2019 BAR Qs excluded according to the Rule of

Proximity.
D, an Overseas Filipino Worker, was
on his way home to the Philippines M, single, named his sister N in his
after working for so many years in will, as a devisee over a certain
the Middle East. He had saved parcel of land that he owned, with the
₱100,000.00 in his local savings obligation of preserving the land and
account which he intended to use to transferring it, upon N's death, to her
start up a business in his home illegitimate daughter 0, who was then
country. On his flight home, tragedy only a year old.
struck as a suicide bomber blew up
the plane. All the passengers, Is the condition imposed on N to
including D, died. He left behind his preserve the land and to transmit it
widowed mother M; his common-law upon her death to O a valid case of
wife, W, who is the mother of his twin fideicommissary substitution?
sons, T and S; and his brother, B. He Explain. (3%)
left no will, no debts, no other
relatives, and no other properties Suggested answer: (see 2008
except the money in his savings question on fideicommissary)
account.  Yes, the condition imposed upon N to
preserve the property and to transmit it
Who are the heirs entitled to inherit upon her death to O is valid because it
from D and how much should each is tantamount to fideicommissary
receive? Explain. (5%) substitution under Art. 863 of the Civil
Suggested answer: (we need to qualify Code.
the status of the mother of the twin
sons, no mention of marriage/legal B.14.
spouse we assume that she is also NOT
a legal wife) Prior to his death, H, married to W,
with children X, Y, and Z, executed a
The mother of D and his twin sons are holographic will entirely written,
entitled to inherit from D. dated, and signed by him. In his will,
H instituted W, X, and Y as his heirs,
The widowed mother gets ½ share while and consequently, made
D’s twin sons will get ¼ each of the testamentary dispositions in their
estate. favor. H, however, expressly
disinherited Z on the ground that the
Thus, the widowed mother gets latter once filed a civil case against
P50,000.00 while the twin sons shall him in order to collect a particular
receive P25,000.00 each. The common- sum of money he previously owed Z.
law wife cannot inherit from him
because when the law speaks "widow or (a) Was the disinheritance of Z
widower" as a compulsory heir, the law proper? Explain. (3%)
refers to a legitimate spouse (Art. 887,
par. 3, Civil Code). Likewise, the brother (b) Assuming that the disinheritance
cannot inherit from D since he is of Z was improper, how will it affect
the institution of heirs and any property or right, which a
testamentary dispositions made in compulsory heir, who succeeds with
H's will? Explain. (3%) other compulsory heirs, may have
received by way of donation or any
Suggested answer: other gratuitous title from the
a) No. A sufficient ground for decedent during the lifetime of the
disinheritance is when a child or latter, but which is understood for legal
descendant has accused the testator of purposes as an advance of his legitime.
a crime. Here, the case filed by Z (NOTE: The above answer may be
against H is a civil case. stated substantially).
(b) The improper disinheritahce shall
annul the institution of W, X, and Y as Succession; barrier between
heirs insofar as it may prejudice Z, the illegitimate and legitimate relatives
person disinherited.. 1984 No. 9

1975-2004 A had two sons, one legitimate (B)

and the other illegitimate (C), who
Succession; acceptance, both died in a car accident. At the
repudiation, collation 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?
1977 No. XIII-a Explain
Distinguish acceptance and
repudiation of inheritance from Answer:
collation. A. Furnished by Office of Justice
Palma,
Answer D, cannot inherit. The illegitimate
Acceptance is the act of an heir, legatee child cannot inherit from the
or devisee in manifesting his desire in legitimate
accordance with the formalities relatives of his father or mother, {Art.
prescribed by law to succeed to the 992).
inheritance, legacy or devise, while E can inherit. The rights of
repudiation is the act of an heir, illegitimate children are transmitted
legatee or devisee in manifesting his upon their
desire in accordance with the death to their descendants, legitimate or
formalities prescribed by law not to illegitimate. (Art 990).
succeed to such inheritance, legacy or
devise. Succession; barrier between
illegitimate and legitimate relatives
Collation, on the other hand, refers 1996 No. 11:
to the act of restoring to the
common mass of the hereditary Cristina. the illegitimate daughter of
estate, either actually or fictitiously, Jose and Maria, died Intestate,
without any descendant or ascendant. Alternative Answer:
Her valuable estate is being claimed The action of A will not prosper. Being
by Ana, the legitimate daughter of an illegitimate, he is barred by Article
Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate son of 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting ab
Maria. intestato from the legitimate relatives of
Is either, both, or neither of them entitled his father.
to inherit? Explain.
Succession; barrier between
Answer; legitimate and illegitimate relatives
Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled 1983 No. 9
to inherit of ab intestato from Cristina. A, a spurious child, died intestate
Both are legitimate relatives of survived by B, the brother of his
Cristina's illegitimate parents and deceased mother, and C, his mother's
therefore they fall under the prohibition legitimate granddaughter. May B and C
prescribed by Art. 992, NCC (Manuel v. inherit from A? Reasons.
Ferrer, 242 SCRA 477; Diaz v. Court of
Appeals, 182 SCRA 427). Answer
B cannot because uncles have no
Succession; barrier between right to inherit from their illegitimate
illegitimate and legitimate relatives nephews. C cannot succeed either
1993 No. 2; because legitimate relatives have no
A is the acknowledged natural child right to inherit from an illegitimate child
of B who died when A was already and vice versa.
22 years old. When B's full blood
brother, C, died he (C) was survived by Succession; capacity to inherit;
his widow and four children of his conditional devise 1980 No. VII
other brother. D. Claiming that he is
entitled to inherit from his father's (a) In his will, Reverend Father "R'
brother. C, A brought suit to obtain his devised a parcel of riceland in favor of
share in the estate of C. Will his action "his nearest male relative who would
prosper? study for the priesthood." The Will
was duly probated. No nephew of the
Answer: testator claimed the devise and the
No, the action of A will not prosper. testate proceeding remained pending. In
On the premise that B, C and D are the interim, the riceland was to be
legitimate brothers, as an illegitimate administered by the Parish Priest of the
child of B, A cannot inherit in intestacy locality pursuant to a project of partition
from C who is a legitimate brother of approved by the Probate Court. Twenty-
B. Only the wife of C in her own one years after the testator's death,
right and the legitimate relatives of C the Parish Priest filed a petition
(i.e. the children of D as C's legitimate before the Court for delivery of the rice
nephews inheriting as collateral land to the Church as trustee. The legal
relatives) can inherit in intestacy. heirs of Father "R" objected and prayed
(Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975, instead that the bequest be declared
Civil Code) inoperative and that they be adjudged
entitled to the rice land. It also turned
out that the testator had a grandnephew (Art. 956, Civil Code). The reason is
(a grandson of his first cousin) who was clear. The seminarian cannot inherit
taking the holy orders from Father "R", Under our law, in order
in a Seminary. Would you construe the to be capacitated to inherit, the heir,
testamentary provision liberally so as legatee
to render the trust operative and to or devisee must be living at the
prevent intestacy, or would you moment the succession opens,
declare the bequest except in case of
inoperative and the legal heirs entitled to representation when it is proper. (Art.
the riceland? 1025, Civil Code).

(NOTE: The above problem is

Answer obviously a modification of the
problem resolved in Parish Priest of
(a) It depends. If the Seminarian, who Victoria vs. Rigor, 89 SCRA 493.
is presently studying for the Because of the fact that only one out
priesthood, was born before the death of several conditions imposed by the
of Father "R", it is submitted that the testator was retained by the Honorable
testamentary provision should be Bar Examiner in the above
liberally construed so as to prevent hypothetical problem, the Committee
intestacy. The land should be delivered respectfully prays that either one of the
to the above assumptions should be
Parish Priest as trustee or administrator. considered as a correct answer. The
The reason is obvious. There is always Committee further prays that if a bar
the possibility that the seminarian candidate assumes that the seminarian
might not become a priest. True, was born before the death of Father
Father "K" devised the land to his "R" and then advances the opinion
nearest nephew male relative who that the land should be delivered to him
would study for the priesthood. because the condition has already been
fulfilled, such an answer should be
Apparently, the condition has already considered as a correct answer.)
been fulfilled. It is however, submitted
that the testatorial intention is clear. The Succession; collation 1993 No. 17;
devisee must not only study for the
priesthood; he must become a priest. Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio
Once he becomes a priest, the land Cruz a residential lot of 300 square
should then be delivered to him. meters in Quezon City for which
If the seminarian was born after the Joaquin paid Julio the amount of
death of Father "R", bequest is certainly P300,000.00, When the deed was
inoperative and the legal heirs of the about to be prepared Joaquin told
testator shall, therefore, be entitled to Julio that it be drawn in the name
the rice-land. In other -words, the land of Joaquina Roxas. his
shall be merged in the mass of the acknowledged natural child. Thus,
hereditary estate, and from there, it the deed was so prepared and
shall pass to the legal heirs in executed by Julio. Joaquina then
accordance with the rules of intestacy built a house on the lot where
she, her husband and children not consider such gifts as advances
resided. Upon Joaquin's death, his made by the decedent of the
legitimate children sought to recover legitime of his son, and therefore, not
possession and ownership of the chargeable against such legitime
lot. claiming that Joaquina Roxas during the partition of the hereditary
was estate. Instead, the law considers such
but a trustee of their father. Will the gifts as ordinary donations inter vivos
action against Joaquina Roxas made to a stranger, and therefore,
prosper? chargeable against the disposable
free portion of the estate. It would be
Answer: different if the gifts are bestowed to the
Yes, because there is a presumed spouses jointly. In such case, one-half
donation in favor of Joaquina under (1/2) of the value of such gifts would
Art. 1448 of the Civil Code (De los then be charged against the legitime
Santos v. Reyes, 27 January 1992, 206 of the son and the other one-half (1/2)
SCRA 437). However, the donation against the disposable free portion.
should be collated to the hereditary
estate and the legitime of the other heirs 2. Money paid by the deceased parent
should be preserved. during his lifetime for the debts of a son
should be brought to collation. In
Alternative Answer; reality, what we have here is a donation
Yes, the action against Joaquina Roxas inter vivos made to a compulsory
will prosper, but only to the extent of the heir. From the point of view of the
aliquot hereditary rights of the law, the money is considered as an
legitimate children as heirs. Joaquina advance of the legitime.
will be entitled to retain her own Consequently, in the portion of the
share as an illegitimate child, (Arts. hereditary estate, the amount should
1440 and 1453. Civil Code; Art. 176, be charged against the legitime of the
F. C.) son.

Succession; collation 1978 No. VII-a (NOTE: The above answers are
based on Arts. 1066 and 1069 of
Are the following subject to the Civil
collation? Explain fully your answers. Code and on the view sustained by
1. Gifts bestowed by the deceased practically all commentators on the real
father during his lifetime for the debts meaning of collation under Arts. 1061,
of a son, et seq., of the Civil Code.)
2. Money paid by the deceased
parent during his lifetime for the Succession; disinheritance 1999 No
debts of a son. VIII,

Answer (a.) Mr. Palma, widower, has three

1. Gifts bestowed by the deceased daughters D, D-l and D-3. He executes
father during his lifetime to the spouse of a Will disinheriting D because she
his son should not be subject to married a man he did not like, and
collation. This means that the law will instituting daughters D-1 and D-2 as his
heirs to his entire estate of P The disinheritance of Wilma was
1,000,000.00, Upon Mr, Palma's death, ineffective because the ground relied
how should his estate be divided? upon by the testator does not constitute
Explain. (5%) maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the
New Civil Code. Hence, the
ANSWER: testamentary provisions In the will shall
(a) This is a case of ineffective be annulled but only to the extent that
disinheritance because marrying a her legitime was impaired. The total
man that the father did not approve omission of Elvira does not constitute
of is not a ground for disinheriting D. preterition because she is not a
Therefore, the institution of D-l and D-2 compulsory heir in the direct line.
shall be annulled insofar as it prejudices Only compulsory heirs in the direct line
the legitime of D, and the institution of may be the subject of preterition. Not
D-l and D-2 shall only apply on the free having been preterited, she will be
portion in the amount of P500,000.00. entitled only to her legitime. The
Therefore, D, D-l and D-2 will get legacy in favor of Rosa is
their legitimes of P500.000.00 void under Article 1028 for being in
divided into three equal parts and D-l consideration of her adulterous relation
and D-2 will get a reduced with the
testamentary disposition of testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to
P250,OOO.OO each. Hence, the shares receive the legacy of 100,000 pesos.
will be: The legacy of 50,000 pesos in favor
(paragraph form!) of Ernie is not inofficious not having
D - P166,666.66 exceeded the free portion. Hence, he
D-l P166,666.66 + shall be entitled to receive It. The
P25O.OOO.OO institution of Baldo, which applies only
D-2 P166,666.66 + to the free portion, shall be
P250,000.00 respected. In sum, the estate of
Lamberto will be distributed as follows:
Succession; disinheritance vs
preterition Baldo----------------- 450,000
2000 No IV Wilma--------------- 250,000
Elvira----------------- 250,000
In his last will and testament, Ernie----------------- 50,000
Lamberto 1) disinherits his daughter
Wilma because "she is disrespectful 1,000,000
towards me and raises her voice
talking to me", 2) omits entirely his ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
spouse Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of The disinheritance of Wilma was
P100,000.00 to his mistress Rosa and effective because disrespect of, and
P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4) raising of voice to, her father constitute
institutes his son Baldo as his sole heir. maltreatment under Article 919(6) of
How will you distribute his estate of the New Civil Code. She is, therefore,
P1,000,000.00? (5%) not entitled to inherit anything. Her
inheritance will go to the other legal
SUGGESTED ANSWER: heirs. The total omission of Elvira Is not
preterition because she is not a How will you rule on Jorge's
compulsory heir in the direct line. opposition to the probate of Maria's
She will receive only her legitime. will. If you were the Judge?
The legacy in favor of Rosa is void
under Article 1028 for being in Answer;
consideration of her adulterous relation As Judge, I shall rule as follows:
with the testator. She is, therefore, Jorge's opposition should be
isqualified to receive the legacy. sustained in part and denied in part.
Ernie will receive the legacy In his Jorge's omission as spouse of Maria
favor because it is not inofficious. is not preterition of a compulsory heir
The institution of Baldo, which applies in the direct line. Hence, Art. 854 of the
only to the free portion, will be Civil Code does not apply, and the
respected. In sum, the estate of institution of Miguela as heir is valid, but
Lamberto shall be distributed as follows: only to the extent of the free portion of
one-half. Jorge is still entitled to one-half
Heir Legitime Legacy of the estate as his legitime. (Art. 1001,
Institution TOTAL Civil Code)

