JOMILLA, Ferdinand Elbert Jr., D.

2020-110258

Civil Law Review 1 – Midterm Examination 2021

1.
a. The estate shall be distributed as follows: Php20,001,000 goes to Jane A.
being a Primary Compulsory Heir as his surviving spouse and the
additional Php1,000 was pursuant to the provision in the will;
Php20,000,000 goes to John E’s illegitimate parents and they shall divide
it between them, so they have Php10,000,000M each; the remaining
disposable free amounting to Php40,001,000M. Php1,000 shall be
received by John Jr pursuant to the will and the remaining Php40M shall
be divided between Jimmy, Sammy, Lippy and Bird and each shall
receive Php10M.

The first thing to be determined is the validity of the John E’s will. Article 843
of the New Civil Code provides that even though the testator may have
omitted the name of the heir, should he designate him in such manner that
there can be no doubt as to who has been instituted, the institution shall be
valid. Thus, the validity of John E’s will is unaffected by the fact that Jimmy,
Sammy, Lippy and Bird were merely identified therein by their first names
because they were aptly identified by their respective circumstances.

Next to determine is the respective entitlement to legitimes of the parties.

One must first ascertain John E’s status as an illegitimate child because he
was born out of wedlock. Being an illegitimate decedent, Article 913 of the
New Civil Code provides that if the testator is an illegitimate person and is
survived by a descendant, whether legitimate or illegitimate, the illegitimate
parents are not compulsory heirs and they are not entitled to any legitime
whatsoever. Thus, said illegitimate parents of the decent can only become
compulsory heirs if surviving alone or with the surviving spouse of the
decedent. Here, since John E’s parents were alive together with Jane A., they
become compulsory heirs. Since this is a case of testamentary disposition,
they shall inherit ¼ of the estate which means that John E’s parents get to
inherit 20,000,000 as their legitime to be divided by them equally.
JOMILLA, Ferdinand Elbert Jr., D.

2020-110258

Civil Law Review 1 – Midterm Examination 2021

Next, Jane A’s marriage status with the decedent must also be determined.
The facts provided that Jane A’s was terrified by decedent into marrying him
10 years ago by waving a gun at her face. The same constitutes as vitiation of
consent that is a ground for annulment under Art. 45 of the NCC. There
being no case for annulment filed and no signs of ratification, their status of
marriage is considered still valid until annulled. Thus, Jane A. is entitled to
inherit 20,000,000 constituting ¼ of the Php80M and an additional Php1,000
for being an instituted heir in the will.

As to John E’s son, it was stated that John Jr. was born out of wedlock. Being
an illegitimate child, it is compulsory upon him to duly establish his filiation
with John E. in order to become a compulsory heir by filing an action to
compel recognition even alongside the action to claim inheritance as
provided in the case of Tayag v. CA. However, John Jr. was not able to
establish filiation with decedent and so he cannot inherit any legitime.
Instead, pursuant to John E’s will, John Jr. shall inherit Php1,000.

Finally, after settling the legitimes, the disposable free portion is now down
to Php40,000,000. The same shall be divided equally between Jimmy, Sammy,
Lippy and Bird for being instituted heirs without designated shares pursuant
to Art. 846 of the NCC.
2.
Bloom’s contentions are correct.

Jurisprudence states that one of the requisites of preterition is that there

must be total or complete omission of the heir/s. This means that the heir
did not receive any legacies, devises or advances on his legitime. Here,
Although Nissa and Jace may have been omitted, they respectively received
support from Avery in that Nissa studied Masters of Law in NYU amounting
to Php5M whereas Jace’s failed business costed Php2.5M. Hence, these are
considered in the collation as they are advances on their respective legitimes.

Article 1061 of the NCC defines collation as the act of returning or restoring
to the common mass of the hereditary estate, either actually or fictitiously,
JOMILLA, Ferdinand Elbert Jr., D.

