a) Teodora died leaving behind her children, Tito, David, Larry, Consolacion, and Isabelita, and five (5)

300-square meter lots located in Forbes Park, Urdaneta Village, Dasmariñas Village, Corinthian Gardens,
and San Lorenzo Village, respectively. A month after Teodora’s death, Consolacion donated the
Corinthian Gardens property to her friend Arthur. Is the donation valid? Why? b) Rommel entered into
contract of partnership and signed another contract as a guarantor. However, he contracted COVID-19
and unfortunately, passed away. Are Rommel’s rights and obligations under the two contracts
transmissible to his heirs? Explain. *

a) Yes, the donation is valid. A month after the death of Teodora, and the estate has already
been divided, Consolacion has the freedom and liberty to dispose her property received from Teodora.
There was no prohibition on the alienation of the property received by Consolacion. Hence the donation
was valid.

b) Rommel's rights and obligations under the partnership are not transmissible to his heirs,
however, the the contract of guaranty still stands and shall pass to the heirs. Inheritance includes all the
properties, rights not extinguished by death and obligations not extinguished by death. Being a part of a
partnership is an intransmissible personal right because of its personal nature, once the partner dies,
then his rights as a partner is also extinguished. However, being a part of a guaranty contract does not
extinguish the rights and obligations of the deceased. A guarantor's rights are transmissible obligation to
the heirs.

2. Gavino, a lawyer, contracted COVID-19. Due to his sickness, his performance deteriorated and he
decided to resign. However, in the evening of November 17, 2020, the day he was supposed to resign,
he had an altercation with his law firm boss and he shot the latter dead. While Gavino escaped, the
incident went viral on social media. Two days later, on November 19, 2020, Gavino died in his home
from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. He left behind a holographic will dated November 19, 2020
providing: “I want everything I have to go to Sydney — houses, jewelry, stocks, bonds.” His friend,
Sydney submitted the will to probate. Gavino’s only relatives, his sister and brother, objected to the
holographic will claiming lack of testamentary capacity. It was shown that Gavino used cocaine and
alcohol for several years prior to his death and that he used alcohol and cocaine on the evening of
November 17 and between November 17 and 19, and that substantial alcohol was consumed proximate
to the time of the making of the will. Based on the testimony of a number of Gavino’s friends, Gavino’s
moods were alternately euphoric, fearful, and depressed, and that he was excessively worried about
threats against himself from the PNP, NBI, friends, and others. Is the will valid? *

Yes, the will is valid. In order to have a testamentary capacity, the testator must not be expressly
prohibited by law to make a will, the testator must be at least 18 years of age, and the testator must be
of sound mind. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator should be in full possession of
all his reasoning abilities, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease,
injury, or other cause. At the time of making a will, it is sufficient that the testator, knows the nature of
the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary
act. In the case given, Gavino consumed alcohol and drugs before the execution of the will. Habitual
drunkenness does not give rise to testamentary capacity. Only when the consumption of alcohol and
drugs which impairs the mind, to the point where the testator does not know the 3 requirements of
having a sound mind (nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the
character of the testamentary act). The holographic will shows that he is still of sound mind as shown by
the nature of the estate to be disposed of (everything he has), objects of his bounty (Sydney), and
character of the testamentary act (disposition of his properties when he's gone). Thus, the will is valid.

3. a) The testator in a notarial will affixed his right thumbmark over his typewritten name at the end of
the will and on the left hand margin of all the other pages. The attestation does not mention the use of a
thumbmark in the will. Is this will valid? Why? b) Distinguish between reciprocal wills and joint wills,
both as to nature and as to legal effects. *

a) Yes, the will is valid. Any mark or combination of marks placed on a will by the testator is a
sufficient signature as long as the testator intends the same to be his signature. In the case given, the
thumbmark was placed on all the pages of the will which served as the testator's signature.

b) Reciprocal wills takes place when two or more persons are instituted by the testator as heirs
and they are also designated mutually or reciprocally as substitutes for each other. In reciprocal wills,
once the substitution has taken place, the substitute shall not only take over the share that would have
passed to the instituted heir, but he shall be subject to the same charges and conditions imposed upon
the instituted heir. On the other hand, joint wills are those which contain in one instrument, the will of
two or more persons jointly signed by them. In the Philippines, joint wills are not allowed because the
civil code states that two or more persons cannot make a will jointly, or in the same instrument, either
for their reciprocal benefit, or for a third person.

4. Carlos executed a valid holographic will of 3 paragraphs, each paragraph containing separate
dispositions for his heirs Lourdes, Maela and Victoria, respectively. Later, Carlos crossed out the name of
Maela and he wrote the name of Ernesto above the cancelled name of Maela. Lourdes, Maela and
Victoria all agreed that the will as well as the name of Ernesto were entirely written by the hand of
Carlos. However, Carlos did not affix his signature on the crossing out of the name of Maela nor near the
name of Ernesto. Discuss the legal effects of the cancellation and alteration on the paragraph itself as
well as on the entire will. How will the properties given in the will be distributed? Why? *

In cancellation and alteration on the paragraph in a will, the test on whether the will is valid or
invalid lies on essence of the paragraph. When the holographic will only had one substantial provision
which was altered, to change the heir with another, and such did not carry the full signature of the
testator, the entirety of the will is voided or revoked. However, if such altered paragraph is not that
substantial as to the contents of the will, and which also does not contain the full signature of the
testator, such alteration is considered as not made, and the will is not invalidated. The properties will be
distributed according to the dispositions to Lourdes, Maela, and Victoria only. In cases of insertion,
alteration, cancellation in a holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by putting his full
signature. If an alteration was made, but was not authenticated with the testator's full signature, it is
considered as not made, however, the will is not invalidated.