Baldo 500,000 Succession; disinheritance,

200.000 700,000 ineffective
Elvira 250,000 1982 No. 13
250,000 "X’ s only living relatives are his
Ernie 50,000 50,000 brothers "A" and "B". "X" executed a
TOTAL 750,000 50,000 will providing as follows: "I institute my
200,000 1,000,000 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
Succession; disinheritance vs demise, is "B" entitled to share in
preterition the inheritance on the ground that the
1993 No. 7: disinheritance was ineffective because
Maria, to spite her husband Jorge, "X" had not proved that he in fact
whom she suspected was having an refused to support the testator? Reason.
affair with another woman, executed a
will, unknown to him, bequeathing all the Answer
properties she inherited from her "B" is not entitled to share in the
parents, to her sister Miguela. Upon inheritance not on the ground that
her death, the will was presented for the
probate. Jorge opposed probate of the disinheritance was ineffective because
will on the ground that the will was "X" had not proved that he in fact
executed by his wife without his refused to support the testator. The
knowledge, much less consent, and reason is evident, "B" is not a
that it deprived him of his legitime. compulsory heir. The law on
After all, he had given her no cause for disinheritance applied only to
disinheritance, added Jorge in his compulsory heirs, never to voluntary
opposition. heirs or to legatees or devisees.
Consequently, even assuming that The disinheritance of B is defective
indeed "X" had not proved that "B" or imperfect because there is no
refused to support him, such fact specification of the cause in the will
would not have only effect as required by law. However, the
whatsoever. The act of "X" in institution of
disinheriting "B" is clearly a surplusage. heirs will only be partially annulled
(Note: The above answer is based on insofar as it may prejudice his legitime
Arts, 915, et seq. of the Civil Code.) (Art 918,
Civil Code). Therefore B will still be
Succession; disinheritance, entitled to his legitime which is 1/2
ineffective of 1/2 of P100,000, or P25,000. The
1984 No, 10 legacies, however, are valid so long
A had two legitimate children, namely, B as they are not inofficious (Ibid.) It is
and C. He made a will, instituting G and obvious that the legacy of P10,000 given
a friend, D, as his heirs and giving a to E is not inofficious because it can
P10,000 legacy to E, his former driver. easily be contained in the free
He, however, expressly disinherited B portion of P50,000. Therefore, E will
without specifying the reason therefore. be entitled to such legacy. Since A had
Assuming that A's net estate is worth instituted as heirs his child C and his
P100,000 upon his death, how will it be friend D as heirs without designation
distributed? of shares, therefore, applying the
view of Manresa, which has been
Answer. adopted by commentators in this
A. Furnished by Office of Justice country, Tolentino among them (6
Palma Manresa 98-99; 3 Tolentino 161; Art.
The disinheritance of B is invalid, 846, Civil Code), the legitime of C, which
because there is no specification of is 1/2
the cause therefore. However, the of 1/2 of P100,000 or P25,000, must first
institution of the heirs will only be be separated and allotted to him
partially annulled because the testator cannot deprive him
insofar as it may prejudice his of not. Then, the remainder of P40,000
legitime (Art. 918). The legacies and which is the disposable free portion, will
other testamentary dispositions remain be divided equally between C and D, the
valid insofar as it will not impair his two instituted heirs.
legitime. B therefore gets his legitime Consequently, the estate of
which is 1/4 of the estate, or P100,000.00 will be distributed as
P25,000.00. The legacy of P10,000 to follows:
E will be paid. The balance of the B — P25,000 as compulsory heir; C—
estate of P65,000 will, be divided P25,000 as compulsory heir;
equally between the instituted heirs, C P20,000 as voluntary heir; D—
and D. P20,000 as voluntary heir; E—
P10,000
B. Comments and Suggested Answer as legatee.
We suggest that the following should be
accepted as a correct answer: Succession; disinheritance;
compulsory heirs
1977 No. XII-c descendants, legitimate as well as
Who are compulsory heirs? Give five illegitimate:
(5) instances which shall be sufficient (1) When a child or descendant has
causes for the disinheritance of been found guilty of an attempt against
children and descendants, legitimate the life of the testator, his or her spouse,
as well as illegitimate. descendants, or ascendants;
(2) When a child or descendant has
Answer accused the testator of a crime for
In general, compulsory heirs are which the law prescribes imprisonment
those for whom the law has reserved for six years or more if the
a portion of the testator's estate which is accusation has
known as the legitime. been found groundless;
In particular, the following are (3) When a child or descendant has
compulsory heirs: been convicted of adultery or
(1) Legitimate children and concubinage with the spouse of the
descendants, with respect to their testator;
legitimate parents and ascendants; (4) When a child or descendant by
fraud, violence, intimidation, or
(2) In default of the foregoing, undue
legitimate parents and ascendants, influence causes the testator to make a
with respect to their legitimate children will or to change one already made;
and descendants; (5) A refusal without justifiable cause
(3) The widow or widower; to support the parent or ascendant
(4) Acknowledged natural children and who disinherits such child or
natural children by legal fiction; descendant;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred (6) Maltreatment of the testator by
to in Art. 287. word or deed, by the child or
descendant;
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, (7) When a child or descendant leads a
4, and 5 are not excluded by those in dishonorable or disgraceful life;
Nos, 1 and 2; neither do they exclude (8) Conviction of a crime which carries
one another. In all cases of illegitimate with it the penalty of civil interdiction.
children, their filiation must be duly {Art. 919, Civil Code).
proved.
Succession; disinheritance; grounds
The father or mother of illegitimate 1989 No. 11:
children of the classes mentioned (2) Jose and Ana are husband and
shall wife. On January 10, 1980, Jose learned
inherit from them in the manner and to that Ana was having illicit relations
the extent established by the Civil Code. with Juan, In fact, Jose personally
(Art. saw his wife and Juan leaving a motel
887, Civil Code). on one occasion. Despite all the
evidence he had at hand, Jose did not
The following shall be sufficient causes bring any action for legal separation
for the disinheritance of children and against Ana. Instead, Jose simply
prepared a will wherein he
disinherited Ana for her acts of Answer:
infidelity. The validity of The contention of the collateral heirs
the disinheritance was questioned by of "W" and the administrator of the
Ana upon Jose's death. If you were the estate that the donation made by "W" to
judge, how would you resolve this her friend "F" is void because the
question? Give your reasons. donation is a donation of future property
is untenable. The reason is crystal clear.
Answer: According to the Civil Code, by future
The disinheritance is valid. Under the property is understood anything which
Civil Code, the legal ground for the donor cannot
disinheriting a spouse is that the dispose of at the time of the
spouse has given cause for legal donation. Obviously, "W's" share in
separation. Therefore, a final judgment her husband's
is not needed. estate does not fall within the purview of
the definition. Because of the principle
Alternative Answer: that
The disinheritance is not valid. The facts successional rights are transmitted at
indicate that there was condonation by the very moment of the death of the
Jose of Ana's illicit relationship with decedent,
Juan since they appear to have it is evident that "W" had a perfect right
continued to live together, to donate her share in her husband's
estate
Succession; donation of a spouse’s to her friend "F". (Note: The above
share answer is based on Arts 777 and
1982 No. 10 751 of the Civil Code. The
Committee recommends most
"H" and "W" are husband and respectfully that if the bar candidate
wife. They have neither arrives at the same conclusion by
descendants or ascendants. "H" invoking the provisions of Art. 493 of
died and while the conjugal the Civil Code, he or
partnership was under judicial she should be properly credited.)
administration and pending
liquidation, "W" donated all her Succession; incapacity 1988 No. 7:
share in her husband's estate to a
friend "F". "W" died while the (b) Suppose that the beneficiary
proceeding for the settlement of in a will is the wife of the
the conjugal partnership was minister of the gospel who rendered
pending. The collateral heirs of "W" aid to the testator during the letter's
and the administrator last illness, would she be disqualified
of the estate brought an action from inheriting from the testator?
against the donee, "F", to set aside Explain.
the donation on
the ground that it is void, as it is a Answer:
donation of future property. Decide (b) We believe that the wife of the
with reasons. minister would not be disqualified
from
inheriting from the testator. Under The plane they boarded was of
No. 2 of Art. 1027 of the Civil Code, Philippine registry. While en route from
the law Manila to Greece some passengers
extends the disqualification of priests hijacked the plane, held the chief pilot
and ministers of the gospel to their hostage at the cockpit and ordered him
relatives to fly Instead to Libya. During the
within the fourth degree as well as hijacking Isidro suffered a heart
to the church, order, chapter, attack and was on the verge of
community, organization or institution death. Since Irma
to which they may belong. The was already eight months pregnant
spouse is not included. by Isidro, she pleaded to the
Consequently, such spouse is not hijackers to allow the assistant pilot
disqualified. Otherwise, we would be to solemnize her marriage with Isidro.
reading into the law what is not found Soon after the marriage, Isidro
there. Besides, capacity to succeed expired. As the plane landed in Libya
is the general rule, while incapacity to Irma gave birth. However, the baby died
succeed is the exception. Hence, the a few minutes after complete delivery.
rules on incapacity must always be Back in the Philippines Irma
strictly construed. Immediately filed a claim for
Suggested Alternative Answer To: No. inheritance. The parents of Isidro
7(b): opposed her claim contending that
(b) If the testamentary disposition was the marriage between her and Isidro
actually intended to favor the Minister as was void ab initio on the following
a disqualified person and was ostensibly grounds: (a) they had not given their
made thru an intermediary, namely, the consent to the marriage of their son;
wife, then the Minister is considered (b) there was no marriage license;
disqualified as the real and intended (c) the solemnizing officer had no
heir. authority to perform the marriage;
and, (d) the solemnizing officer did not
Succession; incapacity; effect of file an affidavit of marriage with the
legal separation 1976 No. VI-c proper civil registrar.
In case of a legal separation 2. Does Irma have any successional
between A and the widow, will the rights at all? Discuss fully.
surviving widow inherit? Explain.
Answer;
Answer 2. Irma succeeded to the estate of
It depends. If the widow is the guilty Isidro as his surviving spouse to the
spouse, she cannot inherit. If she is the estate of her legitimate child. When
innocent spouse, she may inherit. Isidro died, he was succeeded by his
(Article 106, paragraph 4 1002) surviving wife Irma, and his legitimate
unborn child. They divided the estate
Succession; intestate heirs 1995 No. equally between them, the child
18: excluding the parents of Isidro. An
Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both 18 unborn child is considered born for all
years of age, were passengers of purposes favorable to it provided it is
Flight No. 317 of Oriental Airlines. born later. The child was considered
born because, having an intra-uterine
life of more than seven months, it SUGGESTED ANSWER:
lived for a few minutes after its (b) The intestate heirs are the two
complete delivery. It was legitimate (2) legitimate children and the two
because it was born within the valid (2)
marriage of the parents. Succession is illegitimate children. In intestacy the
favorable to it. When the child died, Irma estate of the decedent is divided
inherited the share of the child. among the
However, the share of the child in the legitimate and illegitimate children
hands of such that the share of each
Irma is subject to reserva troncal for the illegitimate child is
benefit of the relatives of the child within one - half the share of each legitimate
the third degree of consanguinity and child.
who belong to the line of Isidro. Their share are :
For each legitimate child – P333,333.33
Alternative Answer: For each illegitimate child –
If the marriage is void. Irma has no P166,666.66
successional rights with respect to Isidro Page 123 of 391
but she would have successional rights (Article 983, New Civil Code; Article 176,
with respect to the child. Family Code)

Succession; intestate succession

Succession; intestate heirs and 1992 No 5:
sharing F had three (3) legitimate children: A, B,
1977 No. XIII-b and C. B has one (1) legitimate child X.
Should brothers and sisters of the C has two (2) legitimate children: Y and
full blood survive together with Z. F and A rode together in a car
brothers and sisters of the half blood, and perished together at the same
how much is the former entitled time in a vehicular accident, F and A
compared to that of the latter? died, each of them leaving
substantial estates in intestacy.
Answer a) Who are the intestate heirs of
The former shall be entitled to a F? What are their respective
share double that of the latter (Art. fractional
1006, Civil Code). shares?

Succession; intestate heirs; shares b) Who are the intestate heirs of

2003 No XII. A? What are their respective
(b) Luis was survived by two fractional
legitimate children, two illegitimate shares?
children,
his parents, and two brothers. He left c) If B and C both predeceased
an estate of P1 million. Luis died F, who are Fs intestate heirs? What
intestate. are
Who are his intestate heirs, and how their respective fractional shares? Do
much is the share of each in his estate? they inherit in their own right or by
representation? Explain your answer.
Answer
d) If B and C both repudiated Under Article 996, each shall receive 1/4
their shares in the estate of Ft who as the Civil Code provides that the
are F's widow shall have the same share as that
intestate heirs? What are their of each legitimate child.
respective fractional shares? Do they
inherit in their Succession; intestate succession
own right or by representation? Explain 2000 No XI
your answer, Eugenio died without issue, leaving
Answer: several parcels of land in Bataan. He
(a) B = 1/2 (c) X = 1/2 by was survived by Antonio, his
representation of B C=l/2 legitimate brother; Martina, the only
Y daughter of his predeceased sister
= 1/4 by representation of C Mercedes; and five legitimate children
(b) B = 1/2 Z = 1/4 by of Joaquin, another predeceased
representation of C C= 1/2 brother. Shortly after Eugenio's death,
Article 982 of the Civil Code Antonio also died, leaving three
provides that grandchildren inherit by legitimate children. Subsequently,
right of Martina, the children of Joaquin and
representation. the children of Antonio executed an
(d) X - 1/3 in his own right Y- 1/3 in his extrajudicial settlement of the estate
own right 2 - 1/3 in his own right of Eugenio, dividing it among
themselves. The succeeding year, a
Article 977 of the Civil Code petition to annul the extrajudicial
provides that heirs who repudiate settlement was filed by Antero, an
their share cannot be represented. illegitimate son of Antonio, who
claims he is entitled to share in the
Succession; intestate succession estate of Eugenio. The defendants filed
1976 No. VI-a a motion to dismiss on the ground that
A dies without a will, leaving a modern Antero is barred by Article 992 of
hotel, a fleet of air-conditioned buses the Civil Code from inheriting from the
and three helicopters. If his widow legitimate brother of his father. How will
and brothers survive, how will they you resolve the motion? (5%)
inherit the estate?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Answer The motion to dismiss should be
One-half (1/2) to the widow and 1/2 to granted. Article 992 does not apply.
the brothers and sisters, regardless of Antero is not claiming any inheritance
their number. (Article 1001) from Eugenio. He is claiming his
share in the inheritance of his father
Succession; intestate succession consisting of his father's share in the
1976 No. VI-b inheritance of Eugenio
If the widow and three legitimate (Dela Merced v, Dela Merced, Gr No.
children are left, what will be the 126707, 25 February 1999)
share of the widow? .
Succession; intestate succession was a legitimate son of, and who
1978 No. VI-b predeceased, "T"), and F (his
A, deceased, is survived by a half-sister grandson, being the son of G, a
B on his father's aide and an aunt C his legitimate son who repudiated the
mother's sister. He left as his only inheritance from "T"). His distributable
property that which was inherited net estate is P120.00 0.00.
from his mother. He died intestate.
Who shall succeed to A's estate? How should this amount be shared in
Reasons for your answer. intestacy among the surviving heirs?
Answer:
Answer The legal heirs are A, B, D, and W.
B shall succeed to A's estate. The C is excluded by B who is still alive.
law of intestate succession is explicit. D Inherits in representation of E who
Since both B and C are collateral predeceased. F is excluded because
relatives of the decedent A, therefore, of the repudiation of G, the
the rule of proximity is applicable. predecessor. M is excluded by the
Relatives nearest in degree exclude the legitimate children of T. The answer may
more distant ones, B is a second be premised on two theories: the Theory
degree relative of A, while C is a of Exclusion and the Theory of
third degree relative. Besides, under Concurrence.
the general order of intestate Under the Theory of Exclusion the
succession, brothers and sisters, legitimes of the heirs are accorded
whether of the full or them and the free portion will be
half blood, are always preferred to given exclusively to the legitimate
uncles or aunts. descendants. Hence under the
(NOTE: The above answer is based Exclusion Theory:
on Art. 967, Civil Code, and on Arts. A will get P20.000.00. and P 13.333.33
1004 to 1009, Civil Code. It is suggested (1/3 of the free portion)
that if a bar candidate should also B will get P 20,000.00. and P13. 333.33
discuss (1/3 of the free portion)
the question of whether or not there D will get P20.000.00. and P13. 333.33
is a reserva troncal, this should not (1/3 of the free portion)
prejudice W, the widow is limited to the legitime of
him, provided that he will arrive at P20.000.00
the correct conclusion that A's estate Under the Theory of Concurrence. In
is not addition to their legitimes. the heirs of A,
reservable.) B, D and W will be given equal shares in
the free portions:
Succession; intestate succession A: P20.000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1 /4 of
1997 No. 11: the free portion)
"T" died intestate on 1 September B: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (l/4 of
1997.He was survived by M (his the free portlon)
mother), W (his widow), A and B (his C: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1/4 of
legitimate children), C (his grandson, the free portion)
being the legitimate son of B), D (his W: P20,000.00 plus P10,000.00 (l/4 of
other grandson, being the son of E who the free portion)
Alternative Answer: Shares in Intestacy Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary
T - decedent Estate: estate of P1.2 million. He is survived by
P120.000.00 his widow, three legitimate children,
Page 126 of 391 two legitimate grandchildren sired by
Survived by: a legitimate child who predeceased
M - Mother............................None him, and two recognized illegitimate
W - Widow.............................P children.
30,000.00 Distribute the estate in intestacy. [5%]
A - Son.................................P 30,000.00
B - Answer:
Son.................................P3O.OOO.OO Under the theory of Concurrence, the
C - Grandson (son of B).............None shares are as
D - Grandson (son of E who follows:
predeceased T)................P 30,000.00 A (legitimate child) = P200.OOO
F - Grandson (son of G who B (legitimate child) = P2OO.OOO
repudiated the Inheritance C (legitimate child) = P2OO,OOO
from"T").......................None D (legitimate child) = O (predeceased]
E (legitimate child of D) = P100.0OO -
Explanation: by right of representation
1) The mother (M) cannot inherit F (legitimate child of D) = P100.OOO -
from T because under Art. 985 the by right of representation
ascendants shall inherit in default of G (illegitimate child) = P1OO.OOO - 1/2
legitimate children and descendants share of ft legitimate child
of the deceased. H (illegitimate child) = P100.OOO - 1/2
2) The widow's share is P30.000.00 share of a legitimate child
because under Art, 996 it states that if W (Widow) = P200.0OO - same share
the widow or widower and legitimate as legitimate child
children or descendants are left, the Another Answer:
surviving Page 127 of 391
spouse has in the succession the same Under the theory of Exclusion the free
share as that of each of the children, portion (P300.OOO) is distributed only
3) C has no share because his among the legitimate children and is
father is still alive hence succession given to them in addition to their
by legitime. All
representation shall not apply (Art. 975). other Intestate heirs are entitled only to
4) D inherits P30.000 which is the their respective legitimes. The
share of his father E who predeceased T distribution is
by virtue of Art. 981 on the right of as follows:
representation. Legitime Free Portion
5) F has no share because his father G Total
repudiated the inheritance. Under A [legitimate child) P15O.OOO
Article 977 heirs who repudiate their + P 75,OOO - P225.OOO
share may not be represented. B {legitimate child) P15O.OOO
+ F15O.OOO - P225.OOO
Succession; intestate succession C (legitimate child) P15O.OOO
1998 No XII + P 75.OOO - P225.OOO
D (legitimate child) 0 0 will get nothing. Hence, the estate will
0 be divided as follows:
E (legitimate child of D) P 75,OOO A —5/22
+ P35.5OO - P112.5OO B —5/22
F (legitimate child of D) P 75.OOO F — 5/22
+ P 37.5OO - P112,5OO Pacita — 5/22
G (illegitimate child) P 75.OOO D — 2/22
0 -P 75.5OO
H (illegitimate child) P 75.OOO B. Comments and Suggested Answer
O - P 75.5OO We suggest that the following should be
W (Widow) P15O.OOO accepted as a correct answer:
0 - A shall be entitled to the share of a
P15O.OOO legitimate child. B shall also be entitled
to
Succession; intestate succession the share of a legitimate child.
1984 No, 8 D, being a natural child by legal
Spouses Guillermo and Pacita had three fiction, shall be entitled to one-half
sons, namely, A, B and C. Beset by (1/2) of
quarrels, their marriage broke up. the share of A or B. It must be observed
Guillermo left for and obtained a that Guillermo's marriage to Juana id
divorce in the United States, where void
he subsequently married Juana, by from the point of view of Philippine
whom he had a son, D. Guillermo Law since the decree of absolute
later died in the United States divorce obtained by him against Pacita
without even knowing that C had is not recognized as a valid decree (see
died earlier, leaving a wife, E, and a Arts. 15, 71, 80, No. (4).
legitimate son, F, State the shares, if E shall not participate in the
any, of the following: in the estate of inheritance because she is not a
Guillermo: A, B, D, E, legal heir of Guillermo.
F, Pacita and Juana Pacita however, shall be entitled to
. the same share as A or B, being
Answers: the surviving spouse of Guillermo (Art.
A. Furnished by Office of Justice 999, Civil Code). F, the legitimate son
Palma of C, will inherit by right of
The legitimate sons are entitled to representation. Juana shall not
one (1) share each, together with the participate in the inheritance because
surviving spouse, Pacita. Since divorce she is not a legal heir of Guillermo.
is not recognized, Juana, the second Hence, the proportionate shares of A,
wife, is not an heir and gets nothing. D is B, F, Pacita, and D in the inheritance will
a spurious child and will get 2/5 of the be: (2 for A, 2 for B; 2 for F, 2 for Pacita,
share of a legitimate son, C having and 1 for F or (2:2:2:2:1).
predeceased Guillermo, F, the
legitimate son of C, will inherit by right A's share will be 2/9 of the estate;
of representation. E the wife of C, has D's share will be 2/9 of the estate;
no right of representation and F's share will be 2/9 of the estate;
Pacita's share will be 2/9 of the estate; entitled to it and how much will each
and D's share will be 1/9 of the estate. receive? Discuss.