2020-110258

Civil Law Review 1 – Midterm Examination 2021

any property which a person may have received from the decedent during
the latter’s lifetime, but which is understood for legal purposes as an advance
from the inheritance.

Thus, having been considered as advances on legitimes, Avery’s will

must not be considered void.

3. A. NO. You cannot inherit, Triton.

Under the Barrier Rule enshrined in Art 992 of the NCC, an illegitimate child
cannot inherit by intestate succession from the legitimate children or relatives of
his father or mother; neither can such legitimate children or relatives inherit in
the same manner from the illegitimate child.

Here, since your parents are not legally married and your were born out of
wedlock, you are considered as an illegitimate child. Thus, you cannot inherit
from your grandfather on the paternal side who is the legitimate parent of your
father because the barrier rule applies.

B. No, you cannot inherit from your Lola.

Under jurisprudence, an adopted child may not inherit from the legitimate
ascendants of the adopter because the ascendants of the adopter are not
related to the adopted. In adoption, the ascendants of the adopter are total
strangers to the adopted because 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.

Hence, since you were merely adopted by Mr. Patrice, by virtue of adoption,
your link is exclusive only between you and Mr. Patrice. Following the SC ruling,
such link cannot be extended to the adopter’s parents or any of the latter’s
relatives for that matter. From the foregoing, I regret to inform you that you will
not be able to inherit from you lola.
JOMILLA, Ferdinand Elbert Jr., D.

2020-110258

Civil Law Review 1 – Midterm Examination 2021

4. A possible defense is that the property constitutes the spouses’ family home.

Under jurisprudence, family home is a real right that is gratuitous, inalienable

and free from attachment. The great controlling purpose and policy of the
Constitution is the protection or the preservation of the homestead - the
dwelling place. A houseless, homeless population is a burden upon the energy,
industry, and morals of the community to which it belongs. No greater calamity,
not tainted with crime, can befall a family than to be expelled from the roof
under which it has been gathered and sheltered. The family home cannot be
seized by creditors except in special cases. The nature and character of the
property that debtors may claim to be exempt, however, are determined by the
exemption statute. The exemption is limited to the particular kind of property of
the specific articles prescribed by the statute; the exemption cannot exceed the
statutory limit.

Furthermore, any subsequent improvement or enlargement of the family home

by the persons constituting it, its owners, or any of its beneficiaries will still be
exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment provided the following
conditions obtain: (a) the actual value of the property at the time of its
constitution has been determined to fall below the statutory limit; and (b) the
improvement or enlargement does not result in an increase in its value
exceeding the statutory limit. Otherwise, the family home can be the subject of a
forced sale, and any amount above the statutory limit is applicable to the
obligations under Articles 155 and 160.

From the facts, it did not appear that the construction firm was able to prove the
foregoing conditions. Hence, the same may be a valid defense against
execution.

5. A. Mina has the right to the sedan.

Mina and Alex’s relationship is cohabitation without the benefit of a marriage.

However, as case law provides, to be entitled to this benefit and be exempt from
marriage license, the cohabitation must be continuous and exclusive.
JOMILLA, Ferdinand Elbert Jr., D.

2020-110258

Civil Law Review 1 – Midterm Examination 2021

Furthermore, the parties must be capacitated to marry each other and they
must exclusively live as husband and wife.

Here, Mina is below 18 years old when she began cohabiting with Alex. The
same is proved by the facts when it was stated that 3 years from Mina’s debut,
she moved out but she has been living with Alex for five years already, meaning
she was still underaged when it began. Next, their cohabitation was not
exclusive because Alex has a one-year affair which already interrupted their
supposedly 5-year cohabitation. Thus, the applicable law to govern their
properties is Art 148 of the NCC.

Under Valdez v, RTC, actual joint contributions of money, property and industry
are owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contribution.
Thus, Mina’s contribution of sedan to the relationship is owned jointly by Mina
and Alex. Hence, she has the claim to it.

