid
and he would not have destroyed the first will
had he known that the second will is not valid.
The revocation by destruction therefore is
dependent on the validity of the second will.
Since it turned out that the second will was
invalid, the tearing of the first will did not
produce the effect of revocation. This is known
as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation
(Molo v. Molo, 90 Phil 37.)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
No, the first will cannot be admitted to probate.
While it is true that the first will was successfully
revoked by the second will because the
second will was later denied probate, the
first will was, nevertheless, revoked when the
testator destroyed it after executing the
second invalid will. (Diaz v. De Leon, 43 Phil
413 [1922]).
Succession; wills; revocation 1981 No. 7
A testator, a bachelor of 60, executed a Will
bequeathing a ricefield to the Church worth
P100,000.00. The Will further provided that "all
other assets owned by me after death shall be
equally divided among my two brothers "A"
and "B". The testator subsequently married a
young woman, begot a son, and left another
Will designating his wife and son as his heirs
in equal shares. The second Will did not
expressly revoke the first Will. He left an
estate worth P300,000.00 (including the
ricefield).
a) Who is entitled to the ricefield? Reasons.
b| Who acquires the rest of the
assets? Explain. Answer
(a) It must be observed that the testator left
two wills. In his first will, he
bequeathed the ricefield to the Church and
instituted as heirs in equal shares his two
brothers "A" and "B" with respect to the rest
of his estate. In his second will, he
instituted his wife and his son as heirs in equal
shares. Under our law on revocation
of wills, a will may be revoked by another will-
The revocation may be effected either
expressly or impliedly. Since there is no
express revocation, is there an implied
revocation in the instant case? It is undeniable
that there is an implied revocation if
the testamentary dispositions found in the first
will are totally or partially incompatible
with those found in the second will. It is also
undeniable that the incompatibility must
be absolute in character in the sense that
the testamentary dispositions cannot stand
together. The real issue, therefore, is whether
the two testamentary dispositions found in
the first will can stand together with the
single testamentary disposition found in the
second will. There are two views.
According to one view, reading the two wills
together it is clear that the testatorial
intention is that only the testator's wife and
son shall inherit. They are instituted as
universal heirs with respect to the hereditary
estate in its totality.
Therefore, the second will in its totality cannot
stand together with the first will in its totality.
Consequently, the incompatibility between the
testamentary dispositions found in the, first will
and those found in the second will is both total
and absolute in character. Hence, the first will is
impliedly revoked by the second will. The
testator's widow and his son are, therefore,
entitled to the ricefield According to a second
view, only the institution of "A" and " B'' in the
firs t will as heirs and that portion or part of the
bequest given to the Church which will impair
the legitime of the testator's son and widow
are revoked by the second will. The
reason is that it is only to that extent that
there is absolute incompatibility between
the testamentary dispositions found in the
first will and those found in the second
will. Consequently, the Church shall be entitled
to the ricefield but only to the extent
that it does not encroach upon the legitime of
the testator's son and widow.
(Nme: The above answers are based on the law
on revocation of wills, such
as Arts. 830. et. seq.. Civil Code and on well
settled principles in American
jurisprudence. The Committee respectfully
recommends that whether the bar
candidate will solve the problem either in
accordance with the first view or in
accordance with the second view, it should be
considered as a correct answer.)
(b) Suggested answer for those who adhere to
the first view stated above:
There are two views with regard to the
distribution of the entire estate,
including the ricefield.
According to one view, one-half (1/2) shall
be given to the testator's widow
and the other one-half (1/2) shall be given to the
testator's son. This division would
be more in conformity with the testatorial
intention.
According to another view, first satisfy the
legitime of the two heirs. The testator's
widow shall be entitled to one-fourth (1/4) of
P300,000, or P75,000, while the testator's son
shall be entitled to one-half, or P150,000.
The disposable free portion shall then be
divided equally between the two. This would
be more in conformity with the testatorial
intention.
Suggested answer for those who adhere the
second view stated above:
The testator's son shall be entitled to a legitime
of one-half |l/2) of the entire
estate, or P150.000; the widow shall be
entitled to a legitime of one-fourth on the
entire estate, or P75,000. That means that
the bequest in favor of the Church is
inofficious to the extent of P25.000,
considering that the value of the ricefield is
P100,000. Consequently, said bequest or
devise should be reduced by one-fourth
(1/4). Therefore, the Church shall be entitled
only to an undivided share of three-
fourth (3/4) of the ricefield.
Succession; wills; testamentary intent 1996
No. 10:
2) Alfonso, a bachelor without any
descendant or ascendant, wrote a last
will and testament in which he devised." all
the properties of which I may be possessed
at the time of my death" to his favorite
brother Manuel. At the time he wrote the will,
he owned only one parcel of land. But by the
time he died, he owned twenty parcels of land.
His other brothers and sisters insist that his will
should pass only the parcel of land he owned
at the time it was written, and did not
cover his properties acquired, which should
be by intestate succession. Manuel claims
otherwise. Who is correct? Explain.
Answer:
Manuel is correct because under Art. 793,
NCC, property acquired after the making of a
will shall only pass thereby, as if the testator
had possessed it at the time of making the
will, should it expressly appear by the will
that such was his intention. Since Alfonso's
intention to devise all properties he owned
at the time of his death expressly appears on
the will, then all the 20 parcels of land are
included in the devise.
Succession; wills; witnesses to holographic
wills 1989 No. 11:
(1) The probate of the will of Nicandro is
contested on the ground that the notary
public before whom the will, was acknowledged
was also one of the three instrumental
witnesses. If you were the probate judge,
how would you decide the contest? Give your
reasons.
Answer:
The will is void. The acknowledging officer
cannot serve as attesting witness at the same
time. In effect there are only two witnesses
since the notary cannot swear before himself.
Succession; wills; witnesses to holographic
wills 1994 No. 10:
On his deathbed, Vicente was executing a
will. In the room were Carissa, Carmela,
Comelio and Atty. Cimpo, a notary public.
Suddenly, there was a street brawl which
caught Comelio's attention, prompting him to
look out the window. Cornelio did not see
Vicente sign a will. Is the will valid?
Alternative Answers:
a) Yes, The will is valid. The law does not
require a witness to actually see the testator
sign the will. It is sufficient if the witness
could have seen the act of signing had he
chosen to do so by casting his eyes to the
proper direction.
b) Yes, the will is valid. Applying the "test of
position", although Comelio did not actually
see Vicente sign the will, Cornelio was in
the proper position to see Vicente sign if
Cornelio so wished.
Succession 2015
Alden and Stela were both former Filipino
citizens. They were married in the Philippines but
they later migrated to the United States where
they were naturalized as American citizens. In
their union they were able to accumulate several
real properties both in the US and in the
Philippines. Unfortunately, they were not blessed
with children. In the US, they executed a joint will
instituting as their common heirs to divide their
combined estate in equal shares, the five
siblingsand of Alden the seven siblings of Stela.
Alden passed away in 2013 and a year later,
Stela also died. The siblings of Alden who were
all citizens of the US instituted probate
proceedings in a US court impleading the
siblings of Stela who were all in the Philippines.
a) Was the joint will executed by Alden and Stela
who were both former Filipinos valid? Explain
with legal basis. (3%)
b) Can the joint will produce legal effect in the
Philippines with respect to the propertiesand of
Alden Stela found here? If so, how? (3%)
c) Is the situation presented in Item I an example
of depe9age? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela is
considered valid. Being no longer Filipino
citizens at the time they executed their joint will,
the prohibition under our Civil Code on joint
wills will no longer apply to Alden and Stela. For
as long as their will was executed in accordance
with the law of the place where they reside, or
the law of the country of which they are citizens
or even in accordance with the Civil Code, a will
executed by an alien is considered valid in the
Philippines. (Article 816)
b) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela can take
effect even with respect to the properties
located in the Philippines because what governs
the distribution of their estate is no longer
Philippine law but their national law at the time
of their demise. Hence, the joint will produces
legal effect even with respect to the properties
situated in the Philippines.
c) No, because depecage is a process of
applying rules of different states on the basis of
the precise issue involved. It is a conflict of laws
where different issues within a case may be
governed by the laws of different states. In the
situation in letter (a) no conflict of laws will arise
because Alden and Stela are no longer Filipino
citizens at the time of the execution of their joint
will and the place of execution is not the
Philippines.
