1. Mr. X, a minor, executed a last will.

He died at 21, after which his will was submitted to

probate. If you were the judge would approve or allow it?
2. The will of Mr X stated that the house and lot situated in Iriga shall be transmitted in the
names of Y and Z, the children, for administration purposes only, but no one shall be the
owner of the same. Do you agree with the condition provided in the will?
3. Mr. X, who happens to be a citizen of Israel, is not only a citizen of Israel but also a
domiciliary until his death. Both a national and domiciliary of Israel, before the testator died,
he executed two wills, one disposing of his Israel properties and the other disposing of the
Philippine properties. In both wills, the testator did not give anything to be recognized a
legitimate child. Israel has no conflicts rule (no rule of private international law governing
successional rights; under Israel law, there are no compulsory heirs and no legitime.) The
illegitimate children oppose the wills on the ground that they have been deprived of their
legitimes, to which they would be entitled if Philippine law were to apply. Are they entitled
to their legitimes?
4. 4. Mr. X executed a will revoking his previous will. In X's will no. 2 it was stated that, X is
revoking will no. 1, unfortunately X died having not validly executed no. 2. Will you consider
will no. 1 or will no. 2?

Ans: In one case, it was held that while it is true that the execution of an invalid will did not
produce revocation, revocation was made thru an overt act — the act of tearing or
destruction — with animo revocandi. Hence, the court concluded that will No. (1) had
indeed been revoked. (Diaz v. De Leon, 43 Phil. 413). However, in a subsequent case, it was
ruled that there was no revocation either by subsequent will (for same was invalid) or an
overt act (since the act of destruction or tearing the first will was prompted by the false
belief that the second will had been validly executed). (See Art. 833, which provides that a
revocation of a will based on way, the doctrine of dependent relative revocation — the
revocation by destruction or overt act was sound only if this condition is fulfilled, namely,
that the revoking will was valid. The condition was not fulfilled; therefore, the revocation by
overt act did not materialize