B. Mina has no right to the gaming desktops.

Under Art. 148, wages and salaries earned by each party belong to him or her
exclusively. Thus, since the desktops were bought by Alex’s salary, the same
belong to him exclusively. Mina cannot claim them.

C. Mina may acquire them provided she shows proof of actual

contribution.

Under Art 148, mere cohabitation without proof of contribution will not result in
a co-ownership. They can only be presumed to be equal upon proof of actual
contribution which is required by law and even if proven, co-ownership will only
be up to the extent of proven actual contribution of property. In the absence of
proof, there will be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares.

6. Stephen’s contention is partly correct.

JOMILLA, Ferdinand Elbert Jr., D.

2020-110258

Civil Law Review 1 – Midterm Examination 2021

In Concepcion v. CA, the Court held that only the husband can impugn the child’s
legitimacy because he is the one directly confronted with the scandal by his
unfaithful wife. It is only upon his death that his heirs acquire the right to
impugn the child’s legitimacy. Thus, a child himself cannot choose his own
filiation especially when the putative father does not impugn the legitimacy of
the child. The child’s status is fixed and the child cannot successfully maintain an
action to claim illegitimate filiation.

However, the New Civil Code also allows children to file for an action for
illegitimate filiation. Thus, even illegitimate children may claim recognition but
the same may only be brought during the lifetime of the parents.

Here, although Lianne has a birth certificate showing her name same as the
couple, the same must be signed by the parents involved or named therein.
Nothing in the facts show the same. Upon confirming the legitimacy of the birth
certificate, neither Stephen nor Gella confirmed. Gella merely admitted that she
had a daughter.

Hence, following the rule that only the father can impugn legitimacy and
the fact that Lianne’s basis is fickle, Stephen is correct in saying that only
he has the right but he is not correct in saying that the same cannot be
availed of by illegitimate children.

7. A distinction must be made between bigamous marriages under Article 40 of

the NCC, Article 35(4) of the NCC.

Under Art 35(4), the prior marriage is either valid or voidable; in Art 40, the prior
marriage is void but a subsequent marriage is contracted prior to a judicial
declaration of the absolute nullity of the prior marriage. Thus, the governing
property regime of bigamous marriages under Art 35(4) is that provided in Art
148; whereas under Art 40, the regime may either be absolute community of
property (ACP) or conjugal partnership of gains (CPG), unless the parties
provided for complete separation as their property regime in their marriage
settlement. Thus, under Art 148 in relation to a bigamous marriage pursuant to
JOMILLA, Ferdinand Elbert Jr., D.

2020-110258

Civil Law Review 1 – Midterm Examination 2021

Art 35(4) wages and salaries earned by each party belong to either of them
exclusively. Furthermore, only the properties acquired by both of the parties
through their actual and joint contribution of money, property and industry shall
be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions.

On the other hand, in a bigamous marriage under Art 40, if the parties choose
ACP as their property regime, there is a special kind of co-ownership and the
parties become joint owners of all the properties of the marriage and the
provisions on co-ownership shall apply suppletorily. If they choose CPG, the
parties place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and income from
their separate properties and those acquired by either or both spouses through
their efforts or by chance. Here, the provisions on partnership shall apply
suppletorily. Finally, should the parties choose complete separation of property,
to each spouse shall belong all earnings from his or her profession, business or
industry and all its fruits.

As to successional rights of children, both kinds of bigamous marriages under

Article 40 and Art 35(4) are generally illegitimate. However, if the bigamous
marriage was a valid one which was only invalidated by the reappearance of the
absentee spouse under Art 41, the children of the subsequent marriage
conceived prior to its termination shall be considered legitimate and their
support and custody shall be decided by the court in a proper proceeding.

Thus, pursuant to the general rule, the successional rights of children in

bigamous marriages shall involve their right to the legitime for being illegitimate
and if they are included in the will of the decedent, they may also become
voluntary heirs, so long as they are not disqualified to inherit.