1975-2004
Claiming that he is
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. The rights of illegitimate 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.
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.
ANSWER 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 because marrying a man that the father
did not approve of is not a ground for disinheriting
D. Therefore, the institution of D-l and D-2 shall be
annulled insofar as it prejudices the legitime of D, and the
institution of D-l and D-2 shall only apply on the free
portion in the amount of P500,000.00. Therefore, D, D-l
and D-2 will get their legitimes of P500.000.00
divided into three equal parts and D-l and D-2 will
get a reduced testamentary disposition of
P250,OOO.OO each. Hence, the shares will be:
(paragraph form!)
D - P166,666.66
D-l P166,666.66 + P25O.OOO.OO
D-2 P166,666.66 + P250,000.00
Succession; disinheritance vs preterition
2000 No IV
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 1028 for
being in consideration of her adulterous relation with the
testator. She is, therefore, isqualified 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
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
ANSWER (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.
ANSWER (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)
.
Succession; intestate succession 1978 No. VI-b
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 Succession; intestate succession 1998 No XII
surviving heirs? Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary estate of P1.2
ANSWER: The legal heirs are A, B, D, and W. C is million. He is survived by his widow, three legitimate
excluded by B who is still alive. D Inherits in children, two legitimate grandchildren sired by a
representation of E who predeceased. F is excluded legitimate child who predeceased him, and two
because of the repudiation of G, the predecessor. M is recognized illegitimate children.
excluded by the legitimate children of T. The ANSWER Distribute the estate in intestacy. [5%]
may be premised on two theories: the Theory of Exclusion
and the Theory of Concurrence. ANSWER: Under the theory of Concurrence, the shares
Under the Theory of Exclusion the legitimes of the are as follows:
heirs are accorded them and the free portion will be A (legitimate child) = P200.OOO
given exclusively to the legitimate descendants. Hence B (legitimate child) = P2OO.OOO
under the Exclusion Theory: C (legitimate child) = P2OO,OOO
A will get P20.000.00. and P 13.333.33 (1/3 of the free D (legitimate child) = O (predeceased]
portion) E (legitimate child of D) = P100.0OO - by right of
B will get P 20,000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of the free representation
portion) F (legitimate child of D) = P100.OOO - by right of
D will get P20.000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of the free representation
portion) G (illegitimate child) = P1OO.OOO - 1/2 share of ft
W, the widow is limited to the legitime of P20.000.00 legitimate child
Under the Theory of Concurrence. In addition to their H (illegitimate child) = P100.OOO - 1/2 share of a
legitimes. the heirs of A, B, D and W will be given equal legitimate child
shares in the free portions: W (Widow) = P200.0OO - same share as legitimate child
A: P20.000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1 /4 of the free portion) Another ANSWER:
B: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (l/4 of the free portlon) Under the theory of Exclusion the free portion (P300.OOO)
C: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1/4 of the free portion) is distributed only among the legitimate children and
W: P20,000.00 plus P10,000.00 (l/4 of the free portion) is given to them in addition to their legitime. All
other Intestate heirs are entitled only to their respective
Alternative ANSWER: Shares in Intestacy legitimes. The distribution is as follows:
T - decedent Estate: P120.000.00 Legitime Free Portion Total
Page 126 of 391 A [legitimate child) P15O.OOO + P 75,OOO
Survived by: - P225.OOO
M - Mother............................None B {legitimate child) P15O.OOO + F15O.OOO
W - Widow.............................P 30,000.00 - P225.OOO
A - Son.................................P 30,000.00 C (legitimate child) P15O.OOO + P 75.OOO
B - Son.................................P3O.OOO.OO - P225.OOO
C - Grandson (son of B).............None D (legitimate child) 0 0
D - Grandson (son of E who predeceased T)................P 0
30,000.00 E (legitimate child of D) P 75,OOO + P35.5OO
F - Grandson (son of G who repudiated the - P112.5OO
Inheritance from"T").......................None F (legitimate child of D) P 75.OOO + P 37.5OO
- P112,5OO
Explanation: G (illegitimate child) P 75.OOO 0 -
1) The mother (M) cannot inherit from T because P 75.5OO
under Art. 985 the ascendants shall inherit in default H (illegitimate child) P 75.OOO O -
of legitimate children and descendants of the P 75.5OO
deceased. W (Widow) P15O.OOO 0 -
2) The widow's share is P30.000.00 because under Art, P15O.OOO
996 it states that if
the widow or widower and legitimate children or Succession; intestate succession
descendants are left, the surviving 1984 No, 8
spouse has in the succession the same share as that of Spouses Guillermo and Pacita had three sons, namely, A,
each of the children, B and C. Beset by quarrels, their marriage broke up.