Succession; intestate succession Answers:

1985 No. 9 A) 1. As regards the house, this
A) Among the properties in the property was acquired by A from his
estate of A, who died intestate grandfather C and was transmitted by A
and without issue, were a farm, to B, his father. There is no reserva
which came from his father, B, and truncal because there is no change of
a house, which he acquired from C, line. Hence, X alone is entitled to inherit
B's father. In the partition of A's the house. With respect to the farm, the
inheritance, the house was allotted farm originally came from B, the father
to B and the farm to D, A's mother. of A, and
Upon the death of B and D, who were from A it went to his mother D,
simultaneously killed in a car accident, There is a change of line from the
the farm was claimed by C and X, a paternal to the
child of B And D born after A's death, maternal line. The farm is reservable
while the house was laimed also by C property and must be acquired by
and X and Y, D's child by a prior relatives within the third degree of the
marriage. Decide the conflicting claims propositus and belonging to the paternal
over the farm and the house in line.
controversy with reasons.
Regarding the sharing, there are two
B) By a letter written before his theories. In the "delayed intestacy
death, the deceased distributed and doctrine," the preferences in the rules
partitioned among his three (3) of intestate succession must be
legitimate sons. A, B, and C, his observed. The second theory is to the
property in such manner that A effect that relatives in the same degree
received 17/24 thereof, B, 1/6 and C, inherit in equal shares without distinction
1/8. The letter not having been made in as to the direct or collateral line. Under
accordance with the formalities required the first theory, the "delayed intestacy
for the execution of wills, B and C theory," C alone will inherit the farm
claimed that their father died intestate because in intestacy, the direct line
and his inheritance should be divided excludes the collateral line. Hence, C,
equally the grandfather, should exclude X, the
among his children. Decide their claims brother of A. Under the second theory;
and distribute the estate among A, B which allows no distinction as to direct
and C stating the reasons in support of or collateral line, C and X will inherit the
your disposition. farm in equal shares since they are both
2nd degree relatives of A, both
C) A, a bachelor, named his brother, B belonging to the paternal line. In any
as heir if his sister, S, dies within 10 case Y does not inherit, since Y is not
years after A's death. B died 2 a reservatario.
years after A's death while S died 1
year later, A's estate" is claimed by B's 2. With respect to the house, the
only child and S's 6 children. Who are property was inherited by B who belongs
to the paternal line. There will be no there is also reserva although it came
reason for making the property from the same line and will also go to C
reservable because there is no for the same reason.
danger of the property going to
another line. Hence, when B died, C 8. The farm should be awarded to
and X belonging to the same line from X, the legitimate child of B, who is
which the property came will inherit it preferred over C, the surviving parent
equally. With respect to the house, of B. The farm is not reservable
not being reservable, the heir of B property having origin-ally come from
will be X alone as the descendant a line to which B likewise belongs
excludes the ascendant. With respect (B in fact, was the donor of the
to the farm being reservable in property). The house shall be
character, C and X belonging to the awarded to C as the preferred
same line from which the property came reservatario. The requisites of reserva
will inherit equally. troncal concurred in the case of the
house since the property was
3. With respect to the farm it will go to acquired by gratuitous title by B from
X and Y. With respect to the house, it C, a paternal
will go to X as the lone child and legal ascendant, and upon the death of A
heir of B. (propositus) the same property went
by
4. There is no reserva and the operation of Law to D (reservista), his
properties will go by intestate mother. Both X and C are reservatarios
succession, the farm going to X and since they belong to the line where
the house going to C, since there is the property originally came from and
no showing that the properties were related within three degrees from the
received by B and D by operation propositus but since C belongs to the
of law as the question merely says direct line of A and X being only a
that they were "allotted" in the partition, collateral relative, C would be preferred
and by the propositus A by gratuitous over X.
title as the question merely says that
the farm "came" from his father B B) 1. Under Art, 1080 of the Civil Code,
and a house which he "acquired" a person may partition his property by
from C, B's father without stating an act inter vivos or by will. Under our
whether it "came" or was "acquired" present law, there is no need for the
by gratuitous title. owner of the property to make a valid
will. However, the partition inter vivos
6. In the event that both farm and house made by him must not prejudice the
were acquired by gratuitous title and legitimes. In this particular case, the
were inherited by B and D by partition prejudices the legitime of C
operation of law, there is in both because actually each one should get
cases reserva because reserva can 1/6, or 1/3 of 1/2, of his estate or 4/24.
exist although the properties come from The partition made here is 17/24 which
the same line. Hence, the farm will go to is 1/24 in excess of what he ought to
C because the direct line excludes the get, therefore, the final distribution
collateral line. As regards the house, should be:
A = 16/24 which includes the whole does not comply with the requirements
1/2 plus 1/3 of the other half B = is of the
entitled only to 4/24 and C = 4/24 will, intestate succession will follow.

2. Since the letter was not made in 6. A shall be entitled to 4/6, B to

accordance with the formalities required 1/6 and C to 1/6 of the estate.
for the execution of wills, the father died Under Art, 1080 of the Civil Code, a
intestate. Hence, A, B and C will divide person may partition his estate
the inheritance equally. during his lifetime. Unlike that which
obtained during the regime of the old
3. Despite the fact that a will is no Civil Code, the present Code would
longer required for the execution of appear to permit a person to distribute
a partition inter vivos within the his estate during his lifetime without
meaning of the law, nevertheless, the having to execute a will. A conflict of
different formalities which are views among Civil Law commentators
necessary in order to convey arises only where the participants in
property must still be complied with. the partition, or some of them, are
Hence, A, B and C will divide the voluntary heirs. Since those who were
inheritance equally. given entitlement under the partition
were all legitimate children, and there
4. B and C are correct. While it is very being no one apparently preterited the
true that the letter of the deceased did partition can take effect but without
not comply with the formalities required prejudice to their respective legitimes.
for the, execution of the wills, The share given to C is less than his
nevertheless, under the law, a partition legitime for which
inter vivos may be effected provided, of reason that share must be increased to
course, that there will be compliance 1/6 of the estate.
with all of the formalities required
for ordinary conveyance of properties C) 1. The estate of A will be distributed
such as when real properties are in intestacy among the 6 children of S
involved. In other words, the partition and the child of B. The condition
that was effected by means of a embodied by A was ineffective
letter does not state that all of the because B died
formalities prescribed for ordinary ahead of S. Hence, the condition
conveyances of properties are complied was not fulfilled while B was alive.
with. Intestate
succession for B and S will be
5. This is not a partition because determined as to the rights existing
partition presupposes a on A's death,
division/separation of a property. This is hence, one-half will go to the children of
merely assigning an aliquot portion of S and the other half to the child of B.
the property. Therefore, it is not a real 2. Only the 6 children of 3 will get the
partition contemplated under Article property because the heir died before
1080. It should follow the the fulfillment of the condition.
requirements of a will, and because it
3. From the wording of the facts in the widower, the latter shall be entitled to
case, it would appear that S is the heir one-half of the inheritance and the
and that if 3 died within 10 years after brothers and sisters or their children to
A's death, then B gets it, not the children the other half." Tessie's gross estate
of S. If S died after B, the children of S consists of a house and lot acquired
get it. during her marriage, making it part of
the community property. Thus, one-
4. In a conditional institution, such as half of the said property would have to
what has arisen in the problem, the be set aside as Mario's conjugal share
instituted heir must survive not only from the community
the testator but likewise the fulfillment property. The other half, amounting to
of the condition in the will (Art. 1034). one million pesos, is her conjugal share
Since B did not survive that condition, (net
the institution in his favor could not be estate), and should be distributed to
operative. The estate, therefore, her intestate heirs. Applying the
assuming that there are no above
other relatives other than those named provision of law, Michelle and Jorelle,
in the problem, would be the child of B Tessie's nieces, are entitled to one-half
and the six children of S, who would of her
get it in equal shares (per capita), conjugal share worth one million pesos,
each receiving 1/7 of the estate (Art. or 500,000 pesos, while the other one-
975). half
amounting to P5OO,OOO will go to
Succession; intestate succession Mario, Tessie's surviving spouse.
1998 No XI. Michelle and
Tessie died survived by her husband Jorelle are then entitled to P250,000
Mario, and two nieces, Michelle and pesos each as their hereditary share.
Jorelle, who are the legitimate children Succession; intestate succession
of an elder sister who had predeceased 1977 No. XII-a
her. X is the adulterous son of A and B and
Page 131 of 391 when he died in 1970 without a will,
The only property she left behind he was survived only by his father A
was a house and lot worth two and his widow W: How would you
million pesos, divide his
which Tessie and her husband had estate valued at P100,000.00?
acquired with the use of Mario's savings Answer
from his A shall be entitled to 1/2 of the
income as a doctor. How much of the estate, while W shall be entitled also
property or its value, if any, may to 1/2.
Michelle and True, there is no express provision of
Jorelle claim as their hereditary shares? the New Civil Code which directly
[5%] governs this
Answer: situation, but this solution is the most
Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides, equitable. Besides, in testamentary
"Should brothers and sisters or their
children survive with the widow or
succession, the legitime of A is 1/2 of
X's estate, while the legitime of W is If the decedent is an adopted
also 1/2 person, and his natural parents are
(Art. 903, Civil Code); and in already dead, then the adopter shall
intestate succession, had A been a take the place of such parents in the
legitimate parent, above orders of succession (Art. 39,
his share would have been only 1/2, No. 4, P.D. No. 603),
while the share of W would also be
1/2 (Art. Succession; intestate succession
997, Civil code). These rules should be 1999 No II.
applied by analogy. Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are
childless, met with a serious motor
Succession; intestate succession vehicle
1977 No. XI-c accident with Mr. Cruz at the wheel
State the order of intestate succession. and Mrs. Cruz seated beside him,
Answer resulting in
We must distinguish between the the instant death of Mr. Cruz. Mrs. Cruz
order of intestate succession if the was still alive when help came but she
decedent is a legitimate person and also died on the way to the hospital. The
the order if said decedent is an couple acquired properties worth One
illegitimate person, Million (PI,000,000.00) Pesos during
If the decedent is a legitimate person, their marriage, which are being claimed
the order is: by the parents of both spouses in
(1) Legitimate children or descendants. equal shares. Is the claim of both
(2) Legitimate parents or ascendants, sets of parents valid and why? (3%)
(3) Illegitimate children or descendants.
(4) The surviving spouse subject to ANSWER:
the concurrent right of brothers and (a) No, the claim of both parents is
sisters, nephews and nieces. not valid. When Mr. Cruz died, he
(5) Brothers and sisters, nephews and was
nieces. succeeded by his wife and his parents
(6) Other collateral relatives within the as his intestate heirs who will share his
fifth degree. estate
(7) The state. equally. His estate was 0.5 Million
pesos which is his half share in the
If the decedent is an illegitimate person, absolute
the order is: community amounting to 1 Million
(1) Legitimate children or descendants. Pesos. His wife, will, therefore,
(2) Illegitimate children or descendants. inherit O.25
(3) Parents by nature, Million Pesos and his parents will inherit
(4) The surviving spouse subject to 0.25 Million Pesos. When Mrs. Cruz
the concurrent right of brothers and died, she was succeeded by her
sisters, nephews and nieces. parents as her intestate
(5) Brothers and sisters, nephews and heirs. They will inherit all of her estate
nieces. consisting of her 0.5 Million half share in
(6) The State. the
ab-solute community and her 0.25 she inherited from her child was subject
Million inheritance from her husband, or to reserva troncal for the benefit of
a total of the relatives of the child within the
0.750 Million Pesos. In sum, the parents third degree of consanguinity and who
of Mr. Cruz will inherit 250,000 Pesos belong to the family of Mr. Luna, the line
while the parents of Mrs. Cruz will where the property came from.
inherit 750,000 Pesos. When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived
by her parents as her only heirs. Her
Succession; intestate succession parents will inherit her estate consisting
1999 No VIII, of the 5 Million she inherited from Mr.
(b.) Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Luna. The other 5 Million she inherited
Ten Million (PI 0,000,000.00) Pesos, His from her child will be delivered to the
widow gave birth to a child four months parents of Mr. Luna as beneficiaries of
after Mr, Luna's death, but the child died the reserved property. In sum, 5
five hours after birth. Two days after Million Pesos of Mr. Luna's estate
the child's death, the widow of Mr. will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna,
Luna also died because she had while the other 5 Million Pesos will
suffered from difficult childbirth. The go to the parents of Mr. Luna as
estate of Mr. Luna is now being Reservatarios.
claimed by his parents, and the
parents of his widow. Who is entitled ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
to Mr. If the child had an intra-uterine life of not
Luna'a estate and why? (5%) less than 7 months, it inherited from the
father. In which case, the estate of 10M
ANSWER: will be divided equally between the child
(b.) Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go and the widow as legal heirs. Upon the
to the parents of Mrs. Luna as their death of the child, its share of 5M shall
inheritance from Mrs. Luna, while the go by operation of law to the mother,
other half will be inherited by the which shall be subject to reserva troncal.
parents of Mr. Luna as the Under Art. 891, the reserva is in favor
reservatarios of the reserved property of relatives belonging to the paternal
inherited by Mrs. Luna from her child. line and who are within 3 degrees
When Mr. Luna died, his heirs were his from the child. The parents of Mr, Luna
wife and the unborn child. The unborn are entitled to the reserved
child inherited because the inheritance portion which is 5M as they are 2
was favorable to it and it was born alive degrees related from child. The 5M
later though it lived only for five inherited by Mrs. Luna from Mr. Luna
hours. Mrs. Luna inherited half of the will be inherited from her by her parents.
10 Million estate while the unborn child
inherited the other half. When the child However, if the child had intra-uterine
died, it was survived by its mother, Mrs. life of less than 7 months, half of
Luna. As the only heir, Mrs. Luna the estate of Mr. Luna, or 5M, will be
inherited, by operation of law, inherited by the widow (Mrs. Luna),
the estate of the child consisting of while the other half, or 5M, will be
its 5 Million inheritance from Mr. inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna.
Luna. In the hands of Mrs. Luna, what Upon the death of Mrs. Luna, her
estate of 5M will be inherited by her own one-half (1/2) of the estate by
parents. substitution; Fe shall be entitled to
one-fourth (1/4) as surviving spouse;
Succession; intestate succession and Gerardo shall be entitled to one-
1986 No. 12: fourth
Carlos, legitimate son of Jaime and (1/4) as illegitimate child, (Note: The
Maria, was legally adopted by above answer is based upon Arts,
Josefa. Both Jaime and Maria died soon 984 and 100 Civil Code and upon
after the adoption. Carlos, himself died Art. 39, No. (4), P.D. 603).
in 1986. His survivors are Josefa, his
legitimate maternal grandparents Daniel Answer - Under P.D. 603, the adopter
and Rosa, his wife Fe and his takes place of the parents by nature if
acknowledged natural son, Gerardo. the latter are dead, both as a
How should the estate of Carlos compulsory and a legal heir. Therefore,
worth P800,000.00 be apportioned as the adopted is survived by his
among wife, an acknowledged son and his
the above survivors? Explain. maternal grandparents, adopter
inherits in the same way as a
Answer: legitimate parent, and they will share
The estate of Carlos worth P800,000 as follows:
should be apportioned as follows: 1. Josefa-----------------------------1/2
Josefa - one-half, or P400.000.00; Fe(wife)—---------------------- 1/4
2. Fe - one-fourth, or P200.000.00, and Gerardo-------------------------- 1/4
3. Gerardo - one-fourth, or P200.000.00. (acknowledged natural child)
As a rule, the adopter cannot inherit
from the adopted child by intestate Succession; intestate succession
succession. If the adopted child dies 1987 No. 4:
intestate, leaving no child or Angel died intestate leaving
descendant, his parents and relatives considerable properties accumulated
by consanguinity and not by adoption during 25 years of marriage. He is
shall be his legal heirs. survived by his widow, a legally adopted
son, the child of a deceased legitimate
There is, however, an exception to daughter, two illegitimate children
has rule According to the law, if the duly recognized by Angel before his
parents by death and his ailing 93-year old
nature of the adopted child are both mother who has wholly dependent on
dead, the adopter takes place of such him. How would you distribute the estate
parents in the line of succession, indicating by fractions the portions of the
whether testate or intestate. following who claim to be entitled to
Therefore, in the instant problem, inherit:
Josefa shall take place of Jaime and
Maria. The grandparents Daniel and (a) the widow?
Rosa are therefore- excluded. (b) the adopted son?
Consequently, applying the rules of (c) the child of the deceased legitimate
intestacy, Josefa shall be entitled to daughter?
(d) the two recognized illegitimate intestate in an automobile accident in
children? the
(e) the mother? Answer: United States leaving valuable
a. the widow - 1/4 properties in the Philippines both
b. the adopted son - 1/4 inherited by him
c. the child of the deceased legitimate from his parents as well as acquired
daughter - 1/4 during his marriage to BG. How would
d. the two "recognized illegitimate BG and
children" — we must distinguish: her two children and the Filipina
nurse and her two children share in
Assuming that the two recognized the estate of
illegitimate children are natural RD. Give reasons for your answer.
children, Answer
then each of them will get 1/8. Before we can determine the shares of
Upon the other hand, if they are the claimants to the estate of RD, let
recognized spurious children then us first determine what is the estate of
each of RD and what is the status of the
them will get 2/5 of 1/4 of the estate. claimants in
The remaining 1/5 of 1/4 will be relation to RD,
distributed as Estate of RD: As far as the properties
follows: acquired by RD during his marriage to
Under the theory of concurrence, that BG are concerned, 1/2 thereof
1/5 of 1/4 will be divided equally among should be included in his estate and
the widow, the adopted son and the 1/2 should be
child of the deceased legitimate given to BG since they are conjugal
daughter. in character. As far as the properties
Under the theory of exclusion that 1/5 of inherited
1/4 will be divided equally between by him from his parents are
the adopted son and the child of the concerned, since they are exclusive
deceased legitimate daughter. or separate in
character, they must also be included in
e. the mother - will get nothing, his estate,
Status of the claimants: BG is the
Succession; intestate succession surviving spouse of RD. The decree
1979 No. II of
RD and BG, both Filipinos were absolute divorce secured by RD in
married and lived in Manila. They the United States is not valid. In the
begot 2 children and after some years first place,
of marriage, RD, being a physician, went we adhere to the nationality theory.
to the United States. After staying there Philippine laws shall be binding upon
for two years, RD got attached to a Filipino
Filipina nurse. He got a quick divorce citizens wherever they are with respect
on the ground of desertion and then to family rights and duties as well as
married the Filipina nurse with whom status,
he also begot 2 children. RD died
condition and legal capacity. And in the Succession; intestate succession;
second place, there is a declaration of order of succession and sharing 1982
public No. 14
policy in this country against absolute "X" died intestate, leaving two sons
divorce. Such a declaration of public "A" and "B"; two grandchildren "C"
policy and "D", the children of the deceased
cannot be rendered nugatory by the daughter of "B"; and another
decree of absolute divorce secured grandchild "F", the daughter of "A".
RD in a Who will succeed to the estate of
foreign country. Therefore, the marriage "X" and how will they divide the
of RD to the Filipina nurse is not valid. It inheritance?
is
bigamous under the Philippine law. Answer:
Hence, the nurse is not related to RD Among the survivors, only the following
under our shall participate in the division of the
law of succession. It is different in the inheritance: "A", in his own right; "B",
case of the two children. Being born of a in his own right; and "C" and "D",
void by right of
marriage, they are classified as representation, "F", the daughter of "A",
natural children by legal fiction, and cannot participate because she is
are, therefore, excluded by the latter applying the
entitled to the same rights as rule of proximity. Consequently, the
acknowledged natural children, inheritance shall be
Division of the estate of RD: It is clear divided as follows:
that only BG, as surviving spouse, the
two legitimate children of RD and BG, "A" — one-third (1/3) of the inheritance;
and the two natural children by legal "B" — one-third (1/3) of the inheritance;
fiction of RD will be able to inherit. "C" — one-half (1/2) of one-third
The Filipina nurse cannot. Since RD (1/3) of the inheritance by right of
died intestate, the proportions representation;
established under our law on legitime is "D" —one-half (1/2) of one-third
applicable. In the instant case, the (1/3) of the inheritance by right of
proportions will be 10 for BG; 10 for representation.
each of the legitimate children; and 5
for each of the natural children. Stated Succession; joint wills
in another way, the two legitimate 2000 No III.
children shall
be entitled to 1/2, or 1/4, each, of the a} Manuel, a Filipino, and his
entire estate of RD; BG shall be entitled American wife Eleanor, executed a
to the same share as each of the Joint Will in Boston, Massachusetts
legitimate children, or 1/4 of the when they were residing in said
entire estate; and the two natural city. The law of Massachusetts
children by legal fiction shall be entitled allows the execution of joint wills.
to the balance of 1/4 or 1/8 each of the Shortly thereafter, Eleanor died.
entire estate. Can the said Will be probated in
the Philippines for the settlement be revoked by operation of law.
of her estate? However, if the will was executed
(3%) subsequent to the legal separation,
undoubtedly, the wife will then be able to
SUGGESTED ANSWER; inherit from her husband.
Yes, the will may be probated in the
Philippines insofar as the estate of The reason is obvious. There is a tacit
Eleanor is concerned. While the Civil or implied pardon. (Note: The above
Code prohibits the execution of Joint answers are based on No. 4 of Art.
wills here and abroad, such 106 of the Civil. The
prohibition applies only to Filipinos. last part regarding tacit pardon — is
Hence, the where executed is valid in based on Art. 1033 by analogy.)
the Philippines but only with respect
to Eleanor. Succession; legitime 2003 No XII.