2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS
Crispin died testate and was survived by Alex
and Josine, his children from his first wife; Rene
and Ruby, his children from his second wife;
and Allan, Bea, and Cheska, his children from
his third wife. One important provision in his will
reads asfollows:
"Ang lupa at bahay sa Lungsod ng Maynila ay
ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan nila Alex at Rene
hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang
pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at
nang ang sinuman sa aking mga anak, sampu
ng aking mga apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa
habang panahon, ay may tutuluyan kung
magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o sa kalapit
na mga lungsod." Is the provision valid? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the provision is not valid. At first glance, the
provision may appear valid as it provides for the
transfer of title in favor of Alex and Rene over
the parcel of land. A legacy or devise is to be
construed as a donation effective mortis causa,
and it is intended to transfer ownership to the
legatee or devisee. Since the ownership is legally
transferred to the Alex and Rene, they cannot be
prohibited by the testator from alienating or
partitioning
the same perpetually. The dispositions of the
testator declaring all or part of the estate
inalienable for more than twenty years are void.
(Article 870)
V.
What is the effect of preterition ? (1%)
(A) It annuls the devise and legacy
(B) It annuls the institution of heir
(C) It reduces the devise and legacy
(D) It partially annuls the institution of
heir
Answer is letter B (preterition annuls the
institution of heirs)
XIII.
Esteban and Martha had four (4) children:
Rolando, Jun, Mark, and Hector. Rolando had a
daughter, Edith, while Mark had a son, Philip.
After the death of Esteban and Martha, their
three (3) parcels of land were adjudicated to
Jun. After the death of Jun, the properties
passed to his surviving spouse Anita, and son
Cesar. When Anita died, her share went to her
son Cesar. Ten (10) years after, Cesar died
intestate without any issue. Peachy, Anita.s
sister, adjudicated to herself the properties as
the only surviving heir of Anita and Cesar. Edith
and Philip would like to recover the properties
claiming that they should have been reserved
by Peachy in their behalf and must now revert
back to them. Is the contention of Edith and
Philip valid?
(4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention is not valid. The property
adjudicated to Jun from the estate of his parents
which he in turn left to Anita and Cesar is not
subject to reservation in favor of Edith and
Philip. In Mendoza et. al. vs.Policarpio, et. al. 1
the court ruled that lineal character of the
reservable property is reckoned from the
ascendant from whom the propositus received
the property by gratuitous title. The ownership
should be reckoned only from Jun, as he is the
ascendant from where the first transmission
occurred or from whom Cesar inherited the
properties. Moreover, Article 891 provides that
the person obliged to reserve the property
should be an ascendant. Peachy is not Cesar’s
ascendant but a mere collateral relative. On the
assumption that the property is reservable, Edith
and Philip being first cousins of Cesar
who is the propositus are disqualified to be
reservatarios as they are not third degree
relatives of Cesar.
XVII.
On March 30, 2000, Mariano died intestate and
was survived by his wife, Leonora, and children,
Danilo and Carlito. One of the properties he left
was a piece of land in Alabang where he built
his residential house.
After his burial, Leonora and Mariano.s children
extrajudicially settled his estate. Thereafter,
Leonora and Danilo advised Carlito of their
intention to partition the property. Carlito
opposed invoking Article 159 of the Family
Code. Carlito alleged that since his minor child
Lucas still resides in the premises, the family
home continues until that minor beneficiary
becomes of age. Is the contention of Carlito
tenable? (4%)
1 G.R. NO. 176422 -March 20, 2013
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention of Carlito is not tenable. In
the case of Patricio v. Dario,2 with similar facts
to the case at bar, the court ruled that to qualify
as beneficiary of the family home the person
must be among those mentioned in Article 154,
he/she must be actually living in the family
home and must be dependent for legal support
upon the head of the family. While Lucas, the
son of Carlito satisfies the first and second
requisites, he cannot however, directly claim
legal support from his grandmother, Leonora
because the person primarily obliged to give
support to Lucas is his father, Carlito. Thus,
partition may be successfully claimed by
Leonora and Danilo.
XXV.
Mario executed his last will and testament
where he acknowledges the child being
conceived by his live-in partner Josie as his own
child; and that his house and lot in Baguio City
be given to his unborn conceived child. Are the
acknowledgment and the donation mortis causa
valid? Why? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the acknowledgment is considered valid
because a will (although not required to be filed
by the notary public) may still constitute a
document which contains an admission of
illegitimate filiation. Article 834 also provides
that the recognition of an illegitimate child does
not lose its legal effect even though the will
wherein it was made should be revoked. This
provision by itself warrants a conclusion that a
will may be considered as proof of filiation. The
donation mortis causa may be considered valid
because although unborn, a fetus has a
presumptive personality for all purposes
favorable to it provided it be born under the
conditions specified in Article 41.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
SUGGESTED ANSWERS
2015 CIVIL LAW BAR EXAMINATIONS
By: Assoc. Dean Viviana M. Paguirigan
2 G.R. No. 170829 November 20, 2006
I.
Alden and Stela were both former
Filipino citizens. They were married in the
Philippines but they later migrated to the
United States where they were naturalized as
American citizens. In their union they were
able to accumulate several real properties
both in the US and in the Philippines.
Unfortunately, they were not blessed with
children. In the US, they executed a joint will
instituting as their common heirs to divide
their combined estate in equal shares, the five
siblingsand of Alden the seven siblings of
Stela. Alden passed away in 2013 and a year
later, Stela also died. The siblings of Alden who
were all citizens of the US instituted probate
proceedings in a US court impleading the
siblings of Stela who were all in the Philippines.
a) Was the joint will executed by Alden
and Stela who were both former
Filipinos valid? Explain with legal basis.
(3%)
b) Can the joint will produce legal
effect in the Philippines with
respect to the propertiesand of
Alden Stela found here? If so,
how? (3%)
c) Is the situation presented in
Item I an example of
depe9age? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela is
considered valid. Being no longer Filipino
citizens at the time they executed their joint
will, the prohibition under our Civil Code on
joint wills will no longer apply to Alden and
Stela. For as long as their will was executed in
accordance with the law of the place where
they reside, or the law of the country of which
they are citizens or even in accordance with
the Civil Code, a will executed by an alien is
considered valid in the Philippines. (Article
816)
b) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela can take
effect even with respect to the properties
located in the Philippines because what
governs the distribution of their estate is no
longer Philippine law but their national law at
the time of their demise. Hence, the joint will
produces legal effect even with respect to the
properties situated in the Philippines.
IV.
Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived
together as common law spouses and agreed
to raise a son of Bert’s living brother as their
child without legally adopting him. Bert worked
while Joe took care of their home and the boy.
In their 20 years of cohabitation they were able
to acquire real estate assets registered in their
names as co-owners. Unfortunately, Bert died
of cardiac arrest, leaving no will. Bert was
survived by his biological siblings, Joe, and the
boy.
xxxx
b) What are the successional rights of the
boy Bert Joe and raised as their son? (2%)
xxxxx
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b)Neither of the two will inherit from Bert. Joe
cannot inherit because the law does not
recognize the right of a stranger to inherit from
the decedent in the absence of a will. Their
cohabitation will not vest Joe with the right to
inherit from Bert. The child will likewise not
inherit from Bert because of the lack of formal
adoption of the child. A mere ward or .ampon.
has no right to inherit from the adopting
parents. (Manuel v. Ferrer, 247 SCRA 476)
IX.
Jose, single, donated a house and lot to his only
niece, Maria, who was of legal age and who
accepted the donation. The donation and
Maria’s acceptance thereof were evidenced by
a Deed of Donation. Maria then lived in the
house and lot donated to her, religiously
paying real estate taxes thereon. Twelve years
later, when Jose had already passed away, a
woman claiming to be an illegitimate daughter
of Jose filed a complaint against Maria.
Claiming rights as an heir, the woman prayed
that Maria be ordered to reconvey the house
and lot to Jose’s estate. In her complaint she
alleged that the notary public who notarized
the Deed of Donation had an expired notarial
commission when the Deed of Donation was
executed by Jose. Can Maria be made to
reconvey the property? What can she put up as
a defense? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Maria cannot be compelled to reconvey the
property. The Deed of Donation was void
because it was not considered a public
document. However, a void donation can
trigger acquisitive prescription. (Solis v. CA 176
SCRA 678; Doliendo v. Biarnesa 7 Phil. 232) The
void donation has a quality of titulo colorado
enough for acquisitive prescription especially
since 12 years had lapsed from the deed of
donation.
3
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Maria can be made
to reconvey the property. The law provides
that no person may give or receive by way of
donation more than what he may give or
receive by will. On the assumption that the
property donated to Maria is the only property
of Jose, the legitime of his illegitimate child
would be impaired if Maria would be allowed to
keep the entire property. After taking into
account the value of the property, Maria can be
made to reconvey the property to the extent
necessary to satisfy the legitime of Jose.s
illegitimate daughter provided that the woman
claiming to be Jose.s child can prove her
filiation to the deceased. Maria can set up the
defense that the action has prescribed. An action
for revocation of the donation on the ground
that it impaired the legitime of a compulsory
heir may only be filed
within ten (10) years from the time the cause
of action accrues which is at the time of the
death of Jose. The facts are not clear as to
when Jose died but on the assumption that he
died ten years prior to the filing of the action,
the same has clearly prescribed.