3) C has no share because his father is still alive Guillermo left for and obtained a divorce in the United
hence succession by States, where he subsequently married Juana, by
representation shall not apply (Art. 975). whom he had a son, D. Guillermo later died in the
4) D inherits P30.000 which is the share of his father E United States without even knowing that C had died
who predeceased T earlier, leaving a wife, E, and a legitimate son, F, State the
by virtue of Art. 981 on the right of representation. shares, if any, of the following: in the estate of Guillermo:
5) F has no share because his father G repudiated the A, B, D, E, F, Pacita and Juana.
inheritance. Under
Article 977 heirs who repudiate their share may not be
represented.
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 the share of A or B. It must
be observed that Guillermo's marriage to Juana id void
from the point of view of Philippine Law since the
decree of absolute divorce obtained 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).
A's share will be 2/9 of the estate; D's share 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.
ANSWERs: 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. 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?
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.
ANSWER (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. .
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.
ANSWER (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 (a): 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.)

ANSWER (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.)
ANSWER (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 adaughter, Edith, while
Mark had a son, Philip.After the death of Esteban and
Martha, theirthree (3) parcels of land were adjudicated to
Jun. After the death of Jun, the properties passed to his
surviving spouse Anita, and sonCesar. When Anita died,
her share went to herson Cesar. Ten (10) years after, Cesar
diedintestate without any issue. Peachy, Anita.s sister,
adjudicated to herself the properties asthe only surviving
heir of Anita and Cesar. Edithand Philip would like to
recover the propertiesclaiming that they should have
been reservedby Peachy in their behalf and must now
revertback to them. Is the contention of Edith and Philip
valid?
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 theproperties. 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 leftwas a piece of land in
Alabang where he builthis 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\
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?
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.
SUGGESTED ANSWERS
2015 CIVIL LAW BAR EXAMINATIONS
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 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.
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?
c) Is the situation presented in Item I an example of
depe9age?
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 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.
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?
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 (reservees) 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 onthe 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.
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?
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?
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?
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, andall 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 notcourt 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.
BAR Questions 2019
B.12. D, an Overseas Filipino Worker, was on his way home
to the Philippines after working for so many years in the
Middle East. He had saved P100,000.00 in his local savings
account which he intended to use to start up a business
in his home country. On his flight home, tragedy struck as
a suicide bomber blew up the plane. All the passengers,
including D, died. He left behind his widowed mother M;
his common-law wife, W, who is the mother of his twin
sons, T and S; and his brother, B. He left no will, no debts,
no other relatives, and no other properties except the
money in his savings account.
Who are the heirs entitled to inherit from D and how much
should each receive? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: D’s heirs entitled to inherit from
him are:
M (his mother) – P50,000 and T and S (his twin sons) –
P25,000 each.
D died intestate and his heirs are the mother (legitimate
ascendant) and his twin sons (illegitimate). The mother
gets one-half of his estate and his two illegitimate sons
get the other half (Article 991).
W, the common-law wife” is not an heir ab intestato
because she is not a legal spouse. She is merely a partner
in a non-marital union.
B.13. M. single, named his sister N in his will, as a devisce
over a certain parcel of land that he owned, with the
obligation of preserving the land and transferring it, upon
N’s death, to her illegitimate daughter O. who was then
only a year old. Is the condition imposed on N to preserve
the land and to transmit it upon her death to a valid case
of fideicommissary substitution? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, this is a valid case of
fideicommissary substitution. Article 863 of the Civil Code
provides that a fideicommissary substitution by virtue of
which the fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with
the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir
the whole or part of the inheritance, shall be valid and
shall take effect, provided such substitution does not go
beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted.