Under Article 819, it is void with (a) Luis was survived by two
respect to Manuel whose joint will legitimate children, two illegitimate
remains void in children, his parents, and two
the Philippines despite being valid brothers. He left an estate of P1
where executed. million. Who are the compulsory
heirs of Luis, how much is the
Succession; legal separation; effect legitimate of each, and how much is
1982 No. 5 the free portion of his estate, if any?
The husband was granted a decree
of legal separation on the ground of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
adultery on the part of the wife. May the (a) The compulsory heirs are the two
wife inherit from the husband — legitimate children and the two
(a) By intestate succession? illegitimate children. The parents are
(b) By will? Reasons. excluded by the legitimate children,
Answer while the brothers are not compulsory
(a) The wife in the instant case cannot heirs at all. Their respective legitimate
inherit from her husband by intestate are:
succession. According to the Civil (1) The legitimate of the two (2)
Code, the offending spouse shall be legitimate children is one half (1/2) of the
disqualified estate (P500,000.00) to be divided
from inheriting from the innocent spouse between them equally, or P250,000.00
by intestate succession. each.
(b) It depends. If the will was executed
prior to the legal separation, it is clear (2) The legitimate of each illegitimate
that in effect the wife cannot inherit from child is one-half (1/2) the legitimate of
her husband. According to the Civil each legitimate child or P125,000.00.
Code, Since the total legitimate of the
provisions in favor of the offending compulsory heirs is P750,000.00, the
spouse made in the will of the innocent balance
one shall of P250,000.00 is the free portion.
Succession; legitime 1997 No. 12: A- (son who repudiated his inheritance)
None (Art. 977)
"X", the decedent, was survived by B - (Granddaughter) None
W (his widow). A (his son), B (a C - (Acknowledged illegitimate child)
granddaughter, being the daughter P45.000.00 (Art.998)
of A) and C and D (the two D - (Acknowledged illegitimate child)
acknowledged illegitimate children of P45,000.00 (Art. 998)
the decedent). "X" died this year The acknowledged illegitimate child
(1997) leaving a net estate of gets 1/2 of the share of each
PI80,000.00. All were willing to legitimate
succeed, except A who repudiated child.
the inheritance from his father,
and they seek your legal advice Succession; legitime 1982 No. 12
on how much each can expect to
receive as their respective shares in The testator has three children "A",
the distribution of the estate. "B", and "C"; a wife "W"; a father "F";
Give your answer. an acknowledged natural child "N";
and an adulterous child "T". "A"
Answer: is a handicapped child, and the
The heirs are B, W, C and D. A inherits testator wants to leave to him as
nothing because of his renunciation. much of his estate as he can legally
B inherits a legitime of P90.000.00 as do under the law. State the specific
the nearest and only legitimate aliquot parts of the estate that the
descendant, testator can leave "A", "B", and "C",
inheriting in his own right not by as well as to his other
representation because of A's aforementioned relatives. State how
renunciation. W gets you arrive at the result. (Assume a
a legitime equivalent to one-half (1 / net estate of P1,200,000.00 and
2) that of B amounting to P45.000. that all of the
C and D above named relatives survived the
each gets a legitime equivalent to one- testator.)
half (1/2) that of B amounting to
P45.000.00 each. But since the total Answer
exceeds the entire estate, their legitimes Under the law on legitime, the
would have to be reduced survivors shall be entitled to the
corresponding to P22.500.00 each (Art. following legitime:
895. CC). 1. "A", "B" and "C"-one-half of the
estate which they shall divide in equal
The total of all of these amounts to shares. Since the net value of the
P180.000.00. estate is Pl,200,000.00 each of them
Alternative Answer: shall,
INTESTATE SUCCESSION therefore, be entitled to P200,000.00.
ESTATE: P180,000.00 2. "W" — the same as each of the
W- (widow gets 1/2 share) legitimate children, or P200,000.
P90.000.00 (Art. 998)
3. "F" — none.- "F" cannot With regard to the 1/2 already owned at
participate in the succession because the time of the execution of the will,
he is C alone will get the property by right
excluded by the legitimate children of of institution and accretion.
the testator. 2. The half of the property existing
4. "N" — one-half of the legitime at the time of the execution of the
of each of the legitimate children, or will should go to C, the portion
P100,000.00. pertaining to him in his own right
5. "T" _ four-fifths of the legitimate of and the portion pertaining to B by right
"N" or two-fifths of the legitime of either of accretion.
"A" or "B" or "C", or P80,000.00
Thus, the disposable free portion is The other half acquired after the
P220,000. If the testator so desires, execution of the will passes by
he intestacy, equally to C in his own right
can leave this disposable portion to his and to D in representation of B.
son "A".
(Note: The above answer is based on 3. The whole estate will go to the
Art. 888, 892, 895, 897 and 898 of the second brother C by right of accretion
Civil Code,) and B gets nothing.

Succession; order of succession and 4. With respect to the will as made by

sharing; right of representation, the testator B is a voluntary heir. He
institution, accretion transmits no right to his heir D, therefore
1985 No. 8 his share in the will 'goes to the other
heir by right of accretion. As to the
In a will executed in 1970, A instituted properties which are not covered by the
his two (2) legitimate brothers, B and will, intestate succession will follow and
C, as sole heirs to all the properties herefore the legal heirs will be the
he then owned. B died in 1975, brother and the niece
survived by his legitimate daughter, to inherit equally.
D, while A died last year, leaving
an estate, 1/2 of which was 5. The 1970 will appears to have only
acquired after the execution of his covered the property which the testator
will. had at the time of its execution.
Accordingly, the half which wag
Who will succeed A, how much and acquired by him after the execution of
by what right will the heir or each of the will would be governed by the law on
the heirs, if more than one, inherit? intestacy. As regards the other half,
Reason out your answer. disposed under the will, the property
should go to C by right of
Answer: accretion considering that the
1. Regarding 1/2 acquired after the institution in favor of B and C was
execution of the will it will be inherited by pro-indiviso (Art. 1015). The other
both D and C( C in his own right and D half, acquired after the execution of
by right of representation because this the will, will be distributed in intestacy
1/2 is inherited by intestate succession. and assuming that the only legal
heirs are those named in the (a) Mr. Cruz, widower, has three
problem, such portion shall be equally legitimate children, A, B and C. He
divided between C (legitimate brother of executed a Will instituting as his
the deceased) and D (niece of the heirs to his estate of One Million
deceased) by right of representation (P1,000,000.00) Pesos his two
(Art. 1005). children A and B, and his friend
F. Upon his death, how should Mr.
Succession; partition 1977 No. XI-b Cruz's estate be divided? Explain.
Discuss briefly the right of a testator to (3%)
partition his estate among his heirs in
the last will. (b) In the preceding question,
Answer suppose Mr. Cruz instituted his two
(NOTE: Either of the following should children A and B as his heirs in
constitute a sufficient answer.) his Will, but gave a legacy of P
First Answer 100,000.00 to his friend F. How
If the testator has no compulsory heirs, should the estate of Mr, Cruz be
he may partition his estate in favor of divided upon his death? Explain, (2%)
any person having capacity to succeed.
If he has compulsory heirs, he may ANSWER:
partition his estate provided that he does (a) Assuming that the institution of A, B
not contravene the provisions of the Civil and F were to the entire estate, there
Code with regard to the legitime of said was preterition of C since C is a
heirs. (See Art. 842, Civil Code,) compulsory heir in the direct line. The
preterition will result in the total
Second Answer annulment of the institution of heirs.
Under the Civil Code, the testator Therefore, the institution of A,
may partition his estate either by an B and F will be set aside and Mr.
act Cuz's estate will be divided, as in
inter vivos or by a will. In either case, intestacy, equally
such partition shall be respected, insofar among A, B and C as follows: A •
as it P333,333.33; B - P333.333.33; and
does not prejudice the legitime of his C -
compulsory heirs (Art. 1080). He may P333,333.33.
even
entrust the mere power to make the (b| On the same assumption as
partition to a third person (Art. 1081); letter (a), there was preterition of C.
and if he Therefore, the institution of A and B is
so desires, he may even prohibit the annulled but the legacy of P100.000.00
partition, in which case the period of to F shall be respected for not being
indivision inofficious. Therefore, the remainder of
shall not exceed -twenty years (Art. P900.000.00 will be divided equally
1083). among A, B and C.

Succession; preterition 1999 No VII. Succession; preterition 2001 No VI

Because her eldest son Juan had by institution in the will, to be
been pestering her for capital to divided equally among them. Each
start a business, Josefa gave him will receive
P100,000. Five years later, Josefa P225,000.
died, leaving a last will and
testament In which she instituted ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
only her four younger children as her Assuming that the donation is valid
sole heirs. At the time of her as to form and substance, Juan
death, her only properly left was cannot invoke preterition because he
P900,000.00 in a bank. Juan actually had received a donation inter
opposed the will on the ground of vivos from the testatrix (III Tolentino
preterition. How should Josefa's 188,1992 ed.). He would only have a
estate be divided among her heirs? right to a completion of his legitime
State briefly the reason(s) for your under Art. 906 of the Civil Code.
answer. (5%) The estate should be divided equally
among the five children who will
SUGGESTED ANSWER each receive P225,000.00 because
There was no preterition of the the total hereditary estate, after
oldest son because the testatrix collating the donation to Juan (Art.
donated 100,000 pesos to him. This 1061, CC), would be P1 million. In
donation is considered an advance the actual distribution of the net
on the son's inheritance. There being estate, Juan gets nothing while his
no preterition, the institutions in the will siblings will get P225,000.00 each.
shall be respected but the legitime of the
oldest son has to be completed if he Succession; preterition;
received less. substitutions; compulsory heirs 1988
After collating the donation of No. 6:
P100.000 to the remaining property
of P900,000, the estate of the (a) What is preterition? What are its
testatrix is P1,000,000. Of this requisites? What is its effect?
amount, one-half or P500,000, is the (b) What are the different
legitime of the legitimate children and it limitations imposed by law upon
follows that the legitime of one fideicommissary
legitimate child is P100,000. The substitutions?
legitime, therefore, of the oldest son (c) Who are compulsory heirs?
is
P100,000. However, since the Answer:
donation given him was P100,000, Preterition or pretermission, as it is
he has already sometimes called may be defined as the
received in full his legitime and he omission in the testator's will of one,
will not receive anything anymore some, or all of the compulsory heirs
from the in the direct line, whether living at
decedent. The remaining P900,000, the time of the execution of the will
therefore, shall go to the four younger or born after the death of the testator
children (Art. 854, CC). Stated in another
way, it consists in the omission in the
testator's will of the compulsory heirs in (4) Acknowledged natural children and
the direct line, or of anyone of them, natural children by legal fiction;
either because they are not mentioned (5) Other illegitimate children referred to
therein, or, though mentioned, they in article 287.
are neither instituted as heir nor
expressly disinherited (Neri vs. Akutin, Compulsory heirs mentioned in
74 Phil 185; Nuguid vs. Nuguid, 17 numbers 3, 4, and 5 are not
SCRA449). Its requisites are: excluded by those in numbers 1 and 2;
(1) The heir omitted must be a neither do they exclude one another.
compulsory heir in the direct line; Compulsory heirs mentioned in
(2) The omission must be total and numbers 3, 4, and 5 are not
complete; and excluded by those in numbers 1 and 2;
(3) The omitted heir must survive the neither do they exclude one another. In
testator. all cases of illegitimate children, their
The effect is to annul entirely the filiation must be duly proved.
institution of heirs but legacies and
devises The father or mother of illegitimate
shall be valid insofar as they are not children of the classes mentioned
inofficious, (Art, 854, CC.) shall inherit from them in the manner
and to the extent established by the Civil
(b) There are four limitations. They are: Code. (Art. 887, CC.)
(1) The substitution must not go beyond
one degree from the heir originally
instituted (Art. 863, CC). Succession; probate 1988 No. 5:
(2) The fiduciary and the
fideicommissary must be living at the (a) In probate proceedings, what
time of the death of the testator (Ibid). are the only questions which a
(3) The substitution must not burden probate court can determine?
the legitime of compulsory heirs (Art. (b) A presented for probate a will
864, CC). purporting to be the last will and
(4) The substitution must be made testament of his deceased wife.
expressly (Art. 865, par. l. CC.) The will was admitted to probate
(c) In general, compulsory heirs are without any opposition. Sixteen
those for whom the law has reserved a months later, the brothers and
portion of the testator's estate which is sisters of the deceased discovered
known as the legitime. that the will was a forgery. Can A
In particular, the following are now be prosecuted for the criminal
compulsory heirs: offense of forgery? Give your
{1} Legitimate children and reasons.
descendants, with respect to their
legitimate parents and ascendants; Answer:
(2) In default of the foregoing, (a) Under our law, there are only
legitimate parents and ascendants, three possible questions which can
with respects to their legitimate children be
and descendants; determined by the probate court. They
(3) The widow or widower; are;
 (1) Whether or not the instrument Succession; probate of notarial and
which is offered for probate is the holographic wills 1997 No. 10:
last will and testament of the
decedent; in other words, the Johnny, with no known living
question is one of identity. relatives, executed a notarial will
(2) Whether or not the will giving all his estate to his
has been executed in sweetheart. One day, he had a
accordance with the formalities serious altercation with his
prescribed by law; in other words, sweetheart. A few days later, he
the question is one of due was introduced to a charming lady
execution. who later became a dear friend.
(3) Whether or not the Soon after, he executed a
testator had the necessary holographic will expressly revoking
testamentary capacity at the the notarial will and so designating
time of the execution of the will; in his new friend as sole heir. One day
other words, the question is one when he was clearing up his desk,
of capacity. Consequently, the Johnny mistakenly burned, along
probate court cannot inquire with other papers, the only copy
into the intrinsic validity of of his holographic will. His business
testamentary dispositions. associate, Eduardo. knew well the
contents of the will which was
(b) A can no longer be prosecuted for shown to him by Johnny the day
the criminal offense of forgery. This is it was executed. A few days after
so because, according to the last the burning Incident, Johnny died.
paragraph of Art. 838 of the Civil Code, Both wills were sought to be
subject to the right of appeal the probated in two separate
allowance of the will, either during petitions. Will either or both petitions
the lifetime of the testator or after his prosper?
death, shall be conclusive as to its
due execution. Since sixteen months Answer:
have already elapsed from the The probate of the notarial will will
allowance of the will to the time when prosper. The holographic will
the forgery was discovered, there is cannot be admitted to probate
now no possible remedy of impugning because a holographic will can only be
the validity of the will. probated upon evidence of the will
Itself unless there Is a photographic
Even a petition to set aside a judgment copy. But since the holographic will
or order of a Court of First Instance on was lost and there was no other
the ground of fraud in accordance with copy, it cannot be probated and
Secs. 2 and 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of therefore the notarial will will be
Court is no longer possible because admitted to probate because there is no
more than six months from the time revoking will.
of the promulgation of the judgment
or order have already elapsed. Additional Answers;
(Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil 215.) 1. In the case of Gan vs. Yap (104 Phil
509), the execution and the contents of
a lost or destroyed holographic for the probate of the notarial will should
will may NOT be proved by the prosper.
bare testimony of witnesses who
have seen or read such will. The Succession; probate of wills of aliens
will itself must be presented otherwise 1989 No. 10:
it shall produce no effect. The law
regards the document itself as material (2) "X", a Spanish citizen and a
proof of authenticity. Moreover, in order resident of Los Angeles, California,
that a will may be revoked by a executed a will in Tokyo, Japan. May
subsequent will, it is necessary such will be probated in the
that the latter will be valid and Philippines? May his estate located
executed with the formalities in the Philippines be distributed in
required for the making of a will. conformity with the provisions of
The latter should possess all the the said will? Give your reasons.
requisites of a valid will whether it
be ordinary or a holographic will, Answer:
and should be probated in A. Yes, it may be made according
order that the revocatory clause to the formalities of Spanish law,
thereof may produce effect. In the California law, Japanese law, or
case at bar, since the holographic will Philippine law.
itself cannot be presented, it cannot B. Yes, provided that the provisions
therefore be probated. conform to the order of succession and
the amount of successional rights as
Since it cannot be probated, it regulated by Spanish law.
cannot revoke the notarial will
previously written by Succession; probate; intrinsic
the decedent. validity 1990 No 9:

2. On the basis of the Rules of H died leaving a last will and

Court, Rule 76, Sec. 6, provides testament wherein it is stated that he
that no will shall be proved as a was legally married to W by whom he
lost or destroyed will *** unless its had two legitimate children A and B.
provisions are clearly and distinctly H devised to his said forced heirs
proved by at least two (2) credible the entire estate except the free
witnesses. Hence, if we abide strictly by portion which he gave to X who
the two-witness rule to prove a lost was living with him at the time of his
or destroyed will, the holographic will death.
which Johnny allegedly mistakenly
burned, cannot be probated, since In said will he explained that he had
there is only one witness, Eduardo, been estranged from his wife W for
who can be called to testify as to more than 20 years and he has
the existence of the will. If the been living with X as husband and
holographic will, which purportedly, wife since his separation from his
revoked the earlier notarial will cannot legitimate family. In the probate
be proved because of the absence of proceedings, X asked for the
the required witness, then the petition issuance of letters testamentary
in accordance with the will wherein the intrinsic validity of the provisions
she is named sole executor. This was of said will. (Nuguid v. Nuguid, etal..
opposed by W and her children. No. L-
23445, June 23, 1966, 17 SCRA;
(a) Should the will be admitted in Nepomuceno v. CA, L-62952, 9
said probate proceedings? October 1985.
(b) Is the said devise to X valid? 139 SCRA 206).
(c) Was it proper for the trial
court to consider the intrinsic Succession; renunciation;
validity of the compromise
provisions of said will? Explain your 1979 No. XIII
answers,
MN, a wealthy haciendero died
Answer: leaving to his four legitimate children
(a) Yes. the will may be probated if and his widow an estate worth about
executed according to the formalities P2 million. When the proceedings for
prescribed by law. the settlement of his estate were
(b) The institution giving X the free pending, Rosie, a child he begot with
portion is not valid, because the his lavandera, filed a claim for a
prohibitions under Art. 739 of the Civil share in the estate. The widow
Code on donations also apply to and four children contested the
testamentary dispositions (Article 1028, claim on the
Civil Code), Among donations which are ground that in a previous action for
considered void are those made support filed by the lavandera when
between persons who were guilty of Rosie was still a minor, the
adultery or concubinage at the time of lavandera agreed to dismiss the
the donation. case and signed an agreement
(c) As a general rule, the will acknowledging that the sum of
should be admitted in probate P50,000.00 paid thereunder
proceedings if included payment for whatever
all the necessary requirements for its inheritance Rosie was to have.
extrinsic validity have been met. and the Should Rosie's claim be granted?
court Why?
should not consider the intrinsic
validity of the provisions of said will. Answer
However, the Rosie's claim should be granted but
exception arises when the will in subject to the condition that the
effect contains only one testamentary portion
disposition. of the P50,000 paid to her mother as her
In effect, the only testamentary inheritance shall be brought to collation.
disposition under the will is the It
giving of the free must be observed that the agreement
portion to X, since legitimes are is actually a renunciation or
provided by law. Hence, the trial court compromise as
may consider
regards a future legitimate or (2) In intestate succession:
inheritance between the person owing (a) In case a legal heir in the
it and a direct descending line dies
compulsory heir. According to the Civil before the decedent survived
Code, such a RENUNCIATION OR by his children or descendant
COMPROMISE IS (Arts. 981, 982, CC), or in the
VOID, and the latter may claim the absence of other heirs who
same upon the death of the former, can exclude them from the
but he must succession, a brother or sister
bring to collation whatever he may dies before the decedent survived
have received by virtue of the by his or her own children. (Arts.
renunciation or 972,975, CC).
compromise. (Art. 905, Civil Code). (b) In case a legal heir in
(NOTE: If the bar candidate invokes the direct descending line is
either Art. 1347, par. 2, or Art. 2035, No. incapacitated to
6 of the Civil Code, instead of Art. succeed from the decedent and
905, his answer should be he has children or descendants
considered correct because the result (Art. 1035, CC), or in the absence
would be the same). of other heirs who can exclude
them from the succession, a
Succession; representation 1988 No. brother or sister is incapacitated
7: to succeed from the decedent
(a) When does the right of and he or she has children, (Arts,
representation take place? 972, 975,1035, CC),

Answer: Succession; reserva troncal 1987 No.

The right of representation shall take 13:
place in the following cases:
Lilia and Nelia are relatives, Lilia
(1) In testamentary succession: being the grand niece of Nelia. They
(a) In case a compulsory heir had a common ancestor, Bonong,
in the direct descending line father of Nelia and great-
dies before the grandfather of Lilia. Bonong had a
testator survived by his children sister, Rosa, who donated
or descendants (Art. 856, CC). gratuitously a parcel of land to
(b) In case a compulsory heir in her niece Mely, sister of Nelia and
the direct descending line is grandmother of Lilia. Mely died
incapacitated to intestate, leaving aforementioned
succeed from the testator and he parcel of land, survived by her
has children or descendants. husband Jose and their two children,
(Arts. 856,1035, CC). Rico and Nina. Bonong died intestate
(c) In case a compulsory survived by his legitimate
heir in the direct descending grandchildren, Rico and Nina. In the
line is disinherited adjudication of his estate, the portion
and he has children or pertaining to Mely, who had
descendants. (Art. 923, CC). predeceased her father, went to her
two legitimate children, Rico and SCRA 281), The rest of Jose's estate,
Nina. Rico died intestate, single, and not subject to reserva, will be
without any issue, leaving his inherited by his
share in the inheritance to his granddaughter Lilia as sole intestate
father, Jose, subject to a reserva heir.
troncal duly annotated on the tide.
Thereafter Nina died intestate and Answer;
her rights and interests were This is. a proper case of reserva
inherited by her only legitimate child, troncal. The propositus is Rico, the
Lilia. reservista and the reservatarios are
Lilia and Nelia, both of them being
Thereafter, Jose died intestate relatives within the 3rd degree
survived by his only descendant, computed from Rico and belonging to
Lilia. Nelia, aunt of Rico, would like to the maternal line represented by Mely.
lay claim as reservatario to a portion Under the doctrine of "reserva integral'"
of the one-half pro indiviso share of all the reservatarios in the nearest
the property inherited by Jose from degree will inherit in equal shares
his son Rico, How should the estate the reservable portion of the pro-
of Jose, including the property indiviso share of the property
subject to reserva troncal be inherited by Jose from Rico. The
adjudicated? Explain. properties transmitted to Jose by Rico
are-the following:
Answer:
This is a proper case of reserva troncal. Firstly, the property which Rico obtained
The propositus is Rico, the reservista is from Mely consisted of his share in
Jose and the reservatarios are-Lilia Mely's interest as donee of Rosa's
(a niece) and Nelia (an aunt), both land. The interest acquired by Rico
of them being relatives within the 3rd was 1/3, because 1/3 thereof was
degree of Rico (the propositus)and inherited by Jose and 1/3 by Nina. So
belonging to the maternal line the property that was obtained by Jose
represented by Mely. Accordingly, from Rico is the latter's 1/3 interest of
Nelia as reservatario cannot claim the land. In the case of Bonong's estate,
any portion of the pro-indiviso share of the share of Mely was 1/2 and Nelia's
the property inherited by Jose from Rico. was the other half. Out of Mely's share,
Lilia alone should inherit because in 1/2 belonged to Rico and the other half
reserva troncal, the successional belonged to Nina, both Inheriting by right
rights of relatives who are of representation. Summarizing, the
reservatarios are determined by the reservable estate is the 1/3 share of
rules of intestate succession. In Rico in Rosa's land which was
intestacy, nephews and nieces donated to Mely, and the 1/2 interest of
exclude uncles and aunts. Hence, Rico in Mely's share of the estate
Lilia the niece, of Bonong. These reservable
excludes Nelia, the aunt, from the properties should be divided equally
reservable property (De Papa vs. between Nelia
Camacho 144 and Lilia (Article 891).
Succession; reserva troncal 1979 No. her two deceased daughters who are
XIV within the third degree and who belong
to the line from where
A married B in 1950 bringing into the reservable property came. All of the
the marriage a 10-hectare piece of requisites of reserva troncal are,
unregistered land in Antipolo which therefore,
he inherited from his father. Of the present. In the first place, the
marriage two daughters were born. property was acquired by a
On February 10, 1956 A and his descendant from an
two daughters went to Baguio. On ascendant or from a brother or sister
the way they met an accident and A by gratuitous title; in the second
died instantly on the spot while the place, said
two daughters died two days later in descendant died without any legitimate
the hospital where they were brought. issue in the direct descending line who
In 1960 can inherit from him; in the third place,
B sold the land .to C. In 1977 B the property is inherited by another
died so D, the only brother of A, ascendant by operation of law; and in
asked C to reconvey the land to the fourth place, there are relatives of
him. Upon C's refusal, D filed a the descendant who are within the
complaint for recovery of the land. third degree and who belong to the
C raised the defense of prescription. line from which said property came.
Should the defense be sustained? Consequently, when C bought the
Why? subject property from B in I960,
he
Answer acquired only that which B had
The defense should be sustained but and nothing more. In other words,
only with respect to one-third of the when B, the ascendant reservista sold
subject property; however, with the property to C in 1960, the latter
respect to the other two-thirds, it acquired the one-third share which B
should not be sustained. had inherited from A without any
It must be observed that when A condition whatsoever. However, with
died the subject property passed respect to the other two-thirds
by intestate succession to his wife share which is reservable, C
B and his two daughters in the acquired a limited and revocable
proportion of one-third for each. title only. Therefore, when B, the
When the two daughters died two ascendant-reservista vendor finally died
hours later, their one-third shares in 1977, automatically, by operation of
passed by intestate succession to their law, the two-thirds share which is
mother B. These shares which B reservable passed to D, who is the
acquired by operation of law from reservee or reservatario. Premises
her two daughters became considered, the defense of prescription
reservable. In other words, by can only be sustained with respect to
mandate of the law, upon acquiring the one-third share of B which she
the two-thirds share of her daughters had inherited from A in 1955. The
she was obliged to reserve such computation of the 10-year period of
share for the benefit of relatives of prescription must commence from 1960.
In the case of the two-thirds share descendant-propositus subject to the
which is reservable, the computation resolutory condition that there must
must commence from 1977 when B, exist at the time of his death relatives
the ascendant-reservista, died. When of the descendant who are within
D, the reservatario, therefore, filed his the third degree and who belong to
action after the death of B, he was the line from which the property
very much in time to do so. (Chua came. He can, therefore, alienate or
vs. CFI, 78 SCRA 412). 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
Succession; reserva troncal 1982 No. and revocable title. Therefore, after
4 the death of
the reservista, the reservatarios
(A) What is the reason or rationale may then rescind the alienation or
for reserva troncal? encumbrance,
(B) May the reservor/reservista because the resolutory condition
dispose of the reservable property — to which the reserva is subject
(1) By acts inter vivos? has already been
(2) By acts mortis causa.? Reasons. fulfilled.

Answer (2) The reservista cannot dispose

(A) The reason or rationale for of the reservable property by acts
reserva troncal is evident: it is to mortis causa. The reason is crystal
reserve clear. Upon the death of said
certain property in favor of certain ascendant-reservist, reservable
relatives. Hence, its name reserva property does not belong to his or
lineal or troncal. It seeks to prevent her estate. Because the resolutory
persons outside a family from securing, condition to which the reserva is
by some special accident of life, subject has already been fulfilled,
property that would otherwise remained therefore, the reservatarios or
therein. Its principal aim is to maintain reservees nearest the descendant-
as absolutely as is possible, with respect propositus have already become
to the property to which it refers, a automatically and by operation of law
separation between the paternal and owners of the reservable property.
maternal lines, so that property of (upon death of
one line reservista_succession)
may not pass to the other, or through
them to strangers. Succession;right of representation
(B) (1) The reservista may dispose 1977 No. XIII-c
of the reservable property by acts
inter vivos. This is logical because he What is meant by the right of
acquires the ownership of the reservable representation in succession? In what
property upon the death of the line does it take place?
 Divino for the reversion of the tract of
Representation is a right created by land.
fiction of law, by virtue of which the
representative is raised to the place and A. Distinguish between modal
the degree of the person represented, institution and substitution of heirs.
and acquires the rights which the latter (3%)
would have if he were living or if he B. Distinguish between simple and
could have inherited (Art. 970, Civil fideicommissary substitution of
Code). heirs.
The right of representation takes (2%)
place in the direct descending line, C. Does Betina have a cause of
but never in the ascending. action against Divino? Explain (5%)