5. Avelina provided in her will that Jacob will inherit the free portion of Avelina’s estate on condition
that for Jacob to inherit, he should build a P1-million mausoleum in memory of Avelina and pay
P500,000 to Christian, the son of Avelina upon the death of Avelina. Will Jacob inherit the free portion
upon the death of Avelina? Why? Is this a disposicion captatoria? Why? Is this an institucion submodo?
Why? *

No, Jacob will not yet inherit the free portion upon the death of Avelina. The will of Avelina
contains a condition which must first be completed. The condition is a future event upon which the
performance of an obligation depends. Without the performance of the obligation, then the disposition
cannot be effected. No, this is not a disposicion captatoria, because a disposicion captatoria requires
that there must be a disposition made upon the condition that the heir shall make a provision in his will
in favor of another person. In the case given, there was no requirement for Jacob to put in his will a
provision for another person. Yes, this is an institucion sub modo or modal institution. In modal
institution, the testator must state the object of the institution, the purpose of the property left by the
testator, or the obligation imposed by the testator upon the heir. In the case given, Avelina imposed an
obligation to Jacob to build a 1 million peso mausoleum in memory of Avelina and he must pay 500,000
to Christian, the son of Avelina, before he may inherit the free portion.

6. Danilo, a Canadian citizen, and permanent resident of the United States, executes a will in Italy in
accordance with the Italian law as to its form, distributing his properties in the Philippines. a) May that
will be probated in the Philippines? Why? b) May Danilo revoke that will in accordance with the
formalities prescribed under Italian law? Why? *

a) Yes, the will may be probated in the Philippines. A will of an alien in abroad produces effect in
the Philippines, if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or
according to the formalities prescribed by the Civil Code.

b) Yes, Danilo may revoke that will in accordance with the formalities prescribed under Italian
Law. If a revocation take place outside of the Philippines, the testator who is not domiciled in the
Philippines must use the laws of the place where the will was made or the laws of the place in which the
testator had his domicile at the time of the revocation.

 
7. Godfrey has no compulsory heirs, but has an estate of P2,340,000.00. How should the voluntary heirs
inherit if Godfrey has instituted Camilo to 1/6, Nenita to 1/5 and Ramon to 1/2 of the entirety of the
estate? Why? *

Godfrey, having no compulsory heirs, there will be no legitime required to fulfill. A person who
has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will all of his estate or any part of it in favor of any person
having capacity to succeed. The estate must first be divided by deducting the liabilities and other
necessary obligations left by the testator, and after that, the net estate will be divided according to the
shares of Camilo, Nenita, and Ramon.

8. In an institution with a fideicommissary substitution, Digna instituted Jose as the first heir, with Ethel,
the beneficiary, to inherit upon the death of Jose. Jose died ahead of Digna, leaving two children, Ruby
and Norisa. a) Is the fideicommissary substitution valid? Why? b) Upon the death of A, who will be
entitled to inherit the property, Ethel, Ruby and Norisa, or the intestate heirs of Digna? Reasons? *

a) No, the fideicommissary substitution was not valid. Fideicommissary substitution requires
that the fiduciary and the beneficiary, are living at the death of the testator. In the case given, Jose died
before Digna, which then violates the fideicommissary substitution.

b) (sir sino po yung A) If Jose dies first, then there will be no fideicommissary. The
fideicommissary clause shall simply be considered as not written. The nullity of the fideicommissary
substitution does not prejudice the validity of the institution of heirs first designated. Hence Ethel is
entitled to inherit the property left by Digna. If Digna dies, Jose will be able to inherit the property which
then will pass to Ethel.

9. Jovelyn left a will disposing of her estate in favor of her only remaining relatives as follows: one-half to
her five legitimate children, one-fourth to her three illegitimate children and one-eighth, to her husband
and one-eighth to her mother. Are the dispositions valid? Why? *

Yes, the dispositions are valid. All of the instituted heirs are entitled to receive from the free
portion and the legitime of the estate. Hence all the dispositions given by Jovelyn are valid.

10. Prior to his death, H, married to W, with children X, Y, and Z, executed a holographic will entirely
written, dated, and signed by him. In his will, H instituted W, X, and Y as his heirs, and consequently,
made testamentary dispositions in their favor. H, however, expressly disinherited Z on the ground that
the latter once filed a civil case against him in order to collect a particular sum of money he previously
owed Z. a) Was the disinheritance of Z proper? Explain. b) Assuming that the disinheritance of Z was
improper, how will it affect the institution of heirs and testamentary dispositions made in H's will?
Explain. (2019 Bar Question) *

a) No, the disinheritance of Z was not proper. The grounds for disinheritance provides that the
the descendant must accuse the testator of a crime punishable by imprisonment of 6 years or more. In
the case given, the case filed by Z was a civil case and not a criminal case, which is not punishable by
imprisonment and not under the grounds provided under disinheritance. Thus, the inheritance of Z was
not proper.

b) If the disinheritance of Z was improper, it will result in the annulment of the institution of
heirs insofar as the legitime of the compulsory heir who is disinherited is prejudiced.