First, there is the absolute obligation imposed upon the
fiduciary N to preserve and to transmit to the
fideicommissary the part of the inheritance. Second, O,
the fideicommissary, as the fiduciary’s illegitimate
daughter is one degree from the fiduciary. Furthermore,
O’s illegitimate status is of no moment, because Art. 863,
referring to the “heir” does not distinguish between
legitimate from illegitimate relationships.
B.14. 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 bis 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. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) No, it is not a proper ground
to disinherit. Article 916 of the Civil Code provides that
disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein
the legal cause therefor shall be specified. Article 919 of
the same Code provides that the following shall be
sufficient causes for the disinheritance of children and
descendants, legitimate as well as illegitimate. That Z once
filed a civil case against him in order to collect a particular
sum of money he previously owed is not one of the
grounds for a valid disinheritance.
(b) Assuming that the disinheritance of Z was improper,
how will it affect the institution of heirs and testamentary
dispositions made in II’s will? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (b) Article 918 of the Civil Code
provides that disinheritance for a cause which is not one
of those set forth in this Code, shall annul the institution
of heirs insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited;
but the devises and legacies and other testamentary
dispositions shall be valid to such extent as will not impair
the legitime.
BAR Questions 2020/21 – NONE
BAR Questions 2022 in CIVIL LAW PART I
QUESTION: 4. [This item has two questions.] In 2013,
Agaton, then 70 years old, executed a will wherein he
bequeathed his entire estate to his acknowledged
illegitimate son Karl. Agaton entrusted the original copy
of the 2013 will to Karl. In 2014, Karl joined a group of
mercenaries to fight in Crimea alongside the Russians.
After Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Karl did not return to
the Philippines and was never heard of.
Five years later, in 2019, Agaton executed a codicil which
provided the following: “Because of the death of Karl, I
revoke my 2013 will. I hereby recognize Gian as my other
illegitimate son, and hereby bequeath to him my entire
estate.” Agaton died in 2020. During the probate of
Agaton’s 2019 codicil, Karl appeared in court, presented
the 2013 will, contested the validity of its revocation,
opposed the probate of the 2019 codicil, and sought the
probate of the 2013 will. Both the 2013 will and 2019
codicil were immaculate as to form.
(a) Did the 2019 codicil revoke the 2013 will? Explain
briefly.
(b) Distribute the estate of Agaton. Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (A) Yes, the 2019 codicil revoked
the 2013 will.
As a rule, the revocation of a will must be based on a true
cause and if the revocation is based on a false or illegal
cause, the revocation shall be null and void. Moreover, as
a rule, a person may be presumed dead after an absence
of four years if he or she is a member of the armed forces
who has taken part in war. In this case, Agaton revoked
the will due to his belief that Karl was already dead
because he had been absent for more than five years since
participating in the war in Crimea. Agaton’s belief that Karl
was already dead is valid and legal. Karl’s subsequent
reappearance did not make Agaton’s cause for revoking
the will false or illegal. Hence, the 2019 codicil should
prevail over the 2013 will.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (B) The estate shall be divided
equally between Karl and Gian.
Under the Civil Code, the preterition or omission of a
compulsory heir in the direct line shall annul the
institution of heirs. If there are no devisees or legacies, full
intestacy shall apply. In this case, Karl is a compulsory heir
in the direct line, being an illegitimate child of Agaton.
Gian’s institution as voluntary heir to the entire estate shall
be annulled and the estate will be distributed by intestacy.
Here, Karl and Gian are the only compulsory heirs. Hence,
Agaton’s entire estate (free portion and legitime) shall be
devided equally between Karl and Gian.
QUESTION: 5. Joey was the legitimate son of Ron and
May. Joey died intestate and was survived by his wife
Kathy and their two legitimate children, Luis and Clarisse.
Several months after Joey died, Ron also died intestate.
Ron was survived by his wife May, daughter Mercy (full-
sibling of Joey), and the children of Joey (Luis and
Clarisse). Distribute the estate of Ron. Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Ron’s estate shall be divided
among his wife May, daughter Mercy, and Joey’s children
Luis and Clarisse.