In the collateral line, it takes place SUGGESTED ANSWER:

only in favor of the children of A. A modal institution is the
brothers or sisters, whether they be institution of an heir made for a
of the full or half blood. (Art. 972, certain purpose or cause (Arts. 871
Civil Code). and 882, NCC). Substitution is the
When children of one or more appointment of another heir so that he
brothers or sisters of the deceased may enter into the inheritance in default
survive, they shall inherit from the latter of the heir originality instituted. (Art. 857,
by representation, if they survive with NCC).
their uncles or aunts. But if they alone
survive, they shall inherit in equal B. In a simple substitution of heirs,
portions. (Art, 975, Civil Code). the testator designates one or more
persons to substitute the heirs instituted
Succession; testate succession; in case such heir or heirs should die
institution of heirs; substitution of before him, or should not wish or
heirs 2002 No VIII. should be incapacitated to accept the
inheritance. In a fideicommissary
By virtue of a Codicil appended to his substitution, the testator institutes a
will, Theodore devised to Divino a first heir and charges him to preserve
tract of sugar land, with the and transmit the whole or part of the
obligation on the part of Divino or his inheritance to a second heir. In a
heirs to deliver to Betina a specified simple substitution, only one heir
volume of sugar per harvest inherits. In a fideicommissary
during Betina’s lifetime. It is also substitution, both the first and second
stated in the Codicil that in the event heirs inherit. (Art. 859 and 869, NCC)
the obligation is not fulfilled, Betina
should immediately seize the C. Betina has a cause of action
property from Divino or latter’s against Divino. This is a case of a
heirs and turn it over to testamentary disposition subject to
Theodore’s compulsory heirs. Divino a mode and the will itself provides
failed to fulfill the obligation under for the consequence if the mode is
the Codicil. Betina brings suit against not complied with. To enforce the
mode, the will itself gives Betina the
right to compel the return of the property spouse, the illegitimate children and the
to the heirs of Theodore. (Rabadilla v. legacy.
Conscoluella, 334 SCRA 522 [2000] The legatee, will get P6,000.00-
GR 113725, 29 June 2000). Explanation:
Since the legitime of the legitimate
Succession; testate succession; children, which is 1/2 of the estate,
order of succession and sharing 1983 cannot
No. 7 be impaired, only the free portion, the
other half of A's property, is available for
The deceased, A left a gross estate the
worth P360,000 and debts amounting satisfaction of the shares of the other
to P60,000. He was survived by his distributees. From that part must first be
widow, three legitimate children, an taken
acknowledged natural child and an the legitimes of the surviving spouse
adulterous child. In his will, he and of the illegitimate children which
bequeathed P6,000 to a friend, total P95,-
leaving the remainder of his estate 000,00. To the remainder of the free
to his widow and children, portion, or P55,000 is likewise
legitimate as well as illegitimate. chargeable the legacy. The remainder
Divide A's estate among the of the free portion will then be
persons entitled thereto. Give P49,000.00 which shall be divided
reasons for your division. equally among the children, legitimate
as well as illegitimate and the widow, it
Answer having been left to them without any
The net estate is worth P300,000.00 designation of the shares,
[P360.000.00 (gross estate) --
P60,000.00 (debts)] Succession; transmission of rights to
Each of the legitimate children will succession 1983 No. 8
receive P50,000 as legitime.
The widow will receive the same amount On A's death last year, his nearest of kin
as legitime. were a legitimate daughter born in 1945
The legitime of the acknowledged and a spurious son born and recognized
natural child is 1/2 of that of each by A in 1949. May the daughter
legitimate child or P25.000.00 oppose her brother's claim to their
The share of the spurious child is father's estate on the ground that it
4/5 of that of the acknowledged would impair her right under the old Civil
natural Code to succeed him to the exclusion of
child or P20,000.00, spurious children? Why?
In addition, the legitimate children,
the widow, the acknowledged natural Answer
child, and the adulterous child will each No. The rights to the succession are
receive P8,166.66 2/3 as their share of transmitted only from the moment of the
the death of the decedent. Since A died last
remainder of the free portion, after year when the old Civil Code was no
deducting therefrom the legitimes of the longer in force, she did not acquire
surviving the right granted by it to exclude her
brother from A's inheritance. Her right Alternative Answer:
thereto is governed by the new Civil B. In the case of Coronado vs.CA(l91
Code, the statute in force at the time SCRA81), it was ruled that no property
of the opening of the succession of passes under a will without its being
A, under which spurious children probated, but may under Article
inherit together with legitimate 1O58 of the Civil Code of 1898, be
descendants. sustained as a partition by an act inter
vivos [Many-Oy vs. CA 144SCRA33).
Succession; when death takes place; And in the case of Chavez vs, IAC
pesumptive legitime 1991 No 6: 1191 SCRA211), it was ruled that
while
(a) For purposes of succession, the law prohibits contracts upon
when is death deemed to occur or future inheritance, the partition by
take place? the parent, as
(b) May succession be conferred by provided in Art. 1080. is a case
contracts or acts inter vivos? expressly authorized by law. A
Illustrate. person has two
(c) Is there any law which options in making a partition of his
allows the delivery to compulsory estate: either by an act inter vivos or by
heirs of their will. If the
presumptive legitimes during the partition is by will, it is imperative that
lifetime of their parents? If so, in what such partition must be executed in
instances? accordance
with the provisions of the law on
Answer: wills; if by an act inter vivos, such
A. Death as a fact is deemed to occur partition may
when it actually takes place. Death is even be oral or written, and need not be
presumed to take place in the in the form of a will, provided the
circumstances under Arts. 390-391 of legitime is
the Civil Code. The time of death is not prejudiced, "Where several sisters
presumed to be at the expiration of execute deeds of sale over their 1 /6
the 10-year period as prescribed by undivided share
Article 390 and at the moment of of the paraphernal property of their
disappearance under Article 391 mother, in favor of another sister,
with their
B. Under Art. 84 of the Family mother not only giving her authority
Code amending Art 130 of the Civil thereto but even signing said deeds,
Code, there is a
contractual succession is no valid partition inter vivos between the
longer possible since the law now mother and her children which
requires that cannot be
donations of future property be revoked by the mother. Said deeds
governed by the provisions on the of sale are not contracts entered into
testamentary with
succession and formalities of wills, respect to future inheritance. "It would
be unjust for the mother to revoke the
sales to a son and to execute a delivery of the children's presumptive
simulated sale in favor of a daughter legitimes shall be recorded in the
who already benefited by the partition." appropriate civil registry and registries
of property; otherwise, the same shall
Answer: not affect third persons.
C. Yes, under Arts. 51 and 52 of
the New Family Code. In case of Succession; wills 1989 No. 10:
legal
separation, annulment of marriage, (1) What are the characteristics of a
declaration of nullity of marriage and will?
the Answer:
automatic termination of a subsequent A will is —
marriage by the reappearance of the 1. Personal
absent 2. Unilateral
spouse, the common or community 3. Formal or Solemn
property of the spouses shall be 4. Ambulatory or revocable
dissolved and 5. Individual, not joint 6. Free and
liquidated. voluntary 7. Mortis causa
Art, 51. In said partition, the value of the
presumptive legitimes of all common Succession; wills; codicil 1977 No.
children, computed as of the date of XII-b
the final judgment of the trial court,
shall be What is a codicil and how shall it
delivered in cash, property or sound be executed in order that it may
securities, unless the parties, by be effective?
mutual
agreement, judicially approved, had Answer
already provided for such matters. A codicil is a supplement or addition
to a will, made after the execution of
The children of their guardian, or the a
trustee of their property, may ask for the will and annexed to be taken as a part
enforcement of the judgment. The thereof, by which any disposition made
delivery of the presumptive legitimes in the
herein prescribed shall In no way original will is explained, added to, or
prejudice the ultimate successional altered (Art. 825, Civil Code). The
rights of the children accruing upon the formalities
death of either or both of the parents; which are required in the execution of a
but the value of the properties already codicil are the same as those required in
received under the decree of annulment the
or absolute nullity shall be considered as execution of a will (Art. 826, Civil Code).
advances on their legitime.
Succession; wills; formalities 1975
Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of No. XII
absolute nullity of the marriage, the
partition and distribution of the The attestation clause of the will
properties of the spouses, and the omits to state that testator signed
in the presence of the witnesses and valid as a notarial will because this
that the latter signed in the presence requires 3 attesting witnesses.
of the testator and of one another. Neither is it a valid holographic
will because the will must be
May evidence aliunde be admitted to entirely written, dated and signed
prove these facts to allow the probate in the handwriting of the testator.
of the will? Explain. The fact that the witnesses testified
as the date of execution did not cure
Answer the defect.
No, evidence aliunde may not be
admitted to prove that the testator and Answer -
the witnesses signed in one another's The will is not formally valid.
presence because such fact cannot Whether we consider the will in the
be determined from an examination instant problem as a notarial will or as a
of the will itself. The reason for holographic will, it cannot be considered
this is that oral evidence does not as a valid will. If we consider it as a
possess the reliability of an express notarial will, it is not be valid because
statement in the attestation clause. It there are only two instrumental
is for this reason that Article 805 of the witnesses. Under the law on notarial
Civil Code requires the attestation or ordinary wills, the will should have
clause to state these facts been subscribed to and attested by
three or more credible witnesses.
Therefore, it is void. If we consider it
Succession; wills; formalities 1986 as a holographic will, it is not also
No. 14: valid because it is not dated. Under
the law on holographic wills, the will
Busalsal executed a will in his should have been entirely written,
handwriting, signed by him at the end dated and signed by the hand of the
of each page on the left marginal testator himself. Therefore, it is void.
space of every page except the last (Note: The above answer is based upon
page. The document bore no date. Arts. 805 and 810 of the Civil Code and
However, below Busalsal's every upon decided cases.)
signature, were the signatures of two
witnesses, who later testified that the Answer -
will was executed in their presence The C.C. provides that a holographic
on January 1, 1985, New Year's Day, will must be entirely in the
and that Busalsal was in full handwriting of the testator, signed
possession of his faculties at and dated by him. It need not be
that time and even explained to them witnessed.
details of the will he was writing Hence lacking the date, it cannot be
down. Is the will formally valid? allowed to probate. The law does not
Explain. allow
extrinsic evidence to supply the
Answer: omission.
The will is not valid either as a notarial
will or a holographic will. It is not
Succession; wills; formalities 1990 law of the place of execution, or
No 11; Philippine law will govern the
formalities (Articles
(1) If a will is executed by a testator 17. 816. 817. Civil Code).
who is a Filipino citizen, what law will
govern if the will is executed in Possible Additional Answers:
the Philippines? What law will a. In the case of a Filipino citizen,
govern if the will is executed in Philippine law shall govern
another country? Explain your substantive
answers. validity whether he executes his will in
the Philippines or in a foreign country.
(2) If a will is executed by a b. In the case of a foreigner, his national
foreigner, for instance, a Japanese, law shall govern substantive validity
residing In the Philippines, what whether he executes his will in the
law will govern if the will is Philippines or in a foreign country.
executed in the Philippines? And
what law will govern if the will is Succession; wills; formalities 1975
executed in Japan, or some other No. XI
country, for instance, the U.S.A.?
Explain your answers. 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
Answer: the pages of the duplicate. All other
(1) a. If the testator who is a requisites were complied with. Can
Filipino citizen executes his will in the will be admitted to probate?
the Philippines, Philippine law will Explain.
govern the formalities.
b. If said Filipino testator executes Answer
his will in another country, the law of The will may be admitted to probate.
the country where he maybe or Although the requirements of Article 805
Philippine law will govern the of the Civil Code were not strictly
formalities. (Article 815, complied with, the purposes of the law
Civil Code} have been satisfied. Impossibility of
substitution is assured by the fact that
(2) a. If the testator is a foreigner the testator and the two other
residing in the Philippines and he witnesses signed the defective page.
executes his will in the Philippines, the The law should not be strictly and
law of the country of which he is a literally interpreted as to penalize the
citizen or Philippine law will govern the testator on account of the
formalities. b. If the testator is a inadvertence of a single witness over
foreigner and executes his will in a whose conduct he had no control, where
foreign country, the the purpose of the law
law of his place of residence or the law to guarantee the identity of the
of the country of which he is a citizen or testament and its component pages
the is sufficiently
attained and no intentional or cancellation amounts to revocation
deliberate deviation exists. (Icasiano of the will, Art.814 of the NCC
v. Icasiano, 11 does not apply but Art. 830. NCC.
SCRA 422) Besides, the signed Art. 830 of the NCC does not
duplicate copy has the same effect as require the testator to authenticate
the original. his
cancellation for the effectivity of a
Succession; wills; formalities; revocation effected through such
Holographic wills; effect of cancellation (Kalaw v. Relova, 132
unauthenticated insertions and SCRA 237). In the Kalaw case, the
cancellations 1996 No. 10: original holographic will designated
only one heir as the only substantial
1) Vanessa died on April 14. 1980. provision which was altered by
leaving behind a holographic will substituting the original heir with
which is entirely written, dated and another heir. Hence, if the
signed in her own handwriting. unauthenticated cancellation
However, it contains Insertions and amounted to a revocation of the
cancellations which are not will, the will may not be probated
authenticated by her signature. For because it had already been revoked.
this reason, the probate of
Vanessa's will was opposed by her Succession; wills; formalities;
relatives who stood to inherit by her revocation of wills 2003 No XI.
intestacy.
May Vanessa's holographic will be Mr. Reyes executed a will completely
probated? Explain. valid as to form. A week later,
however, he executed another will
Answer; which expressly revoked his first will,
Yes, the will as originally written may which he tore his first will to pieces.
be probated. The insertions and Upon the death of Mr. Reyes, his
alterations were void since they second will was presented for
were not authenticated by the full probate by his heirs, but it was
signature of Vanessa, under Art. 814, denied probate due to formal defects.
NCC. The original will, however, Assuming that a copy of the first
remains valid because a holographic will is available, may it now be
will is not invalidated by the admitted to probate and given
unauthenticated insertions or effect? Why?
alterations (Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA
468]. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the first will may be admitted
Alternative Answer: to probate and given effect. When
It depends. As a rule, a holographic the testator tore first will, he was
will is not adversely affected by under the mistaken belief that the
Insertions or cancellations which were second will was perfectly valid and he
not authenticated by the full signature of would not have destroyed the first will
the testator (Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA had he known that the second will is not
468). However, when the insertion or valid. The revocation by destruction
therefore is dependent on the validity
of the second will. Since it turned Answer
out that the second will was invalid, (a) It must be observed that the
the tearing of the first will did not testator left two wills. In his first will,
produce the effect of revocation. This is he
known as the doctrine of dependent bequeathed the ricefield to the Church
relative revocation (Molo v. Molo, 90 and instituted as heirs in equal shares
Phil 37.) his two
brothers "A" and "B" with respect to
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS: the rest of his estate. In his second
No, the first will cannot be admitted to will, he
probate. While it is true that the first will instituted his wife and his son as heirs in
was successfully revoked by the equal shares. Under our law on
second will because the second will revocation
was later denied probate, the first of wills, a will may be revoked by
will was, nevertheless, revoked when another will- The revocation may be
the testator destroyed it after effected either
executing the second invalid will. expressly or impliedly. Since there
(Diaz v. De Leon, 43 Phil 413 is no express revocation, is there
[1922]). an implied
revocation in the instant case? It is
Succession; wills; revocation 1981 undeniable that there is an implied
No. 7 revocation if
the testamentary dispositions found
A testator, a bachelor of 60, in the first will are totally or partially
executed a Will bequeathing a incompatible
ricefield to the Church worth with those found in the second will. It
P100,000.00. The Will further is also undeniable that the
provided that "all other assets owned incompatibility must
by me after death shall be equally be absolute in character in the
divided among my two brothers sense that the testamentary
"A" and "B". The testator dispositions cannot stand together.
subsequently married a young The real issue, therefore, is whether
woman, begot a son, and left the two testamentary dispositions
another Will designating his wife found in the first will can stand
and son as his heirs in equal together with the single testamentary
shares. The second Will did not disposition found in the second will.
expressly revoke the first Will. He There are two views.
left an estate worth P300,000.00 According to one view, reading the
(including the two wills together it is clear that the
ricefield). testatorial intention is that only the
testator's wife and son shall inherit.
a) Who is entitled to the ricefield? They are instituted as universal heirs
Reasons. b| Who acquires the rest with respect to the hereditary estate
of the in its totality.
assets? Explain.
Therefore, the second will in its totality There are two views with regard to
cannot stand together with the first will in the distribution of the entire estate,
its totality. Consequently, the including the ricefield.
incompatibility between the According to one view, one-half (1/2)
testamentary dispositions found in shall be given to the testator's widow
the, first will and those found in the and the other one-half (1/2) shall be
second will is both total and absolute given to the testator's son. This division
in character. Hence, the first will is would
impliedly revoked by the second will. be more in conformity with the testatorial
The testator's widow and his son are, intention.
therefore, entitled to the ricefield
According to a second view, only the According to another view, first
institution of "A" and " B'' in the firs t will satisfy the legitime of the two heirs.
as heirs and that portion or part of the The testator's widow shall be entitled to
bequest given to the Church which will one-fourth (1/4) of P300,000, or
impair P75,000, while the testator's son shall
the legitime of the testator's son and be entitled to one-half, or P150,000.
widow are revoked by the second The disposable free portion shall then
will. The be divided equally between the two.
reason is that it is only to that This would be more in conformity with
extent that there is absolute the testatorial intention.
incompatibility between
the testamentary dispositions found in Suggested answer for those who
the first will and those found in the adhere the second view stated above:
second The testator's son shall be entitled to a
will. Consequently, the Church shall be legitime of one-half |l/2) of the entire
entitled to the ricefield but only to the estate, or P150.000; the widow shall
extent be entitled to a legitime of one-fourth
that it does not encroach upon the on the
legitime of the testator's son and widow. entire estate, or P75,000. That
(Nme: The above answers are based on means that the bequest in favor of
the law on revocation of wills, such the Church is
as Arts. 830. et. seq.. Civil Code inofficious to the extent of P25.000,
and on well settled principles in considering that the value of the
American ricefield is
jurisprudence. The Committee P100,000. Consequently, said bequest
respectfully recommends that whether or devise should be reduced by one-
the bar fourth
candidate will solve the problem (1/4). Therefore, the Church shall be
either in accordance with the first entitled only to an undivided share of
view or in three-
accordance with the second view, it fourth (3/4) of the ricefield.
should be considered as a correct
answer.) Succession; wills; testamentary
(b) Suggested answer for those who intent 1996 No. 10:
adhere to the first view stated above:
2) Alfonso, a bachelor without decide the contest? Give your
any descendant or ascendant, reasons.
wrote a last
will and testament in which he Answer:
devised." all the properties of The will is void. The acknowledging
which I may be possessed at the officer cannot serve as attesting witness
time of my death" to his favorite at the same time. In effect there
brother Manuel. At the time he are only two witnesses since the
wrote the will, he owned only one notary cannot swear before himself.
parcel of land. But by the time he
died, he owned twenty parcels of Succession; wills; witnesses to
land. His other brothers and sisters holographic wills 1994 No. 10:
insist that his will should pass only
the parcel of land he owned at On his deathbed, Vicente was
the time it was written, and did executing a will. In the room were
not cover his properties acquired, Carissa, Carmela, Comelio and Atty.
which should be by intestate Cimpo, a notary public. Suddenly,
succession. Manuel claims there was a street brawl which
otherwise. Who is correct? Explain. caught Comelio's attention,
prompting him to look out the
Answer: window. Cornelio did not see Vicente
Manuel is correct because under Art. sign a will. Is the will valid?
793, NCC, property acquired after
the making of a will shall only pass
thereby, as if the testator had Alternative Answers:
possessed it at the time of making a) Yes, The will is valid. The law does
the will, should it expressly appear not require a witness to actually see the
by the will that such was his testator sign the will. It is
intention. Since Alfonso's intention sufficient if the witness could have
to devise all properties he owned seen the act of signing had he
at the time of his death expressly chosen to do so by casting his eyes
appears on the will, then all the 20 to the proper direction.
parcels of land are included in the
devise. b) Yes, the will is valid. Applying the
"test of position", although Comelio
Succession; wills; witnesses to did not actually see Vicente sign
holographic wills 1989 No. 11: the will, Cornelio was in the
proper position to see Vicente sign
(1) The probate of the will of if Cornelio so wished.
Nicandro is contested on the
ground that the notary public before Succession 2015
whom the will, was acknowledged
was also one of the three Alden and Stela were both former
instrumental witnesses. If you were Filipino citizens. They were married
the probate judge, how would you in the Philippines but they later
migrated to the United States where
they were naturalized as American b) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela
citizens. In their union they were able can take effect even with respect to the
to accumulate several real properties properties located in the Philippines
both in the US and in the Philippines. because what governs the distribution of
Unfortunately, they were not blessed their estate is no longer Philippine law
with children. In the US, they but their national law at the time of their
executed a joint will instituting as demise. Hence, the joint will produces
their common heirs to divide their legal effect even with respect to the
combined estate in equal shares, the properties situated in the Philippines.
five siblings of Alden and the seven
siblings of Stela. Alden passed away c) No, because depecage is a process
in 2013 and a year later, Stela also of applying rules of different states on
died. The siblings of Alden who were the basis of the precise issue involved. It
all citizens of the US instituted is a conflict of laws where different
probate proceedings in a US court issues within a case may be governed
impleading the siblings of Stela who by the laws of different states. In the
were all in the Philippines. situation in letter (a) no conflict of laws
a) Was the joint will executed by will arise because Alden and Stela are
Alden and Stela who were both no longer Filipino citizens at the time of
former Filipinos valid? Explain with the execution of their joint will and the
legal basis. (3%) place of execution is not the Philippines.