Heirs; Fideicommissary Substitution
(2008)
No. XIII. Raymond, single, named his sister
Ruffa in his will as a devisee of a parcel of
land which he owned. The will imposed
upon Ruffa the obligation of preseving the
land and transferring it, upon her death, to
her illegitimate daughter Scarlet who was
then only one year old. Raymond later died,
leaving behind his widowed mother, Ruffa
and Scarlet.
(A). Is the condition imposed upon Ruffa, to
preserve the property and to transmit it
upon her death to Scarlet, valid? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the condition imposed upon Ruffa
to preserve the property and to transmit
it upon her death to Scarlet is valid because it is
tantamount to fideicommissary substitution
under Art. 863 of the Civil Code.
(B). If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, who inherits the
property? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ruffa will inherit the property as
Scarlet's heir. Scarlet acquires a right to
the succession from the time of
Raymond's death, even though she
should predecease Ruffa (Art. 866, Civil
Code).
(C). If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, can
Scarlet inherit the property directly from
Raymond? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Ruffa predeceases Raymond,
Raymond's widowed mother will be
entitled to the inheritance. Scarlet, an
illegitimate child, cannot inherit the
property by intestate succession from
Raymond who is a legitimate relative of
Ruffa (Art. 992, Civil Code). Moreover,
Scarlet is not a compulsory heir of
Raymond, hence she can inherit only by
testamentary succession. Since
Raymond executed a will in the case at
bar, Scarlet may inherit from Raymond.
Heirs; Intestate Succession; Legitime;
Computation (2010)
No.XI. The spouses Peter and Paula had
three (3) children. Paula later obtained a
judgment of nullity of marriage. Their
absolute community of property having
been dissolved, they delivered P1 million to
each of their 3 children as their
presumptive legitimes. Peter later re-married
and had two (2) children by his second wife
Marie. Peter and Marie, having successfully
engaged in business, acquired real properties.
Peter later died intestate.
(A). Who are Peter’s legal heirs and how will
his estate be divided among them? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The legal heirs of Peter are his children
by the first and second marriages and
his surviving second wife. Their shares in the
estate of Peter will depend, however, on the
cause of the nullity of the first marriage. If the
nullity of the first marriage was psychological
incapacity of one or both spouses, the three
children of that void marriage are legitimate and
all of the legal heirs shall share the estate of
Peter in equal shares. If the judgment of
nullity was for other causes, the three
children are illegitimate and the estate
shall be distributed such that an illegitimate
child of the first marriage shall receive half of the
share of a legitimate child of the second
marriage, and the second wife will inherit a share
equal to that of a legitimate child. In no
case may the two legitimate children of
the second marriage receive a share less
than one-half of the estate which is their
legitime. When the estate is not sufficient to pay
all the legitimes of the compulsory heirs, the
legitime of the spouse is preferred and the
illegitimate children suffer the reduction.
Computation:
(A) If the ground of nullity is
psychological incapacity:
3 children by first marriage
1/6 of the estate for each
2 children by second marriage
1/6 of the estate for each
Surviving second spouse
1/6 of the estate
(B) If the ground of nullity is not
psychological capacity:
2 legitimate children
¼ of the estate for
each of second marriage
Surviving second spouse
¼ of the estate
3 illegitimatechildren
1/12 of estate for
each of first marriage
Note: The legitime of an illegitimate
child is supposed to be ½ the legitime of
a legitimate child or 1/8 of the estate.
But the estate will not be sufficient to
pay the said legitime of the 3 illegitimate
children, because only ¼ of the estate is left after
paying the legitime of the surviving spouse which
is
preferred. Hence, the remaining ¼ of the estate
shall be divided among the 3 illegitimate
children.
(B). What is the effect of the receipt by
Peter’s 3 children by his first marriage of
their presumptive legitimes on their right to
inherit following Peter’s death? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the distribution of Peter’s estate, ½ of
the presumptive received by the 3 children of
the first marriage shall be collated to Peter’s
estate and shall be imputed as an advance of
their respective inheritance from Peter. Only
half of the presumptive legitime is collated to
the estate of Peter because the other half shall
be collated to the estate of his first wife.
Heirs; Representation; Iron-Curtain
Rule(2012) No.VIII.
a) Ricky and Arlene are married. They begot
Franco during their marriage. Franco had an
illicit relationship with Audrey and out of which,
they begot Arnel. Frnaco predeceased Ricky,
Arlene and Arnel. Before Ricky died, he executed
a will which when submitted to probate was
opposed by Arnel on the ground that he
should be given the share of his father,
Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel correct?
Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, his opposition is not correct. Arnel
cannot inherit from Ricky in the representation
of his father Franco. In representation, the
representative must not only be a legal heir of
the person he is representing, he must also be a
legal heir of the decedent he seeks to inherit
from.
While Arnel is a legal heir of Franco, he
is not a legal heir of Ricky because under
Art 992 of the NCC, an illegitimate child
has no right to inherit ab intestato from
the legitimate children and relatives of
his father or mother. Arnel is disqualified to
inherit from Ricky because Arnel is an
illegitimate child of Franco and Ricky is a
legitimate relative of Franco.
Heirs; Reserva Troncal (2009)
No. I. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is
false. Explain your answer in not more than two
(2) sentences.
(B).In reservatroncal, all reservatarios (reser
vees) inherit as a class and in equal shares
regardless of their proximity in degree to
the prepositus. (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FALSE. Not all the relatives within the third
degree will inherit as reservatario, and not all
those who are entitled to inherit will inherit in
the equal shares.
The applicable laws of intestate succession will
determine who among the relatives will inherit
as reservatarios and what shares they will take,
i.e., the direct line excludes the collateral, the
descending direct line excludes the ascending
,the nearer excludes the more remote, the
nephews and nieces exclude the uncles and the
aunts, and half blood relatives inherit half the
share of full-blooded relatives.
Intestate Succession (2008)
No. VII. Ramon Mayaman died intestate,
leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00.
Determine how much each heir will receive
from the estate:
(A). If Ramon is survived by his wife, three
full-blood brothers, two half-brothers, and
one nephew (the son of a deceased fullblood
brother)? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Having died intestate, the estate of Ramon shall
be inherited by his wife and his full and half
blood siblings or their respective representatives.
In intestacy, if the wife concurs with no one but
the siblings of the husband, all of them are
the intestate heirs of the deceased husband. The
wife will receive half of the intestate estate, while
the siblings or their respective representatives,
will inherit the other half to be divided among
them equally. If some siblings are of the full-
blood and the other of the half blood, a half
blood sibling will receive half the share of a full-
blood sibling.
(1). The wife of Ramon will, therefore,
receive one half (½) of the estate or the
amount of P5,000,000.00.
(2). The three (3) full-blood brothers, will,
therefore, receive P1,000,000.00 each.
(3). The nephew will receive P1,000,000.00 by
right of representation.
(4). The two (2) half-brothers will receive
P500,000.00 each.
(B). If Ramon is survived by his wife, a halfsister,
and three nephews (sons of a deceased full-
blood brother)? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The wife will receive one half (1/2) of the
estate or P5,000,000.00. The other half
shall be inherited by (1) the full-blood brother,
represented by his three children, and (2) the
half-sister. They will divide the other half
between them such that the share of the half-
sister is just half the share of the full-blood
brother. The share of the full-blood brother shall
in turn be inherited by the three nephews in
equal shares by right of presentation.
Therefore, the three (3) nephews will
receive P1,111,111.10 each the half sister
will receive the sum of P1,666,666.60.
Intestate Succession (2008)
No.X. Arthur executed a will which contained
only: (i) a provision disinheriting his daughter
Bernica for running off with a married man, and
(ii) a provision disposing of his share in the
family house and lot in favor of his other
children Connie and Dora. He did not make any
provisions in favor of his wife Erica, because as
the will stated, she would anyway get ½ of the
house and lot as her conjugal share. The will was
very brief and straightforward and both the
above provisions were contained in page 1,
which Arthur and his instrumental witness,
signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained the
attestation clause and the signatures, at
the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental
witnesses which included Lambert, the
driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and
Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared
the will. There was a 3rd page, but this only
contained the notarial acknowledgement.
The attestation clause stated the will was
signed on the same occasion by Arthur and
his instrumental witnesses who all signed
in the presence of each other, and the notary
public who notarized the will. There
are no marginal signatures or pagination
appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon his
death, it was discovered that apart from the
house and lot, he had a P 1 million account
deposited with ABC bank.
(D). How should the house and lot, and the
cash be distributed? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the probate of the will cannot be
allowed, the rules on intestate succession apply.