Under the Civil Code, by intestacy, the compulsory heirs
are the wife and the legitimate children, In case of
predecease of any of the compulsory heirs, the children of
the said heirs shall be raised and shall inherit by way of
representation. The wife of the deceased compulsory heir
cannot represent. In this case, Ron was survived by his
wife May and his daughter Mercy. His son Joey had
predeceased Ron but is survived by his two children Luis
and Clarrise, to which they shall equally divide among
themselves what Joey would have received.
Hence, Ron’s estate shall be divided into:
One portion for May
Another portion for Mercy
Last portion to Luis and Clarisse, per stirpes.
QUESTION: 14. During Remy’s pregnancy, her father
Gavin executed a will bequeathing his rest house in
Calatagan, Batangas to Remy’s unborn child. While Gavin
and Remy, who was then seven months pregnant, were on
their way to Calatagan, they figured in a car accident on
December 1, 2021 which resulted in the instantaneous
death of Gavin and the premature delivery of Remy on the
same day. At 8:30 a.m. on December 3, 2021, the newborn
baby died. Is the devise in favor of the baby valid? Explain
briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the devise in favor of the
baby is valid.
Under the Civil Code, personality begins at conception. A
conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes
that are favorable to it, provided it is born alive if it had an
intra-uterine life of seven months or more, or born alive
and stayed alive for at least 24 hours if it had an intra-
uterine life of less than seven months. Thus, the unborn
child can be a recipient of a donation, devise, or legacy.
In this case, Gavin bequeathed through his will his rest
house to Remy’s unborn child. Gavin was aware and
conscious of Remy’s soon to be born baby. The baby had
an intra-uterine life of seven months and was born alive
and stayed alive for two days, more than the time
prescribed by law. This, the devise is valid and may be
received by the child’s heirs.
QUESTION: 15. [This item has two questions.] Miguel,
who died single and childless, was survived by his two
legitimate brothers Romy and Rolly, and his nephews
Arno and Pabs, the legitimate sons of his predeceased
legitimate brother Edgar. Before his death, Miguel
executed a one-page notarial will, inclusive of an
attestation clause and a notarial acknowledgment, with
only one testamentary disposition bequeathing his entire
estate to Romy and Rolly. The will was not paginated and
was attested by four witnesses: Uno, Dos, Tres, and
Quatro. It was the eve of Quatro’s 17th birthday when the
will was executed. The will was written in the Ilocano
dialect which Miguel knew and understood, but the
witnesses did not. Miguel and the witnesses signed at the
end of the testamentary disposition. The attestation was
also written in the Ilocano dialect which, when translated
to the English language, reads as follows:
“This will of Miguel was written in ONE page. We, the
attesting witnesses, signed at the end of the will and at
the bottom of this attestation in the presence of Miguel
and of each of us.”
Each of the four witnesses signed below the attestation
clause. Because none of the witnesses knew and
understood the Ilocano dialect, the attestation was
interpreted to them by Miguel’s lawyer who was present
to notarize the will.
(a) Does the fact that the will was written in a dialect
known only to Miguel invalidate the will? What about the
absence of the marginal signatures of the testator and the
witnesses? Explain briefly.
(b) May the will nonetheless be admitted to probate?
Explain briefly.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: (A) No, the fact that the will was
written in a dialect and the absence of marginal signatures
did not invalidate the will,
As to the dialect or language in which the will is written,
the Civil Code only requires that it be understood by the
testator. The law also provides that if the attestation
clause is in a dialect or language not known to the
witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them. Finally, as to
signatures, the law requires that the will be signed on each
and every page thereof. In this case, the will was in the
dialect Ilocano or the language known and understood by
Miguel. Although the witness did not understand it, the
attestation clause was nevertheless interpreted to them.
Lastly, the will complied with the signature requirement. It
was a one-page will and the testator signed at the end of
testamentary disposition. Therefore, there is no need to
sign on the left margin. Hence, the alleged defects serve
no fatality to the will.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: (B) Yes, the will may be probated.

It is settled that in probate of wills, the subject of inquiry
is the testamentary capacity of the testator and the due
execution of the will. The intrinsic value of the will is not a
proper issue.
In this case, there is nothing to show that Miguel’s
capacity to execute a will was impaired. Also, the will had
substantially complied with the formal requirements of
the law. Hence, it may be allowed.