b) Can the joint will produce legal 2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS

effect in the Philippines with respect
to the properties and of Alden Stela Crispin died testate and was survived
found here? If so, how? (3%) by Alex
and Josine, his children from his first
c) Is the situation presented in Item I wife; Rene
an example of depecage? (2%) and Ruby, his children from his
second wife;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and Allan, Bea, and Cheska, his
a) Yes, the joint will of Alden and children from
Stela is considered valid. Being no his third wife. One important
longer Filipino citizens at the time provision in his will reads asfollows:
they executed their joint will, the
prohibition under our Civil Code on "Ang lupa at bahay sa Lungsod ng
joint wills will no longer apply to Maynila ay
Alden and Stela. For as long as their ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan nila
will was executed in accordance with the Alex at Rene
law of the place where they reside, or hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila
the law of the country of which they are kundi upang
citizens or even in accordance with the pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang
Civil Code, a will executed by an alien is nila at
considered valid in the Philippines. nang ang sinuman sa aking mga
(Article 816) anak, sampu
ng aking mga apo at kaapuapuhan ko After the death of Esteban and
sa Martha, their
habang panahon, ay may tutuluyan three (3) parcels of land were
kung adjudicated to
magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o Jun. After the death of Jun, the
sa kalapit properties
na mga lungsod." Is the provision passed to his surviving spouse Anita,
valid? (4%) and son
Cesar. When Anita died, her share
SUGGESTED ANSWER: went to her
No, the provision is not valid. At first son Cesar. Ten (10) years after, Cesar
glance, the provision may appear valid died
as it provides for the transfer of title in intestate without any issue. Peachy,
favor of Alex and Rene over the parcel Anita.s
of land. A legacy or devise is to be sister, adjudicated to herself the
construed as a donation effective mortis properties as
causa, and it is intended to transfer the only surviving heir of Anita and
ownership to the legatee or devisee. Cesar. Edith
Since the ownership is legally and Philip would like to recover the
transferred to the Alex and Rene, they properties
cannot be prohibited by the testator from claiming that they should have been
alienating or partitioning reserved
the same perpetually. The dispositions by Peachy in their behalf and must
of the testator declaring all or part of now revert
the estate inalienable for more than back to them. Is the contention of
twenty years are void. (Article 870) Edith and Philip valid?
(4%)
V. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
What is the effect of preterition ? (1%) No, the contention is not valid. The
(A) It annuls the devise and legacy property
(B) It annuls the institution of heir adjudicated to Jun from the estate of his
(C) It reduces the devise and legacy parents which he in turn left to Anita and
(D) It partially annuls the institution of Cesar is not subject to reservation in
heir favor of Edith and Philip. In Mendoza et.
al. vs.Policarpio, et. al. 1 the court
Answer is letter B (preterition annuls ruled that lineal character of the
the reservable property is reckoned from
institution of heirs) the ASCENDANT from whom the
propositus received the property by
XIII. gratuitous title. The ownership should
Esteban and Martha had four (4) be reckoned only from Jun, as he is the
children: ascendant from where the first
Rolando, Jun, Mark, and Hector. transmission occurred or from whom
Rolando had a Cesar inherited the
daughter, Edith, while Mark had a properties. Moreover, Article 891
son, Philip. provides that the person obliged to
reserve the property should be an the case of Patricio v. Dario,2 with
ascendant. Peachy is not Cesar’s similar facts
ascendant but a mere collateral relative. to the case at bar, the court ruled that to
On the assumption that the property is qualify
reservable, Edith and Philip being first as beneficiary of the family home the
cousins of Cesar person
who is the propositus are disqualified must be among those mentioned in
to be Article 154,
reservatarios as they are not third he/she must be actually living in the
degree family
relatives of Cesar. home and must be dependent for legal
support
XVII. upon the head of the family. While
Lucas, the
On March 30, 2000, Mariano died son of Carlito satisfies the first and
intestate and second
was survived by his wife, Leonora, and requisites, he cannot however, directly
children, claim
Danilo and Carlito. One of the properties legal support from his grandmother,
he left Leonora
was a piece of land in Alabang where he because the person primarily obliged to
built give
his residential house. support to Lucas is his father, Carlito.
Thus,
After his burial, Leonora and Mariano.s partition may be successfully claimed by
children Leonora and Danilo.
extrajudicially settled his estate.
Thereafter, XXV.
Leonora and Danilo advised Carlito of
their Mario executed his last will and
intention to partition the property. Carlito testament
opposed invoking Article 159 of the where he acknowledges the child
Family being
Code. Carlito alleged that since his conceived by his live-in partner Josie
minor child as his own
Lucas still resides in the premises, the child; and that his house and lot in
family Baguio City
home continues until that minor be given to his unborn conceived
beneficiary child. Are the
becomes of age. Is the contention of acknowledgment and the donation
Carlito tenable? (4%) mortis causa
1 G.R. NO. 176422 -March 20, 2013 valid? Why? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the contention of Carlito is not Yes, the acknowledgment is considered
tenable. In valid
because a will (although not required to both in the US and in the Philippines.
be filed Unfortunately, they were not blessed
by the notary public) may still constitute with
a children. In the US, they executed a
document which contains an admission joint will
of instituting as their common heirs to
illegitimate filiation. Article 834 also divide
provides their combined estate in equal
that the recognition of an illegitimate shares, the five
child does siblingsand of Alden the seven
not lose its legal effect even though the siblings of
will Stela. Alden passed away in 2013 and
wherein it was made should be revoked. a year
This later, Stela also died. The siblings of
provision by itself warrants a conclusion Alden who
that a were all citizens of the US instituted
will may be considered as proof of probate
filiation. The proceedings in a US court impleading
donation mortis causa may be the
considered valid siblings of Stela who were all in the
because although unborn, a fetus has a Philippines.
presumptive personality for all purposes a) Was the joint will executed by
favorable to it provided it be born under Alden
the and Stela who were both former
conditions specified in Article 41. Filipinos valid? Explain with legal
basis.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS b) Can the joint will produce legal
2015 CIVIL LAW BAR EXAMINATIONS effect in the Philippines with
respect to the propertiesand of
By: Assoc. Dean Viviana M. Alden Stela found here? If so,
Paguirigan how? (3%)
c) Is the situation presented in
2 G.R. No. 170829 November 20, 2006 Item I an example of
I. depe9age? (2%)
Alden and Stela were both former
Filipino citizens. They were married SUGGESTED ANSWER:
in the a) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela
Philippines but they later migrated to is
the considered valid. Being no longer
United States where they were Filipino
naturalized as citizens at the time they executed their
American citizens. In their union they joint
were will, the prohibition under our Civil Code
able to accumulate several real on
properties
joint wills will no longer apply to Alden names as co-owners. Unfortunately,
and Bert died
Stela. For as long as their will was of cardiac arrest, leaving no will. Bert
executed in was
accordance with the law of the place survived by his biological siblings,
where Joe, and the
they reside, or the law of the country of boy.
which xxxx
they are citizens or even in accordance b) What are the successional rights
with of the
the Civil Code, a will executed by an boy Bert and Joe and raised as their
alien is son? (2%)
considered valid in the Philippines. xxxxx
(Article
816) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b)Neither of the two will inherit from
b) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela Bert. Joe
can take cannot inherit because the law does not
effect even with respect to the properties recognize the right of a stranger to
located in the Philippines because what inherit from
governs the distribution of their estate is the decedent in the absence of a will.
no Their
longer Philippine law but their national cohabitation will not vest Joe with the
law at right to
the time of their demise. Hence, the joint inherit from Bert. The child will likewise
will not
produces legal effect even with respect inherit from Bert because of the lack of
to the formal
properties situated in the Philippines. adoption of the child. A mere ward or
.ampon.
IV. has no right to inherit from the adopting
parents. (Manuel v. Ferrer, 247 SCRA
Bert and Joe, both male and single, 476)
lived
together as common law spouses IX.
and agreed
to raise a son of Bert’s living brother Jose, single, donated a house and lot
as their to his only
child without legally adopting him. niece, Maria, who was of legal age
Bert worked and who
while Joe took care of their home and accepted the donation. The donation
the boy. and
In their 20 years of cohabitation they Maria’s acceptance thereof were
were able evidenced by
to acquire real estate assets a Deed of Donation. Maria then lived
registered in their in the
house and lot donated to her, donation.
religiously 3
paying real estate taxes thereon. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Maria
Twelve years can be made
later, when Jose had already passed to reconvey the property. The law
away, a provides
woman claiming to be an illegitimate that no person may give or receive by
daughter way of
of Jose filed a complaint against donation more than what he may give or
Maria. receive by will. On the assumption that
Claiming rights as an heir, the woman the
prayed property donated to Maria is the only
that Maria be ordered to reconvey the property
house of Jose, the legitime of his illegitimate
and lot to Jose’s estate. In her child
complaint she would be impaired if Maria would be
alleged that the notary public who allowed to
notarized keep the entire property. After taking
the Deed of Donation had an expired into
notarial account the value of the property, Maria
commission when the Deed of can be
Donation was made to reconvey the property to the
executed by Jose. Can Maria be made extent
to necessary to satisfy the legitime of
reconvey the property? What can she Jose.s
put up as illegitimate daughter provided that the
a defense? (4%) woman
claiming to be Jose.s child can prove
SUGGESTED ANSWER: her
No. Maria cannot be compelled to filiation to the deceased. Maria can set
reconvey the up the defense that the action has
property. The Deed of Donation was prescribed. An action for revocation of
void the donation on the ground that it
because it was not considered a public impaired the legitime of a compulsory
document. However, a void donation heir may only be filed
can within ten (10) years from the time the
trigger acquisitive prescription. (Solis v. cause
CA 176 of action accrues which is at the time
SCRA 678; Doliendo v. Biarnesa 7 Phil. of the
232) The death of Jose. The facts are not clear
void donation has a quality of titulo as to
colorado when Jose died but on the assumption
enough for acquisitive prescription that he
especially died ten years prior to the filing of the
since 12 years had lapsed from the action,
deed of the same has clearly prescribed.
 Code).
Heirs; Fideicommissary Substitution
(2008) (C). If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, can
Scarlet inherit the property directly from
No. XIII. Raymond? (2%)

Raymond, single, named his sister SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Ruffa in his will as a devisee of a If Ruffa predeceases Raymond,
parcel of Raymond's widowed mother will be
land which he owned. The will entitled to the inheritance. Scarlet, an
imposed illegitimate child, cannot inherit the
upon Ruffa the obligation of property by intestate succession from
preseving the Raymond who is a legitimate relative of
land and transferring it, upon her Ruffa (Art. 992, Civil Code). Moreover,
death, to Scarlet is not a compulsory heir of
her illegitimate daughter Scarlet who Raymond, hence she can inherit only by
was testamentary succession. Since
then only one year old. Raymond Raymond executed a will in the case at
later died, bar, Scarlet may inherit from Raymond.
leaving behind his widowed mother,
Ruffa Heirs; Intestate Succession;
and Scarlet. Legitime;
Computation (2010)
(A). Is the condition imposed upon No.XI. The spouses Peter and Paula
Ruffa, to had
preserve the property and to transmit three (3) children. Paula later obtained a
it judgment of nullity of marriage. Their
upon her death to Scarlet, valid? (1%) absolute community of property having
been dissolved, they delivered P1
SUGGESTED ANSWER: million to
Yes, the condition imposed upon Ruffa each of their 3 children as their
to preserve the property and to transmit presumptive legitimes. Peter later re-
it upon her death to Scarlet is valid married and had two (2) children by his
because it is tantamount to second wife Marie. Peter and Marie,
fideicommissary substitution under Art. having successfully engaged in
863 of the Civil Code. business, acquired real properties. Peter
later died intestate.
(B). If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, who
inherits the property? (2%) (A). Who are Peter’s legal heirs and how
will
SUGGESTED ANSWER: his estate be divided among them? (5%)
Ruffa will inherit the property as
Scarlet's heir. Scarlet acquires a right to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the succession from the time of The legal heirs of Peter are his children
Raymond's death, even though she by the first and second marriages and
should predecease Ruffa (Art. 866, Civil
his surviving second wife. Their shares 1/12 of estate for
in the estate of Peter will depend, each of first marriage
however, on the cause of the nullity of Note: The legitime of an illegitimate
the first marriage. If the child is supposed to be ½ the legitime of
nullity of the first marriage was a legitimate child or 1/8 of the estate.
psychological incapacity of one or both But the estate will not be sufficient to
spouses, the three children of that void pay the said legitime of the 3 illegitimate
marriage are legitimate and all of the children, because only ¼ of the estate is
legal heirs shall share the estate of left after paying the legitime of the
Peter in equal shares. If the judgment of surviving spouse which is
nullity was for other causes, the three preferred. Hence, the remaining ¼ of
children are illegitimate and the estate the estate
shall be distributed such that an shall be divided among the 3 illegitimate
illegitimate child of the first marriage children.
shall receive half of the share of a
legitimate child of the second marriage, (B). What is the effect of the receipt by
and the second wife will inherit a share Peter’s 3 children by his first marriage of
equal to that of a legitimate child. In no their presumptive legitimes on their right
case may the two legitimate children of to
the second marriage receive a share inherit following Peter’s death? (5%)
less
than one-half of the estate which is their SUGGESTED ANSWER:
legitime. When the estate is not In the distribution of Peter’s estate, ½ of
sufficient to pay all the legitimes of the the presumptive received by the 3
compulsory heirs, the legitime of the children of the first marriage shall be
spouse is preferred and the illegitimate collated to Peter’s estate and shall be
children suffer the reduction. imputed as an advance of their
respective inheritance from Peter. Only
Computation: half of the presumptive legitime is
(A) If the ground of nullity is collated to the estate of Peter because
psychological incapacity: the other half shall be collated to the
3 children by first marriage estate of his first wife.
1/6 of the estate for each
2 children by second marriage Heirs; Representation; Iron-Curtain
1/6 of the estate for each Rule(2012) No.VIII.
Surviving second spouse
1/6 of the estate a) Ricky and Arlene are married. They
begot Franco during their marriage.
(B) If the ground of nullity is not Franco had an illicit relationship with
psychological capacity: Audrey and out of which, they begot
2 legitimate children Arnel. Frnaco predeceased Ricky,
¼ of the estate for Arlene and Arnel. Before Ricky died, he
each of second marriage executed a will which when submitted to
Surviving second spouse probate was
¼ of the estate opposed by Arnel on the ground that he
3 illegitimatechildren should be given the share of his father,
Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel
correct? The applicable laws of intestate
Why? (5%) succession will determine who among
the relatives will inherit as reservatarios
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and what shares they will take, i.e., the
No, his opposition is not correct. Arnel direct line excludes the collateral, the
cannot inherit from Ricky in the descending direct line excludes the
representation of his father Franco. In ascending ,the nearer excludes the
representation, the representative must more remote, the nephews and nieces
not only be a legal heir of the person he exclude the uncles and the aunts, and
is representing, he must also be a legal half blood relatives inherit half the share
heir of the decedent he seeks to inherit of full-blooded relatives.
from.
While Arnel is a legal heir of Franco, he Intestate Succession (2008)
is not a legal heir of Ricky because No. VII. Ramon Mayaman died intestate,
under leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00.
Art 992 of the NCC, an illegitimate child Determine how much each heir will
has no right to inherit ab intestato from receive
the legitimate children and relatives of from the estate:
his father or mother. Arnel is disqualified
to inherit from Ricky because Arnel is an (A). If Ramon is survived by his wife,
illegitimate child of Franco and Ricky is three
a legitimate relative of Franco. full-blood brothers, two half-brothers,
and
Heirs; Reserva Troncal (2009) one nephew (the son of a deceased
fullblood
No. I. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE brother)? Explain. (3%)
if the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
statement is true, or FALSE if the Having died intestate, the estate of
statement is false. Explain your Ramon shall be inherited by his wife and
answer in not more than two (2) his full and half blood siblings or their
sentences. respective representatives. In intestacy,
if the wife concurs with no one but the
(B).In reservatroncal, all siblings of the husband, all of them are
reservatarios (reser the intestate heirs of the deceased
vees) inherit as a class and in equal husband. The wife will receive half of the
shares intestate estate, while the siblings or
regardless of their proximity in their respective representatives, will
degree to inherit the other half to be divided
the prepositus. (1%) among them equally. If some siblings
are of the full-blood and the other of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: half blood, a half blood sibling will
FALSE. Not all the relatives within the receive half the share of a full-blood
third degree will inherit as reservatario, sibling.
and not all those who are entitled to
inherit will inherit in the equal shares. (1). The wife of Ramon will, therefore,
receive one half (½) of the estate or the children Connie and Dora. He did not
amount of P5,000,000.00. make any provisions in favor of his wife
Erica, because as the will stated, she
(2). The three (3) full-blood brothers, would anyway get ½ of the house and
will, therefore, receive P1,000,000.00 lot as her conjugal share. The will was
each. very brief and straightforward and both
the
(3). The nephew will receive above provisions were contained in
P1,000,000.00 by right of page 1,
representation. which Arthur and his instrumental
witness,
(4). The two (2) half-brothers will receive signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained
P500,000.00 each. the
attestation clause and the signatures, at
(B). If Ramon is survived by his wife, a the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental
halfsister, witnesses which included Lambert, the
and three nephews (sons of a deceased driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook,
full-blood brother)? Explain. (3%) and
Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who
SUGGESTED ANSWER: prepared
The wife will receive one half (1/2) of the the will. There was a 3rd page, but this
estate or P5,000,000.00. The other half only
shall be inherited by (1) the full-blood contained the notarial
brother, represented by his three acknowledgement.
children, and (2) the half-sister. They will The attestation clause stated the will
divide the other half between them such was
that the share of the half-sister is just signed on the same occasion by Arthur
half the share of the full-blood and
brother. The share of the full-blood his instrumental witnesses who all
brother shall in turn be inherited by the signed
three nephews in equal shares by right in the presence of each other, and the
of presentation. notary public who notarized the will.
There
Therefore, the three (3) nephews will are no marginal signatures or pagination
receive P1,111,111.10 each the half appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon
sister his
will receive the sum of P1,666,666.60. death, it was discovered that apart from
the
house and lot, he had a P 1 million
Intestate Succession (2008) account
No.X. Arthur executed a will which deposited with ABC bank.
contained only: (i) a provision (D). How should the house and lot, and
disinheriting his daughter Bernica for the
running off with a married man, and (ii) a cash be distributed? (1%)
provision disposing of his share in the
family house and lot in favor of his other SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the probate of the will cannot be (1). Michelle, as an adopted child of
allowed, the rules on intestate Ramon, will inherit as a legitimate child
succession apply. Under Art. 996 of the of Ramon. As an adopted child, Michelle
Civil Code, if a widow or widower and has all the rights of a legitimate child
legitimate children or descendants are (Sec 18, Domestic Adoption Law).
left, the surviving spouse has the same
share as of the children. Thus, (2). Lia will inherit in representation of
ownership over the house and lot will be Anna. Although Lia is an illegitimate
created among wife Erica and her child, she is not barred by Articles 992,
children Bernice, Connie and Dora. because her mother Anna is an
Similarly, the amount of P 1 million will illegitimate herself. She will represent
be equally divided among them. Anna as regards Anna's legitime under
Art. 902, NCC and as regards Anna's
intestate share under Art. 990, NCC.