Under Art. 996 of the Civil Code, if a widow or
widower and legitimate children or descendants
are left, the surviving spouse has the same
share as of the children. Thus, ownership over
the house and lot will be created among wife
Erica and her children Bernice, Connie and Dora.
Similarly, the amount of P 1 million will be
equally divided among them.
Intestate Succession; Rights of
Representation: Illegitimate, Adopted
Child; Iron Curtain Rule (2007)
No. X. For purpose of this question, assume
all formalities and procedural requirements
have been complied with.
In 1970, Ramon and Dessa got married.
Prior to their marriage, Ramon had a child,
Anna. In 1971 and 1972, Ramon and Dessa
legally adopted Cherry and Michelle respectively.
In 1973, Dessa died while giving birth to Larry
Anna had a child, Lia. Anna never married.
Cherry, on the other hand, legally adopted
Shelly. Larry had twins, Hans and Gretel, with his
girlfriend, Fiona. In 2005, Anna, Larry and Cherry
died in a car accident. In 2007, Ramon died. Who
may inherit from Ramon and who may not? Give
your reason briefly.(10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following may inherit from Ramon:
(1). Michelle, as an adopted child of Ramon, will
inherit as a legitimate child of Ramon. As an
adopted child, Michelle has all the rights of a
legitimate child (Sec 18, Domestic Adoption
Law).
(2). Lia will inherit in representation of Anna.
Although Lia is an illegitimate child, she is not
barred by Articles 992, because her mother Anna
is an illegitimate herself. She will represent Anna
as regards Anna's legitime under Art. 902, NCC
and as regards Anna's intestate share under Art.
990, NCC.
The following may not inherit from Ramon:
(1). Shelly, being an adopted child, she cannot
represent Cherry. This is because adoption
creates a personal legal relation only between
the adopter and the adopted. The law on
representation requires the representative to be
a legal heir of the person he is representing and
also of the person from whom the person being
represented was supposed to inherit. While
Shelly is a legal heir of Cherry, Shelly is not a
legal heir of Ramon. Adoption created a purely
personal legal relation only between
Cherry and Shelly.
(2). Hans and Gretel are barred from
inheriting from Ramon under Art. 992,
NCC. Being illegitimate children, they
cannot inherit ab intestao from Ramon.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The problem expressly mentioned the dates of
the adoption of Cherry and Michelle as 1971 and
1972. During that time, adoption was governed
by the New Civil Code. Under the New Civil
Code, husband and wife were allowed to adopt
separately or not jointly with the other spouse.
And since the problem does not specifically and
categorically state, it is possible to construe the
use of the word "respectively" in the problem as
indicative of the situation that Cherry was
adopted by Ramon alone and Michelle was
adopted by Dessa alone. In such case of
separate adoption the alternative answer to the
problem will be as follows: Only Lia will inherit
from Ramon in representation of Ramon's
illegitimate daughter Anna. Although Lia
is an illegitimate child, she is not barred
from inheriting from Ramon because her
mother is herself illegitimate. Shelly cannot
inherit in representation of Cherry because
Shelly is just an adopted child of Cherry. In
representation, the representative must not only
be a legal heir of the person he is representing
but also of the decedent from whom the
represented person is supposed to inherit. In the
case of Shelly, while she is a legal heir of Cherry
by virtue of adoption, she is not a legal heir of
Ramon. Adoption creates a personal legal
relation only between the adopting parent and
the adopted child (Teotico v. Del Val, 13 SCRA
406, 1965. Michelle cannot inherit from Ramon,
because she was adopted not by Ramon but by
Dessa. In the eyes of the law, she is not related
to Ramon at all. Hence, she is not a legal heir of
Ramon. Hans and Gretel are not entitled to
inherit from Ramon, because they are barred by
Art. 992 NCC. Being illegitimate children of Larry,
they cannot inherit from the legitimate
relatives of their father Larry. Ramon is
a legitimate relative of Larry who is the
legitimate father.
Legitimes; Compulsory Heirs (2012)
No.VIII.
b) How can RJP distribute his estate by will, if his
heirs are JCP, his wife; HBR and RVC, his parents;
and an illegitimate child, SGO?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A testator may dispose of by will the free portion
of his estate. Since the legitime of JCP is 1/8 of
the estate, SGO is ¼ of the estate and that of
HBR and RVC is ½ of the hereditary estate under
Art 889 of the NCC, the remaining 1/8 of the
estate is the free portion which the testator may
dispose of by will.
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2008)
No. XII. Ernesto, an overseas Filipino worker, was
coming home to the Philippines after working
for so many years in the Middle East. He had
saved P100.000 in his saving account in Manila
which intended to use to start a business in his
home country. On his flight home, Ernesto had a
fatal heart attack. He left behind his widowed
mother, his common-law wife and their twins
sons. He left no will, no debts, no other relatives
and no other properties except the money in his
saving account.
Who are the heirs entitled to inherint from
him and how much should each receive?(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The mother and twin sons are entitled to
inherit from Ernesto. Art. 991 of the Civil Code,
provides that if legitimate ascendants are left,
the twin sons shall divide the inheritance with
them taking one-half of the estate. Thus, the
widowed mother gets P50,000.00 while the twin
sons shall receive P25,000.00 each. The
common-law wife cannot inherit from him
because when the law speaks "widow or
widower" as a compulsory heir, the law refers to
a legitimate spouse (Art. 887, par 3, Civil Code).
Preterition; Disinheritance (2008)
No.X. Arthur executed a will which
contained only: (i) a provision disinheriting
his daughter Bernica for running off with a
married man, and (ii) a provision disposing
of his share in the family house and lot in
favor of his other children Connie and Dora.
He did not make any provisions in favor of
his wife Erica, because as the will stated,
she would anyway get ½ of the house and
lot as her conjugal share. The will was very
brief and straightforward and both the
above provisions were contained in page 1,
which Arthur and his instrumental witness,
signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained the
attestation clause and the signatures, at
the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental
witnesses which included Lambert, the
driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and
Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared
the will. There was a 3rd page, but this only
contained the notarial acknowledgement.
The attestation clause stated the will was
signed on the same occasion by Arthur and
his instrumental witnesses who all signed
in the presence of each other, and the
notary public who notarized the will. There
are no marginal signatures or pagination
appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon his
death, it was discovered that apart from the
house and lot, he had a P 1 million account
deposited with ABC bank.
(A). Was Erica preterited? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Erica cannot be preterited. Art. 854 of
the Civil Code provides that only
compulsory heirs in the direct line can be
preterited.
(B). What other defects of the will, if any,
can cause denial of probate? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The other defects of the will that can
cause its denial are as follows: (a) Atty.
Zorba, the one who prepared the will was
one of the three witnesses, violating the
three-witnesses rule; (b) no marginal
signature at the last page; (c ) the attestation did
not state the number of pages upon which the
will is written; and, (d) no pagination appearing
correlatively in letters on the upper part
of the three pages (Azuela v. C.A., G.R.
No. 122880, 12 Apr 2006 and cited cases
therein, Art 805 and 806, Civil Code).
(C). Was the disinheritance valid? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the disinheritance was valid. Art.
919, par 7, Civil Code provides that "when a child
or descendant leads a dishonorable or
disgraceful life, like running off with a married
man, there is sufficient cause for disinheritance."
Succession; Proof of Death between persons
called to succeed each other (2008)
No. II. At age 18, Marian found out that she
was pregnant. She insured her own life and
named her unborn child as her sole beneficiary.
When she was already due to give birth, she and
her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her unborn
child, were kidnapped in a resort in Bataan
where they were vacationing. The military gave
chase and after one week, they were found in an
abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were
hacked with bolos. Marian and the baby
delivered were both found dead, with the baby's
umbilical cord already cut. Pietro survived.
(B). Between Marian and the baby, who is
presumed to have died ahead? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The baby is presumed to have died ahead
of Marian. Under Par. 5, rule 131, Sec. 5
(KK) of the Rules of Court, if one is under 15 or
above 60 and the age of the other is in between
15 and 60, the latter is presumed to have
survived. In the instant case, Marian was already
18 when she found out that she was pregnant.
She could be of the same age or maybe 19 years
of age when she gave birth.
(C). Will Pietro, as surviving biological
father of the baby, be entitled to claim the
proceeds of the life insurance on the life of
Marian? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pietro, as the biological father of the
baby, shall be entitled to claim the
proceeds of life insurance of the Marian
because he is a compulsory heir of his
child.
Succession; Rule on Survivorship (2009)
No. II. Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his
son Roberto both died in a fire that gutted their
home while they were sleeping in their air-
conditioned rooms. Roberto’s wife, Marilyn, and
their two children were pared because they were
in the province at the time. Dr. Lopez left an
estate worth P20M and a life insurance policy in
the amount of P1M with his three children ---
one of whom is Roberto --- as beneficiaries.
