GROUP 1: SUCCESSION

BAR QUESTIONS 2013 & 2015

Members: Abuzo, Agot, Arcenal, Bayan, Bernardino

2013 BAR EXAMINATIONS

QUESTION: I. Armand died intestate. His full-blood brothers, Bobby and Conrad,
and half-blood brothers, Danny, Edward and Floro, all predeceased him. The
following are the surviving relatives:

1. Benny and Bonnie, legitimate children of Bobby;

2. Cesar, legitimate child of Conrad;
3. Dante, illegitimate child of Danny;
4. Ernie, adopted child of Edward; and
5. Felix, grandson of Floro.

The net value of Armand’s estate is Pl,200,000.

I. (1) How much do Benny and Bonnie stand to inherit by right of representation?
(1%)
(A) P200,000
(B) P300,000
(C) P400,000
(D) P150,000
(E) None of the above.

ANSWER:

E. None of the above.

Under Article 975 of the New 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.

In this case, since all the siblings of Armand predeceased him, representation will
NOT operate in favour of the nephews and nieces but instead the latter will inherit in
their own right, by capita.

Thus, Benny and Bonnie will inherit nothing by right of representation.

TAGS: representation, intestate succession

GROUP 1: SUCCESSION
BAR QUESTIONS 2013 & 2015
Members: Abuzo, Agot, Arcenal, Bayan, Bernardino

QUESTION:

I. (2) How much is Dante’s share in the net estate? (1%)

(A) P150,000.
(B) P200,000.
(C) P300,000.
(D) P400,000.
(E) None of the above.

ANSWER:

E. None of the above.

Under Article 992 of the New Civil Code, an illegitimate child has no right to inherit
ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor
shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child.

In this case, Dante, as the illegitimate child of Danny, cannot inherit by right of
representation from the legitimate relatives of his illegitimate parent.

Thus, Dante will inherit nothing by right of representation.

TAGS: Iron-curtain rule, representation, intestate succession

QUESTION:

I. (3) How much is Ernie’s share in the net estate . (1%)

(A) P 0.
(B) P400,000.
(C) P150,000.
(D) P200,000.
(E) None of the above.

ANSWER:
GROUP 1: SUCCESSION
BAR QUESTIONS 2013 & 2015
Members: Abuzo, Agot, Arcenal, Bayan, Bernardino

A. 0 or E. None of the above.

In the case of Teotico vs. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406, 1965, the relationship established
by adoption is limited solely to the adopter and the adopted and does not extend to the
relatives of the adopting parents or of the adopted child except only as expressly
provided for by law. Hence, no relationship is created between the adopted and the
collaterals of the adopting parents.

Since Ernie is an adopted child of Edward, the right of representation cannot take
place.

Thus, Ernie will inherit nothing by right of representation.

TAGS: Iron-curtain rule, representation, intestate succession

QUESTION

I. (4) How much is Felix's share in the net estate? (1%)

(A) P400,000.
(B) P150,000.
(C) P300,000.
(D) P0.
(E) None of the above.

ANSWER:

A. 0 or E. None of the above.

Under Article 975 of the New 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. Representation only takes place in the collateral line, but in favor only
of nephews and nieces.

In this case, Felix is a grandson of Floro, a predeceased brother.

Thus, Felix will inherit nothing by right of representation.
GROUP 1: SUCCESSION
BAR QUESTIONS 2013 & 2015
Members: Abuzo, Agot, Arcenal, Bayan, Bernardino

TAGS: Iron-curtain rule, representation, intestate succession

2015 BAR EXAMINATIONS

PART: 2015

QUESTION: 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 siblings and 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
properties and of Alden Stela found here? If so, how? (3%)
c) Is the situation presented in Item I an example of depe9age? (2%)

ANSWER:
(a)

Yes.

Under Article 816 of the New Civil Code, the will of an alien who is 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 observed in his
country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes.

In the case, both Alden and Stela were both former Filipino citizens who later
migrated to the United States where they were naturalized as American citizens.
Being no longer Filipino citizens at the time they executed their joint will, the
GROUP 1: SUCCESSION
BAR QUESTIONS 2013 & 2015
Members: Abuzo, Agot, Arcenal, Bayan, Bernardino

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.

Hence, the joint will of Alden and Stela is considered valid. by an alien is
considered valid in the Philippines. (Article 816)

(b)

Yes.

Under Article 16 of the New Civil Code, intestate and testamentary successions,
both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights
and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the
national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be
the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be
found.

In the case, the spouses executed a joint will instituting as their common heirs to
divide their combined estate in equal shares, the five siblings of Alden and the seven
siblings of Stela. Since they are both aliens, what governs the distribution of their
estate is their national law.

Hence, the joint will produces legal effect even with respect to the properties
situated in the Philippines.

(c)

No.

Under our jurisprudence, 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.
GROUP 1: SUCCESSION
BAR QUESTIONS 2013 & 2015
Members: Abuzo, Agot, Arcenal, Bayan, Bernardino

In the case, there is no conflict of laws that 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.

Hence, depecage is not applicable in this case.