Marilyn is now claiming for herself and her
children her husband’s share in the estate left by
Dr. Lopez, and her husband’s share in the
proceeds of Dr. Lopez’s life insurance policy.
Rule on the validity of Marilyn’s claims with
reasons. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
As to the Estate of Dr. Lopez: Marilyn is not
entitled to a share in the estate of Dr. Lopez. For
purpose of succession, Dr. Lopez and his son
Roberto are presumed to have died at the same
time, there being no evidence to prove
otherwise, and there shall be no transmission of
rights from one to the other (Article 43, NCC).
Hence, Roberto, inherited nothing from his
father that Marilyn would in turn inherit from
Roberto .The children of Roberto, however, will
succeed their grandfather, Dr. Lopez ,in
representation of their father Roberto and
together Roberto will receive 1/3 of the estate of
Dr. Lopez since their father Roberto was one of
the three children of Dr. Lopez . Marilyn cannot
represent her husband Roberto because the
right is not given by the law to a surviving
spouse. As to the proceeds of the insurance on
the life of Dr. Lopez:
Since succession is not involved as
regards the insurance contract, the
provisions of the Rules of Court (Rule
131, Sec. 3 , [jj] [5] ) on survivorship
shall apply. Under the Rules, Dr. Lopez, who was
70 years old, is presumed to have died ahead of
Roberto who is presumably between the ages 15
and 60. Having survived the insured, Roberto's
right as a beneficiary became vested upon the
death of Dr. Lopez. When Roberto died after Dr.
Lopez, his right to receive the insurance became
part of his hereditary estate, which in turn was
inherited in equal shares by his legal heirs,
namely, his spouse and children. Therefore,
Roberto's children and his spouse are entitled to
Roberto's one-third share in the insurance
proceeds.
Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions &
Cancellations (2012)
No.VII.a) Natividad’s holographic will, which
had only one (1) substantial provision, as
first written, named Rosa as her sole heir.
However, when Gregorio presented it for
probate, it already contained an alteration,
naming Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as sole heir,
but without authentication by Natividad’s
signature. Rosa opposes the probate alleging
such lack of proper authentication. She claims
that the unaltered form of the will should be
given effect. Whose claim should be granted?
Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It depends. If the cancellation of Rosa’s
name in the will was done by the testator
himself, Rosa’s claimed that the holographic will
in its original tenor should be given effect must
be denied. The said cancellation has revoked the
entire will as nothing remains of the will after the
name of Rosa was cancelled. Such cancellation is
valid revocation of the will and does not require
authentication by the full signature of the
testator to be effective. However, if the
cancellation of Rosa’s name was not done by the
testator himself, such cancellation shall not be
effective and the will in its original tenor shall
remain valid. The effectively of the holographic
will cannot be left to the mercy of unscrupulous
third parties. The writing of Gregorio’s name as
sole
heir was ineffective, even though written
by the testator himself, because such is
an alteration that requires authentication by the
full signature of the testator to be valid and
effective. Not having an authenticated, the
designation of Gregorio as an heir was
ineffective, (Kalaw v. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207,
Sept28, 1984).
Wills; Holographic Wills; Probate (2009)
No.VI.
On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes
executed a holographic will, wherein he gave
nothing to his recognized illegitimate son, Jay.
Dr. Fuentes left for the United States, passed the
New York medical licensure examinations,
resided therein, and became a naturalized
American citizen.
He died in New York in 2007. The laws of
New York do not recognize holographic wills
or compulsory heirs.
(A). Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes
be admitted to probate in the Philippines?
Why or why not? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes
may be admitted to probate in the Philippines
because there is no public policy violated by
such probate. The only issue at probate is the
due execution of the will which includes the
formal validity of the will. As regards formal
validity, the only issue the court will resolve at
probate is whether or not the will was executed
in accordance with the form prescribed by the
law observed by the testator in the execution of
his will.
For purposes of probate in the
Philippines, an alien testator may
observe the law of the place where the
will was executed (Art 17, NCC), or the
formalities of the law of the place where
he resides, or according to the
formalities of the law of his own country,
or in accordance with the Philippine
Civil Code (Art. 816, NCC). Since Dr.
Fuentes executed his will in accordance
with the Philippine law, the Philippine
court shall apply the New Civil Code in
determining the formal validity of the
holographic will. The subsequent change
in the citizenship of Dr. Fuentes did not
affect the law governing the validity of
his will. Under the new Civil Code, which
was the law used by Dr. Fuentes, the law
enforced at the time of execution of the
will shall govern the formal validity of
the will (Art. 795, NCC).
(B). Assuming that the will is probated in
the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that
he be given his legitime? Why or why not?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Jay cannot insist because under New
York law he is not a compulsory heir entitled to a
legitime. The national law of the testator
determines who his heirs are, the order
that they succeed, how much their
successional rights are, and whether or
not a testamentary disposition in his will
is valid (Art 16, NCC). Since, Dr. Fuentes
was a US citizen, the laws of the New
York determines who his heirs are. And
since the New York law does not
recognize the concept of compulsory
heirs, Jay is not a compulsory heir of Dr.
Fuentes entitled to a legitime.
Wills; Joint Wills (2008)
No. XI. John and Paula, British citizens at
birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by
naturalization after their marriage. During
their marriage the couple acquired substanial
landholdings in London and in Makati. Paula
bore John three children, Peter, Paul and Mary.
In one of their trips to London, the couple
executed a joint will appointing each other as
their heirs and providing that upon the death of
the survivor between them the entire estate
would go to Peter and Paul only but the two
could not dispose of nor divide the London
estate as long as they live. John and Paul
died tragically in the London Subway
terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul
filed a petition for probate of their parent's
will before a Makati Regional Trial Court.
(A). Should the will be admitted to probate?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The will cannot be admitted to
probate because a joint will is expressly
prohibited under Art. 818 of the Civil
Code. This provision applies John and
Paula became Filipino citizens after their
marriage.
(B). Are the testamentary dispositions
valid? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The testamentary dispositions are
not valid because (a) omission of Mary, a
legitimate child, is tantamount to preterition
which shall annul the institution of Peter and
Paul as heirs (Art. 854, Civil Code); and, (b) the
disposition that Peter and Paul could not
dispose of nor divide the London estate
for more than 20 years is void (Art. 870,
Civil Code).
Wills; Joint Wills; Probate (2012)
No.VII.b) John Sagun and Maria Carla
Camua, British citizens at birth, acquired
Philippine citizenship by naturalization
after their marriage. During their marriage,
the couple acquired substantial landholdings in
London and in Makati. Maria begot three (3)
children, Jorge, Luisito, and Joshur. In one of
their trips to London, the couple executed a joint
will appointing each other as their heirs and
providing that upon the death of the survivor
between them, the entire estate would go to
Jorge and Luisito only but the two (2) could not
dispose of nor divide the London estate as long
as they live. John and Maria died tragically in the
London subway terrorist attack in 2005. Jorge
and
Luisito filed a petition for probate of their
parents’ will before a Makati Regional Trial
Court. Joshur vehemently objected because
he was preterited.
(1) Should the will be admitted to probate?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the will should not be admitted to
probate. Since the couples are both
Filipino citizens, Art 818 and 819 of the
NCC shall apply. Said articles prohibits
the execution of joint wills and make
them void, even though authorized of
the country where they were executed.
(2) Are the testamentary dispositions valid?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the joint will is void, all the
testamentary disposition written therein
are also void. However, if the will is
valid, the institutions of the heirs shall
be annulled because Joshur was
preterited. He was preterited because he
will receive nothing from the will, will
receive nothing in testacy, and the facts
do not show that he received anything as
an advance on his inheritance. He was
totally excluded from the inheritance of
his parents.
(3) Is the testamentary prohibition against
the division of the London estate valid?
Explain. (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming the will of John and Maria was
valid, the testamentary prohibition on the
division of the London estate shall be valid
but only for 20 years. Under Arts 1083 and
494 of the NCC, a testamentary disposition
of the testator cannot forbid the partition of
all or part of the estate for a period longer
than twenty (20) years.
Wills; Prohibition to Partition of a Co-
Owned Property (2010)
No.I. True or False.
(B) X, a widower, died leaving a will stating
that the house and lot where he lived
cannot be partitioned for as long as the
youngest of his four children desires to stay
there. As coheirs and co-owners, the other
three may demand partition anytime. (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FALSE, The other three co – heirs may not
anytime demand the partition of the house and
lot since it was expressly provided by the
decedent in his will that the same cannot be
partitioned while his youngest child desires to
stay there. Article 1083 of the New Civil Code
allows a decedent to prohibit, by will, the
partition of a property and his estate for a period
not longer than 20 years no matter what his
reason maybe. Hence, the three co-heir cannot
demand its partition at anytime but only after 20
years from the death of their father. Even if the
deceased parent did not leave a will, if the house
and lot constituted their family home, Article
159 of the Family Code prohibits its partition for
a period of ten (10) years, or for as long as there
is a minorbeneficiary living in the family home.
Wills; Notarial Wills; Blind Testator;
Requisites (2008) No. XIV.
Stevie was born blind. He went to
school for the blind, and learned to read in
Baille Language. He Speaks English fluently. Can
he:
(A). Make a will? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming that he is of legal age (Art. 797, Civil
Code) and of sound mind at the time of
execution of the will (Art. 798, Civil Code), Stevie,
a blind person, can make a notarial will, subject
to compliance with the "two-reading rule"
(Art. 808, Civil Code) and the provisions of Arts.
804, 805 and 806 of the Civil Code.
(B). Act as a witness to a will? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Stevie cannot be a witness to a will. Art.
820 of the Civil Code provides that "any
person of sound mind and of the age of
eighteen years or more, and not blind,
deaf or dumb, and able to read and write,
may be a witness to the execution of a
will.
(C). In either of the above instances, must
the will be read to him? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Stevie makes a will, the will must be
read to him twice, once by one of the
subscribing witnesses, and again, by the
notary public before whom the will is
acknowledged (Art. 808, Civil Code).
Wills; Testamentary Disposition; Period
to Prohibit Partition (2008)
No. XI. John and Paula, British citizens at
birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by
naturalization after their marriage. During
their marriage the couple acquired substanial
landholdings in London and in Makati. Paula
bore John three children, Peter, Paul and Mary.
In one of their trips to London, the couple
executed a joint will appointing each other as
their heirs and providing that upon the death of
the survivor between them the entire estate
would go to Peter and Paul only but the two
could not dispose of nor divide the London
estate as long as they live. John and Paul
died tragically in the London Subway terrorist
attack in 2005. Peter and Paul filed a petition for
probate of their parent's will before a Makati
Regional Trial Court. (C). Is the testamentary
prohibition against the division of the London
estate valid? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the testamentary prohibition against
the division of the London estate is void
(Art. 870, Civil Code). A testator, however, may
prohibit partition for a period which shall not
exceed twenty (20) years (Art. 870 in relation to
Art. 494, par 3, Civil Code).
Wills; Witnesses to a Will, Presence
required; Thumbmark as Signature
(2007)No.VI.
Clara, thinking of her mortality,
drafted a will and asked Roberta, Hannah,
Luisa and Benjamin to be witnesses. During the
day of signing of her will, Clara fell down the
stairs and broke her arms. Coming from the
hospital, Clara insisted on signing her will by
thumb mark and said that she can sign her full
name later. While the will was being signed,
Roberta experienced a stomach ache and kept
going to the restroom for long periods of time.
Hannah, while waiting for her turn to sign the
will, was reading the 7th Harry Potter book on
the couch, beside the table on which everyone
was signing. Benjamin, aside from witnessing the
will, also offered to notarize it. A week after,
Clara was run over by a drunk driver while
crossing the street in Greenbelt.
May the will of Clara be admitted to
probate? Give your reasons briefly. (10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Probate should be denied. The requirement that
the testator and at least three (3) witnesses must
sign all in the "presence" of one another was not
complied with. Benjamin who notarized the will
is disqualified as a witness, hence he cannot be
counted as one of the three witnesses (Cruz v.
Villasor, 54 SCRA 31, 1973). The testatrix and the
other witnesses signed the will not in the
presence of Roberta because she was in the
restroom for extended periods of time. Inside
the restroom, Roberta could not have possibly
seen the testatrix and the other witnesses sign
the will by merely casting her eyes in the proper
direction (Jaboneta v. Gustilo, 5 Phil 541, 1906;
Nera v. Rimando, 18 Phil 451, 1914). Therefore,
the testatrix signed the will in the presence of
only two witnesses, and only two witnesses
signed the will in the presence of the testatrix
and of one another.
It is to be noted, however, that the
thumb mark intended by the testator to
be his signature in executing his last will
and testament is valid (Payad v.Tolentino, 62 Phil
848, 1936; Matias v. Salud, L-104 Phil 1046, 23
June, 1958).
The problem, however, states that Clara
"said that she can sign her full name later;"
Hence, she did not consider her thumb mark as
her "complete" signature, and intended further
action on her part. The testatrix and the other
witness signed the will in the presence of
Hannah, because she was aware of her function
and role as witness and was in a position to see
the testatrix and the other witnesses sign by
merely casting her eyes in the proper direction.
Donation
Donations; Formalities; In Writing (2007)
No. VIII.
In 1986, Jennifer and Brad were madly in love. In
1989, because a certain Picasso painting
reminded Brad of her, Jennifer acquired it and
placed it in his bedroom. In 1990, Brad and
Jennifer broke up. While Brad was mending his
broken heart, he met Angie and fell in love.
Because the Picasso painting reminded Angie of
him, Brad in his will bequeathed the painting to
Angie. Brad died in 1995. Saddened by Brad's
death, Jennifer asked for the Picasso painting as
a remembrance of him. Angie refused and
claimed that Brad, in his will, bequeathed the
painting to her. Is Angie correct? Why or why
not?(10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
NO. Angie is not correct. The Picasso painting is
not given or donated by Jennifer to Brad. She
merely "placed it in his bedroom." Hence, she is
still the owner of the painting. Not being the
owner of the Picasso painting, Brad cannot
validly bequeath the same to Angie (Art. 930,
NCC). Even assuming that the painting was
impliedly given or donated by Jennifer to Brad,
the donation is nevertheless void for not being
in writing. The Picasso painting must be worth
more than 5,000 pesos. Under Art. 748, NCC, the
donation and acceptance of a movable worth
more than 5,000 pesos must be in writing,
otherwise the donation is void. The donation
being void, Jennifer remained the owner of the
Picasso painting and Brad could not have validly
disposed of said painting in favor of Angie in his
will.
SUCCESSION
Amount of Successional Rights (2004)
Mr. XT and Mrs. YT have been married for 20
years. Suppose the wife, YT, died childless,
survived only by her husband, XT. What would
be the share of XT from her estate as nheritance?
Why? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the Civil Code, the widow or widower is a
legal and compulsory heir of the deceased
spouse. If the widow is the only surviving heir,
there being no legitimate ascendants,
descendants, brothers, and sisters, nephews and
nieces, she gets the entire estate.
Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate
relatives (1993)
A is the acknowledged natural child of B who
died when A was already 22 years old. When B's
full blood brother, C, died he (C) was survived by
his widow and four children of his other brother
D. Claiming that he is entitled to inherit from his
father's brother C. A brought suit to obtain his
share in the estate of C. Will his action prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the action of A will not prosper. On the
premise that B,C and D are legitimate brothers,
as an illegitimate child of B, A cannot inherit in
intestacy from C who is a legitimate brother of B.
Only the wife of C in her own right and the
legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the children of D as
C's How will you rule on Jorge's opposition to
the probate of legitimate nephews inheriting as
collateral relatives) can inherit in intestacy. (Arts.
992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975, Civil Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action of A will not prosper. Being an
illegitimate, he is barred by Article 992 of the
Civil Code from inheriting ab intestato from the
legitimate relatives of his father.
Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate
relatives (1996)
Cristina the illegitimate daughter of Jose and
Maria, died intestate, without any descendant or
ascendant. Her valuable estate is being claimed
by Ana, the legitimate daughter of Jose, and
Eduardo, the legitimate son of Maria. Is either,
both, or neither of them entitled to inherit?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of
ab intestate from Cristina. Both are legitimate
relatives of Cristina's illegitimate parents and
therefore they fall under the prohibition
prescribed by Art. 992, NCC (
Collation (1993)
Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio Cruz a
residential lot of 300
square meters in Quezon City for which Joaquin
paid Julio the
amount of P300,000.00, When the deed was
about to be
prepared Joaquin told Julio that it be drawn in
the name of
Joaquina Roxas, his acknowledged natural child.
Thus, the
deed was so prepared and executed by Julio.
Joaquina then
built a house on the lot where she, her husband
and children resided. Upon Joaquin's death, his
legitimate children sought to recover possession
and ownership of the lot, claiming that Joaquina
Roxas was but a trustee of their father. Will the
action against Joaquina Roxas prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because there is a presumed donation in
favor of Joaquina under Art. 1448 of the Civil
Code (De los Santos v. Reyes, 27 January
1992, 206 SCRA 437). However, the donation
should be collated to the hereditary estate and
the legitime of the other heirs should be
preserved.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the action against Joaquina Roxas will
prosper, but only
to the extent of the aliquot hereditary rights of
the legitimate
children as heirs. Joaquina will be entitled to
retain her own
share as an illegitimate child, (Arts. 1440 and
1453. Civil
Code; Art. 176, F. C.)