TAGS: Joint Wills; Depecage

APPLICABLE LAW/PRINCIPLE/DOCTRINE/JURISPRUDENCE: Article 816

of the New Civil Code

RELEVANT MEMORY AID/DIAGRAM: The will of an alien who is 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 observed in his
country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes

PART: 2015
QUESTION: Julie had a relationship with a married man who had legitimate
children. A son was born out of that illicit relationship in 1981. Although the putative
father did not recognize the child in his certificate of birth, he nevertheless provided
the with child all the support he needed and spent time regularly with the child and
his mother. When the man died in 2000, the child was already 18 years old so he filed
a petition to be recognized as an illegitimate child of the putative father and sought to
be given a share in his putative father's estate. The legitimate family opposed, saying
that under the Family Code his action cannot prosper because he did not bring the
action for recognition during the lifetime of his putative father. a) If you were the
judge in this case, would how you rule? (4%)
b) Wishing to keep the peace, the child during the pendency of the case decides to
compromise with his putative father's family by abandoning his petition in exchange
for Yi of what he would have received as inheritance if he were recognized as an
illegitimate child. As the judge, would you approve such a compromise? (2%)
ANSWER:
(a)
If I were the judge, I will not allow the action for recognition filed after the death
of the putative father.
Under the Family Code, an illegitimate child who has not been recognized by the
father in the record of birth, or in a private handwritten instrument, or in a public
GROUP 1: SUCCESSION
BAR QUESTIONS 2013 & 2015
Members: Abuzo, Agot, Arcenal, Bayan, Bernardino

document and may prove his filiation based on open and continuous possession of the
status of an illegitimate child but pursuant to Article 175, he or she must file the
action for recognition during the lifetime of the putative father.
In the case, the filiation of the child was not proved during the lifetime of the
putative father. Further, the provision of Article 285 of the Civil Code in allowing the
child to file the action for recognition even after the death of the father will not apply
because the illegitimate child was no longer a minor at the time of death of the
putative father.
Hence, the action should be dismissed.
(b)
No.
Under the New Civil Code, in all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must
be duly proved.
In the case, the compromise between the family and the illegitimate child is not
valid. The filiation is a matter to be decided by law. It is not for the parties to stipulate
whether a person is a legitimate or illegitimate child of another.
Hence, I will not approve the compromise agreement.
TAGS: Legitime
APPLICABLE LAW/PRINCIPLE/DOCTRINE/JURISPRUDENCE:
 The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime
of a legitimate child (FC, Art. 176, 2nd sentence).
 Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the
same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.
 The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173,
except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in
which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
(289a)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
Yes, I would approve the compromise because it is no longer considered future
inheritance. What the law prohibits is a compromise with respect to future legitime.
In this case, the father is already dead so the compromise is considered valid.
GROUP 1: SUCCESSION
BAR QUESTIONS 2013 & 2015
Members: Abuzo, Agot, Arcenal, Bayan, Bernardino

PART: 2015
QUESTION: 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.
a) Can Article 147 on co-ownership apply to Bert and Joe, whereby all properties
they acquired will be presumed to have been acquired by their joint industry and shall
be owned by them in equal shares? (2%)
b) What are the successional rights of the boy Bert Joe and raised as their son? (2%)
c) If Bert and Joe had decided in the early years of their cohabitation to jointly adopt
the boy, would they have been legally allowed to do so? Explain with legal basis.
(3%)
ANSWER:
(a)
No.
Under Article 147 of the NCC, the conjugal partnership shall be governed by the
rules on the contract of partnership in all that is not in conflict with what is expressly
determined in this Chapter.
In the case, both Bert and Joe are male. Article 147 of the NCC only applies to a
man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live together as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, since both
Bert and Joe are male, the said law is not applicable them.
Hence, Article 147 on co-ownership is not applicable to Berth and Joe.
(b)
The child Bert and Joe informally adopted has no successional rights.
Under our jurisprudence, a mere ward or “ampon” has no right to inherit from the
adopting parents.
In the case, although Bert and Joe raised the son of Bert's living brother as their
child, this is done without legally adopting him. Thus, no rights has been transferred
to the child because of the lack of formal adoption.
GROUP 1: SUCCESSION
BAR QUESTIONS 2013 & 2015
Members: Abuzo, Agot, Arcenal, Bayan, Bernardino

Hence, the child Bert and Joe adopted has no successional rights.
(c)
No.
Under the law, joint adoption is allowed between a husband and wife.
In the case, since both Bert and Joe are male, our law does not recognized them as
husband and wife even if they are cohabiting with each other. They are not vested
with the right to jointly adopt under the Family Code or even under the Domestic
Adoption Act.
Hence, Bert and Joe are not legally allowed to jointly adopt the son of Bert’s
brother.

TAGS: Successional rights of adopted child

APPLICABLE LAW/PRINCIPLE/DOCTRINE/JURISPRUDENCE: Article 147
of the New Civil Code; Article 887 of the New Civil Code
RELEVANT MEMORY AID/DIAGRAM:
Article 887. 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 article 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 three classes mentioned, shall
inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code.