Disinheritance; Ineffective; Preterition (2000)
In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1)
disinherits his daughter Wilma because "she is
disrespectful towards me and raises her voice
talking to me", 2) omits entirely his spouse
Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of P100,000.00 to his
mistress Rosa and P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie
and 4) institutes his son Baldo as his sole heir.
How will you distribute his estate of
P1,000,000.00? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective
because the ground relied upon by the testator
does not constitute maltreatment under Article
919(6) of the New Civil Code.
Hence, the testamentary provisions in the will
shall be annulled but only to the extent that her
legitime was impaired. The total omission of
Elvira does not constitute preterition because
she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line.
Only compulsory heirs in the direct line may be
the subject of preterition. Not having been
preterited, she will be entitled only to her
legitime.
The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article
1028 for being in consideration of her
adulterous relation with the testator. She is,
therefore, disqualified to receive the legacy of
100,000 pesos. The legacy of 50,000 pesos in
favor of Ernie is not inofficious not having
exceeded the free portion. Hence, he shall be
entitled to receive it.The institution of Baldo,
which applies only to the free portion, shall be
respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto
will be distributed as follows:
Baldo-----------------450,000
Wilma---------------250,000
Elvira-----------------250,000
Ernie-----------------50,000
1,000,000
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The disinheritance of Wilma was effective
because disrespect of,
and raising of voice to, her father constitute
maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New
Civil Code. She is, therefore, not entitled to
inherit anything. Her inheritance will go to the
other legal heirs. The total omission of Elvira is
not preterition because she is not a compulsory
heir in the direct line. She will receive only her
legitime. The legacy in favor of Rosa is void
under Article with the testator. She is, therefore,
disqualified to receive the legacy. Ernie will
receive the legacy in his favor because it is not
inofficious. The institution of Baldo, which
applies only to the free portion, will be
respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto shall
be distributed as follows:
Heir Legitime Legacy Institution TOTAL
Baldo 500,000 200.000 700,000 Elvira 250,000
250,000 Ernie
50,000 50,000 TOTAL 750,000 50,000 200,000
1,000,000
Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Shares (2003)
Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two
illegitimate children, his parents, and two
brothers. He left an estate of P1 million. Luis
died intestate. Who are his intestate heirs, and
how much is the share of each in his estate?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The intestate heirs are the two (2) legitimate
children and the two (2) illegitimate children. In
intestacy the estate of the decedent is divided
among the legitimate and illegitimate children
such that the share of each illegitimate child is
one -half the share of each legitimate child.
Their share are : For each legitimate child –
P333,333.33 For each illegitimate child –
P166,666.66

Intestate Succession (1998)
Tessie died survived by her husband Mario, and
two nieces, Michelle and Jorelle, who are the
legitimate children of an elder sister who had
predeceased her. The only property she left
behind was a house and lot worth two million
pesos, which Tessie and her husband had
acquired with the use of Mario's savings from his
income as a doctor. How much of the property
or its value, if any, may Michelle and Jorelle
claim as their hereditary shares? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides, "Should
brothers and sisters or their children survive with
the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled
to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers
and sisters or their children to the other half."
Tessie's gross estate consists of a house and lot
acquired during her marriage, making it part of
the community property. Thus, one-half of the
said property would have to property. The other
half, amounting to one million pesos, is her
conjugal share (net estate), and should be
distributed to her intestate heirs. Applying the
above provision of law, Michelle and Jorelle,
Tessie's nieces, are entitled to one-half of her
conjugal share worth one million pesos, or
500,000 pesos, while the other one-half
amounting to P500,000 will go to Mario, Tessie's
surviving spouse. Michelle and Jorelle are then
entitled to P250,000 pesos each as their
hereditary share.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
INTESTATE SUCCESSION
ESTATE: P180,000.00
W- (widow gets 1/2 share) P90.000.00 (Art. 998)
A- (son who repudiated his inheritance) None
Art. 977) B - (Granddaughter) None
C - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45.000.00
(Art.998)
D - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45,000.00
(Art. 998) The acknowledged illegitimate child
gets 1/2 of the share of each
legitimate child.
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs vs. Secondary
Compulsory
Heirs (2005)
Emil, the testator, has three legitimate children,
Tom, Henry and Warlito; a wife named Adette;
parents named Pepe and Pilar; an illegitimate
child, Ramon; brother, Mark; and a sister,
Nanette. Since his wife Adette is well-off, he
wants to leave to his illegitimate child as much
of his estate as he can legally do. His estate has
an aggregate net amount of Pl,200,000.00, and
all the above-named relatives are still living. Emil
now comes to you for advice in making a will.
How will you distribute his estate according to
his wishes without violating the law on
testamentary succession? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
P600,000.00 — legitime to be divided equally
between Tom, Henry and Warlito as the
legitimate children. Each will be entitled to
P200,000.00. (Art. 888, Civil Code) P100,000.00 --
share of Ramon the illegitimate child. Equivalent
to 1/2 of the share of each legitimate child. (Art.
176, Family Code) P200,000.00 — Adette the
wife. Her share is equivalent to the share of one
legitimate child. (Art. 892, par. 2, Civil Code)
Pepe and Pilar, the parents are only secondary
compulsory heirs and they cannot inherit if the
primary compulsory heirs (legitimate children)
are alive. (Art. 887, par. 2, Civil Code) Brother
Mark and sister Nanette are not compulsory
heirs since they are not included in the
enumeration under Article 887 of the Civil Code.
The remaining balance of P300,000.00 is the free
portion which can be given to the illegitimate
child Ramon as an instituted heir. (Art. 914, Civil
Code) If so given by the decedent, Ramon would
receive a total of P400,000.00.
Preterition; Compulsory Heir (1999)
(a) Mr, Cruz, widower, has three legitimate
children, A, B and C. He executed a Will
instituting as his heirs to his estate of One
Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos his two children A
and B, and his friend F. Upon his death, how
should Mr. Cruz's estate be divided? Explain.
(3%)

(b) In the preceding question, suppose Mr. Cruz
instituted his two children A and B as his heirs in
his Will, but gave a legacy of P 100,000.00 to his
friend F. How should the estate of Mr, Cruz be
divided upon his death? Explain, (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Assuming that the institution of A, B and F
were to theentire estate, there was preterition of
C since C is a compulsory heir in the direct line.
The preterition will result in the total annulment
of the institution of heirs. Therefore, the
institution of A, B and F will be set aside and Mr.
Cruz's estate will be divided, as in intestacy,
equally among A, B and C as follows: A -
P333,333.33; B - P333.333.33; and C -
P333,333.33.
(b) On the same assumption as letter (a), there
was preterition of C. Therefore, the institution of
A and B is annulled but the legacy of 100.000.00
to F shall be respected for not being inofficious.
Therefore, the remainder of P900.000.00 will be
divided equally among A, B and C.
Proceedings; Intestate Proceedings;
Jurisdiction (2004)
In his lifetime, a Pakistani citizen, ADIL, married
three times under Pakistani law. When he died
an old widower, he left behind six children, two
sisters, three homes, and an estate worth at least
30 million pesos in the Philippines. He was born
in Lahore but last resided in Cebu City, where he
had a mansion and where two of his youngest
children now live and work. Two of his oldest
children are farmers in Sulu, while the two
middle-aged children are employees in
Zamboanga City. Finding that the deceased left
no will, the youngest son wanted to file intestate
proceedings before the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu City. Two other siblings objected, arguing
that it should be in Jolo before a Shari’a mother,
in favor of another sister, with their mother not
court since his lands are in Sulu. But Adil’s sisters
in Pakistan want the proceedings held in Lahore
before a Pakistani court. Which court has
jurisdiction and is the proper venue for the
intestate proceedings? The law of which country
shall govern succession to his estate? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In so far as the properties of the decedent
located in the Philippines are concerned, they
are governed by Philippine law (Article 16, Civil
Code). Under Philippine law, the proper venue
for the settlement of the estate is the domicile of
the decedent at the time of his death. Since the
decedent last resided in Cebu City, that is the
proper venue for the intestate settlement of his
estate. However, the successional rights to the
estate of ADIL are governed by Pakistani law, his
national law, under Article 16 of the Civil Code.
BAR 2017
Don Ricardo had 2 legitimate children-Tomas
and Tristan. Tristan has 3 children. Meanwhile,
Tomas had a relationship with Nancy, who was
also single and had the legal capacity to marry.
Nancy became pregnant and gave birth to
Tomas, Jr. After the birth of Tomas, Jr., his father,
Tomas, died. Later, Don Ricardo died without a
will and Tristan opposed the motion of Tomas,
Jr. to be declared an heir of the deceased since
he is an illegitimate child. Tomas, Jr.countered
that Article 992 of the Civil Code is
unconstitutional for violation of the equal
protection of the laws. He explained that an
illegitimate child of an illegitimate parent is
allowed to inherit under Articles 902,982 and
990 of the Civil Code while he-an illegitimate
child of a legitimate father-cannot. Civil Law
commentator Arturo Tolentino opined that
Article 992 created an absurdity and committed
an injustice because while the illegitimate
descendant of an illegitimate child can
represent, the illegitimate descendant of a
legitimate child cannot. Decide the case and
explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
I will deny the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be
declared as an heir of the deceased. Tomas jr.,
being an illegitimate child of the deceased
legitimate son, Tomas, cannot inherit ab
intestate from the deceased, Don Ricardo,
because of the iron curtain rule under Article 992
of the Civil Code. Tomas cannot argue that
Article 992 is violative of the equal protection
clause because equal protection simply requires
that all persons or things similarly situated
should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed (Ichong
v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957, 101
Phil: 7755). It, however, does not require the
universal application of the laws to all persons or
things without distinction. What it simply
requires is equality among equals as determined
according to a valid classification Indeed, the
equal protection clause permits classification.
XX
Princess married:Roberto and bore a son,
Onofre. Roberto died in a plane crash Princess
later married Märk and they also had a son-
Pepito. Onofre donated to Pepito, his half-
brother, a lot in Makati City worth p3,000,000.00.
Pepito succumbed to an illness and died
intestate. The tot: given to Pepito by Onofre was
inherited by his father, Mark. Mark also died
intestate. Lonely, Princess followed Mark to the
life beyond. The claimants: to the subject lot
emerged-jojo, the father of Princess; Victor, the
father of Mark; and Jerico, the father of Roberto.
Who among the three (3) ascendants is entitled
to the lot? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Jojo, Princess’s father, is entitled to the lot: This
is a clear case of reserva troncal. The Origin is
Onofre. The Prepositus is Pepito. The mode of
transmission from Onofre to Pepito is donation
(hence by gratuitous title), The Reservista is
Mark, who acquired it from his descendant (son)
Pepito by legitime and intestacy (hence, by
operation of law). The Reservatario is Princess, a
relative of the Prepositus Pepito within the third
degree and who belonged to the line of origin
(the maternal line). Line of origin is the maternal
line because Onofre (the Origin) and Pepito. (the
Prepositus) are maternal half-blood siblings.
When Mark (Reservista) died, the property
passed to Princess as sole. reservatario, thus
extinguishing the reserva troncal. Upon
Princess’s death, the property was transmitted
ab intestato to her father Jojo. Transmission to
Jojo is by the ordinary rules of compulsory and
intestate succession, not by reserva troncal,
because the reserva was extinguished upon the
transmission of the property to Princess, this
making Princess the absolute owner subject to
no reserva.
Bar Questions and Answers 2017
Pedro had worked for 15 years in Saudi Arabia
when he finally decided to engage in farming in
his home province where his 10-hectare
farmland valued at P2,000,000 was located. He
had already P3,000,000 savings from his long
stint in Saudi Arabia. Eagerly awaiting Pedro’s
arrival at the NAIA were his aging parents
Modesto and
Jacinta, his common-law spouse Veneranda,
their three children, and Alex, his child by Carol,
his departed legal wife. Sadly for all of them,
Pedro suffered a stroke because of his over-
excitement just as the plane was about to land,
and died without seeing any of them. The
farmland and the savings were all the properties
he left.
(a) State who are Pedro’s legal heirs, and the
shares of each legal heir to the estate?
Explain your answer. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pedro’s legal heirs are his legitimate child, Alex,
and his three illegitimate chidlren with
Veneranda. Pedro’s chidlren with Veneranda are
illegitimate because they were conceived and
born outside of a valid marriage. Alex, on the
other hand, is a legitimate child because she was
conceived or born inside a valid marriage.
Pedro’s surviving parents are not legal heirs
because they are excluded by Alex. In intestate
succession, the legitimate ascendants do not
become legal heirs if there is a surviving
legitimate descendant, such as Alex in the
problem. Veneranda is not a legal heir of Pedro
because she and Pedro were not married.

Ordinarily, the share of an illegitimate child in
intestate succession is one-half of the share of
the legitimate child. Considering, however, that
the three illegitimate chidlren will impair the
legitime of Alex if the foregoing formula is
followed, Alex is entitled instead to get his
legitime, which is ½ of the estate, or P2.5
Million, while the remaining P2.5 Million is to be
divided equally among the three illegitimate
children of Pedro. Their legitimes in this case will
likewise be their shares in intestate succession.
(b) Assuming that Pedro’s will is discovered soon
after his funeral. In the will, he disposed of half
of his estate in favor of Veneranda, and the other
half in favor of his children and his parents in
equal shares. Assuming also that the will is
admitted to probate by the proper court. Are the
testamentary dispositions valid and effective
under the law on succession? Explain your
answer. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because the testamentary dispositions
impair the legitimes of Pedro’s compulsory heirs.
Following the provisions of the Civil Code, only
Alex and Pedro’s three illegitimate children are
Pedro’s compulsory heirs. Since Alex is Pedro’s
legitimate descendant and a primary compulsory
heir, she excludes Pedro’s parents as compulsory
heirs, the latter being merely secondary
compulsory heirs. However, the three illegitimate
chidlren are considered concurring compulsory
heirs who are also entitled to a share of the
legitime.
Under the law, the legitime of Alex, being a
legitimate descendant, is ½ of Pedro’s estate, or
P2.5 Million. The legitime of each of the
illegitimate children is supposed to be ½ of the
share of Alex, or P1.25 Million each. Considering,
however, that the remaining portion of the
estate is no longer sufficient to cover the
supposed legitimes of the three illegitimate
children, they will simply share equally in the
remaining P2.5 Million. Consequently, there is no
disposable free portion that Pedro may validly
give to Veneranda or to his parents. Hence, the
will is intrinsically invalid.
BAR Questions 2018
V. Sol Soldivino, widow, passed away, leaving
two (2) legitimate children: a 25- year old son,
Santino (whom she had not spoken to for five [5]
years prior to her death since he attempted to
kill her at that time), and a 20-year-old daughter,
Sara. She left an estate worth PhP8 million and a
will containing only one provision: that PhP1
million should be given to "the priest who
officiated at my wedding to my children's late
father." Sara, together with two (2) of her friends,
acted as an attesting witness to the will. On the
assumption that the will is admitted for probate
and that there are no debts, divide the estate
and indicate the heirs/legatees entitled to
inherit, the amount that each of them will inherit,
and where (i.e., legitime/free portion/intestate
share) their shares should be charged.
ANSWER:
Santino and Sara shall be entitled to half of the
estate as their legitime. Thus, they are entitled to
4M collectively, or 2M each. The legitime of
legitimate children and descendants consists of
one-half of the hereditary estate of the father
and of the mother (Art. 888). The priest, being a
legatee, is entitled to his 1M as provided by the
decedent’s last will and testament. This share is
chargable to the Free Portion of the hereditary
estate.
The remaining 3M shall be subjected to the rules
of intestate succession. Sara is incapacitated to
inherit since she was an attesting witness.
XX
Sydney, during her lifetime, was a successful
lawyer. By her own choice, she remained
unmarried and devoted all her time to taking
care of her nephew and two (2) nieces: Socrates,
Saffinia, and Sophia. She wrote a will giving all
her properties remaining upon her death to the
three (3) of them. The will was admitted to
probate during her lifetime. Later, she decided to
make a new will giving all her remaining
properties only to the two (2) girls, Saffinia and
Sophia. She then tore up the previously
probated will. The second will was presented for
probate only after her death. However, the
probate court found the second will to be void
for failure to comply with formal requirements.
(a) Will the doctrine of dependent relative
revocation apply? (b) Will your answer be the
same if the second will was found to be valid but
both Saffinia and Sophia renounce their
inheritance?

a. Yes, the doctrine of relative revocation will

apply.

Under this doctrine, when a first will is revoked

to connect with the making of the new will so as
to fairly raise the inference that the testator
meant the revocation of the old will to depend
upon the efficacy of the new disposition, if for
any reason the new will becomes inoperative,
the old will shall remain in force and the prior
revocation is deemed void.

b. No, even if the instituted heirs in the second

will renounced their rights to the inheritance, it
does not have the effect of revocation of the will
as would permit the application of the doctrine
of dependent relative revocation . The effect will
just pave the way for intestate succession and
not the revival of the previously revoked will.