Intestate Succession; Rights of The following may not inherit from

Representation: Illegitimate, Adopted Ramon:
Child; Iron Curtain Rule (2007) (1). Shelly, being an adopted child, she
cannot represent Cherry. This is
No. X. For purpose of this question, because adoption creates a personal
assume legal relation only between the adopter
all formalities and procedural and the adopted. The law on
requirements representation requires the
have been complied with. representative to be a legal heir of the
person he is representing and
In 1970, Ramon and Dessa got married. also of the person from whom the
Prior to their marriage, Ramon had a person being represented was
child, supposed to inherit. While Shelly is a
Anna. In 1971 and 1972, Ramon and legal heir of Cherry, Shelly is not a legal
Dessa heir of Ramon. Adoption created a
legally adopted Cherry and Michelle purely
respectively. In 1973, Dessa died while personal legal relation only between
giving birth to Larry Anna had a child, Cherry and Shelly.
Lia. Anna never married. Cherry, on the
other hand, legally adopted Shelly. Larry (2). Hans and Gretel are barred from
had twins, Hans and Gretel, with his inheriting from Ramon under Art. 992,
girlfriend, Fiona. In 2005, Anna, Larry NCC. Being illegitimate children, they
and Cherry cannot inherit ab intestao from Ramon.
died in a car accident. In 2007, Ramon
died. Who may inherit from Ramon and ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
who may not? Give your reason briefly. The problem expressly mentioned the
(10%) dates of the adoption of Cherry and
Michelle as 1971 and 1972. During that
SUGGESTED ANSWER: time, adoption was governed by the
The following may inherit from Ramon: New Civil Code. Under the New Civil
Code, husband and wife were allowed to
adopt separately or not jointly with the Legitimes; Compulsory Heirs (2012)
other spouse. And since the problem No.VIII.
does not specifically and categorically
state, it is possible to construe the use b) How can RJP distribute his estate
of the word "respectively" in the problem by will, if his heirs are JCP, his wife;
as HBR and RVC, his parents; and an
indicative of the situation that Cherry illegitimate child, SGO?
was adopted by Ramon alone and
Michelle was adopted by Dessa alone. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In such case of separate adoption the A testator may dispose of by will the free
alternative answer to the problem will be portion of his estate. Since the legitime
as follows: Only Lia will inherit from of JCP is 1/8 of the estate, SGO is ¼ of
Ramon in representation of Ramon's the estate and that of HBR and RVC is
illegitimate daughter Anna. Although Lia ½ of the hereditary estate under Art 889
is an illegitimate child, she is not barred of the NCC, the remaining 1/8 of the
from inheriting from Ramon because her estate is the free portion which the
mother is herself illegitimate. Shelly testator may dispose of by will.
cannot inherit in representation of
Cherry because Shelly is just an Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2008)
adopted child of Cherry. In
representation, the representative must No. XII. Ernesto, an overseas Filipino
not only be a legal heir of the person he worker, was coming home to the
is representing but also of the decedent Philippines after working for so many
from whom the years in the Middle East. He had
represented person is supposed to saved P100.000 in his saving account
inherit. In the case of Shelly, while she is in Manila which intended to use to
a legal heir of Cherry by virtue of start a business in his home country.
adoption, she is not a legal heir of On his flight home, Ernesto had a
Ramon. Adoption creates a personal fatal heart attack. He left behind his
legal relation only between the adopting widowed mother, his common-law
parent and the adopted child (Teotico v. wife and their twins sons. He left no
Del Val, 13 SCRA 406, 1965. Michelle will, no debts, no other relatives and
cannot inherit from Ramon, because she no other properties except the money
was adopted not by Ramon but by in his saving account.
Dessa. In the eyes of the law, she is not
related Who are the heirs entitled to inherint
to Ramon at all. Hence, she is not a from
legal heir of Ramon. Hans and Gretel him and how much should each
are not entitled to inherit from Ramon, receive?(3%)
because they are barred by Art. 992
NCC. Being illegitimate children of Larry, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
they cannot inherit from the legitimate The mother and twin sons are entitled to
relatives of their father Larry. Ramon is inherit from Ernesto. Art. 991 of the Civil
a legitimate relative of Larry who is the Code, provides that if legitimate
legitimate father. ascendants are left, the twin sons shall
divide the inheritance with them taking
one-half of the estate. Thus, the driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family
widowed mother gets P50,000.00 while cook, and
the twin Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who
sons shall receive P25,000.00 each. prepared
The common-law wife cannot inherit the will. There was a 3rd page, but
from him because when the law speaks this only
"widow or widower" as a compulsory contained the notarial
heir, the law refers to a legitimate acknowledgement.
spouse (Art. 887, par 3, Civil Code). The attestation clause stated the will
was
Preterition; Disinheritance (2008) signed on the same occasion by
Arthur and
No.X. Arthur executed a will which his instrumental witnesses who all
contained only: (i) a provision signed
disinheriting in the presence of each other, and the
his daughter Bernica for running off notary public who notarized the will.
with a There
married man, and (ii) a provision are no marginal signatures or
disposing pagination
of his share in the family house and appearing on any of the 3 pages.
lot in Upon his
favor of his other children Connie death, it was discovered that apart
and Dora. from the
He did not make any provisions in house and lot, he had a P 1 million
favor of account
his wife Erica, because as the will deposited with ABC bank.
stated, (A). Was Erica preterited? (1%)
she would anyway get ½ of the house
and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
lot as her conjugal share. The will Erica cannot be preterited. Art. 854 of
was very the Civil Code provides that only
brief and straightforward and both compulsory heirs in the direct line can
the be preterited.
above provisions were contained in
page 1, (B). What other defects of the will, if
which Arthur and his instrumental any,
witness, can cause denial of probate? (2%)
signed at the bottom. Page 2
contained the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
attestation clause and the signatures, The other defects of the will that can
at cause its denial are as follows: (a) Atty.
the bottom thereof, of the 3 Zorba, the one who prepared the will
instrumental was
witnesses which included Lambert, one of the three witnesses, violating the
the three-witnesses rule; (b) no marginal
signature at the last page; (c ) the of Marian. Under Par. 5, rule 131, Sec. 5
attestation did not state the number of (KK) of the Rules of Court, if one is
pages upon which the will is written; under 15 or above 60 and the age of the
and, (d) no pagination appearing other is in between 15 and 60, the latter
correlatively in letters on the upper part is presumed to have survived. In the
of the three pages (Azuela v. C.A., G.R. instant case, Marian was already 18
No. 122880, 12 Apr 2006 and cited when she found out that she was
cases pregnant. She could be of the same age
therein, Art 805 and 806, Civil Code). or maybe 19 years of age when she
(C). Was the disinheritance valid? (1%) gave birth.
(C). Will Pietro, as surviving biological
SUGGESTED ANSWER: father of the baby, be entitled to claim
Yes, the disinheritance was valid. Art. the
919, par 7, Civil Code provides that proceeds of the life insurance on the life
"when a child or descendant leads a of
dishonorable or disgraceful life, like Marian? (2%)
running off with a married man, there is SUGGESTED ANSWER:
sufficient cause for disinheritance." Pietro, as the biological father of the
baby, shall be entitled to claim the
Succession; Proof of Death between proceeds of life insurance of the Marian
persons called to succeed each other because he is a compulsory heir of his
(2008) child.

No. II. At age 18, Marian found out that Succession; Rule on Survivorship
she (2009)
was pregnant. She insured her own life No. II. Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower,
and named her unborn child as her sole and his son Roberto both died in a fire
beneficiary. When she was already due that gutted their home while they were
to give birth, she and her boyfriend sleeping in their air-conditioned rooms.
Pietro, the father of her unborn child, Roberto’s wife, Marilyn, and their two
were kidnapped in a resort in Bataan children were pared because they were
where they were vacationing. The in the province at the time. Dr. Lopez left
military gave chase and after one week, an estate worth P20M and a life
they were found in an insurance policy in the amount of P1M
abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and with his three children ---
Pietro were hacked with bolos. Marian one of whom is Roberto --- as
and the baby delivered were both found beneficiaries. Marilyn is now claiming for
dead, with the baby's umbilical cord herself and her
already cut. Pietro survived. children her husband’s share in the
(B). Between Marian and the baby, who estate left by Dr. Lopez, and her
is husband’s share in the proceeds of Dr.
presumed to have died ahead? (1%) Lopez’s life insurance policy. Rule on
the validity of Marilyn’s claims with
SUGGESTED ANSWER: reasons. (4%)
The baby is presumed to have died
ahead SUGGESTED ANSWER :
As to the Estate of Dr. Lopez: Marilyn is Cancellations (2012)
not entitled to a share in the estate of
Dr. Lopez. For purpose of succession, No.VII.a) Natividad’s holographic will,
Dr. Lopez and his son which
Roberto are presumed to have died at had only one (1) substantial
the same time, there being no evidence provision, as
to prove otherwise, and there shall be first written, named Rosa as her sole
no transmission of rights from one to the heir.
other (Article 43, NCC). Hence, Roberto, However, when Gregorio presented it
inherited nothing from his father that for probate, it already contained an
Marilyn would in turn inherit from alteration,
Roberto .The children of Roberto, naming Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as
however, will succeed their grandfather, sole heir, but without authentication
Dr. Lopez ,in representation of their by Natividad’s signature. Rosa
father Roberto and together Roberto will opposes the probate alleging such
receive 1/3 of the estate of Dr. Lopez lack of proper authentication. She
since their father Roberto was one of the claims that the unaltered form of the
three children of Dr. Lopez . Marilyn will should be given effect. Whose
cannot represent her husband Roberto claim should be granted?
because the right is not given by the law Explain. (5%)
to a surviving spouse. As to the
proceeds of the insurance on SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the life of Dr. Lopez: It depends. If the cancellation of Rosa’s
name in the will was done by the
Since succession is not involved as testator himself, Rosa’s claimed that the
regards the insurance contract, the holographic will in its original tenor
provisions of the Rules of Court (Rule should be given effect must be denied.
131, Sec. 3 , [jj] [5] ) on survivorship The said cancellation has revoked the
shall apply. Under the Rules, Dr. Lopez, entire will as nothing remains of the will
who was 70 years old, is presumed to after the name of Rosa was cancelled.
have died ahead of Roberto who is Such cancellation is valid revocation of
presumably between the ages 15 and the will and does not require
60. Having survived the insured, authentication by the full signature of the
Roberto's right as a beneficiary became testator to be effective. However, if the
vested upon the death of Dr. Lopez. cancellation of Rosa’s name was not
When Roberto died after Dr. Lopez, his done by the testator himself, such
right to receive the insurance became cancellation shall not be
part of his hereditary estate, which in effective and the will in its original tenor
turn was shall remain valid. The effectively of the
inherited in equal shares by his legal holographic will cannot be left to the
heirs, namely, his spouse and children. mercy of unscrupulous third parties. The
Therefore, Roberto's children and his writing of Gregorio’s name as sole
spouse are entitled to Roberto's one- heir was ineffective, even though written
third share in the insurance proceeds. by the testator himself, because such is
an alteration that requires authentication
Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions & by the full signature of the testator to be
valid and effective. Not having an
authenticated, the designation of For purposes of probate in the
Gregorio as an heir was ineffective, Philippines, an alien testator may
(Kalaw v. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207, observe the law of the place where the
Sept28, 1984). will was executed (Art 17, NCC), or the
formalities of the law of the place where
Wills; Holographic Wills; Probate he resides, or according to the
(2009) formalities of the law of his own country,
No.VI. or in accordance with the Philippine
Civil Code (Art. 816, NCC). Since Dr.
On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes executed his will in accordance
Fuentes executed a holographic will, with the Philippine law, the Philippine
wherein he gave nothing to his court shall apply the New Civil Code in
recognized illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. determining the formal validity of the
Fuentes left for the United States, holographic will. The subsequent
passed the New York medical change
licensure examinations, resided in the citizenship of Dr. Fuentes did not
therein, and became a naturalized affect the law governing the validity of
American citizen. his will. Under the new Civil Code, which
was the law used by Dr. Fuentes, the
He died in New York in 2007. The law
laws of enforced at the time of execution of the
New York do not recognize will shall govern the formal validity of
holographic wills the will (Art. 795, NCC).
or compulsory heirs. (B). Assuming that the will is probated in
the Philippines, can Jay validly insist
(A). Can the holographic will of Dr. that
Fuentes he be given his legitime? Why or why
be admitted to probate in the not?
Philippines? (3%)
Why or why not? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Jay cannot insist because under
Yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes New
may be admitted to probate in the York law he is not a compulsory heir
Philippines because there is no public entitled to a legitime. The national law of
policy violated by such probate. The the testator
only issue at probate is the due determines who his heirs are, the order
execution of the will which includes the that they succeed, how much their
formal validity of the will. As regards successional rights are, and whether or
formal not a testamentary disposition in his will
validity, the only issue the court will is valid (Art 16, NCC). Since, Dr.
resolve at probate is whether or not the Fuentes
will was executed in accordance with the was a US citizen, the laws of the New
form prescribed by the law observed by York determines who his heirs are. And
the testator in the execution of his will. since the New York law does not
recognize the concept of compulsory probate because a joint will is
heirs, Jay is not a compulsory heir of Dr. expressly
Fuentes entitled to a legitime. prohibited under Art. 818 of the Civil
Code. This provision applies since
John and
Wills; Joint Wills; Probate (2012) Paula became Filipino citizens after
No.VII.b) John Sagun and Maria Carla their
Camua, British citizens at birth, acquired marriage.
Philippine citizenship by naturalization
after their marriage. During their
marriage Wills; Joint Wills (2008) (B). Are the testamentary
dispositions
No. XI. John and Paula, British valid? (2%)
citizens at
birth, acquired Philippine citizenship SUGGESTED ANSWER:
by No. The testamentary dispositions are
naturalization after their marriage. not valid because (a) omission of Mary,
During a
their marriage the couple acquired legitimate child, is tantamount to
substanial landholdings in London preterition which shall annul the
and in Makati. Paula bore John three institution of Peter and Paul as heirs
children, Peter, Paul and Mary. In one (Art. 854, Civil Code); and, (b) the
of their trips to London, the couple disposition that Peter and Paul could not
executed a joint will appointing each dispose of nor divide the London estate
other as their heirs and providing that for more than 20 years is void (Art. 870,
upon the death of the survivor Civil Code).
between them the entire estate ,
would go to Peter and Paul only but the couple acquired substantial
the two landholdings in London and in Makati.
could not dispose of nor divide the Maria begot three (3) children, Jorge,
London Luisito, and Joshur. In one of their trips
estate as long as they live. John and to London, the couple executed a joint
Paul will appointing each other as their heirs
died tragically in the London Subway and
terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and providing that upon the death of the
Paul survivor between them, the entire estate
filed a petition for probate of their would go to Jorge and Luisito only but
parent's the two (2) could not dispose of nor
will before a Makati Regional Trial divide the London estate as long as they
Court. live. John and Maria died tragically in
(A). Should the will be admitted to the London subway terrorist attack in
probate? 2005. Jorge and
(2%) Luisito filed a petition for probate of their
parents’ will before a Makati Regional
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Trial
No. The will cannot be admitted to
Court. Joshur vehemently objected but only for 20 years. Under Arts 1083
because and
he was preterited. 494 of the NCC, a testamentary
(1) Should the will be admitted to disposition
probate? of the testator cannot forbid the partition
Explain. (2%) of
all or part of the estate for a period
SUGGESTED ANSWER: longer
No, the will should not be admitted to than twenty (20) years.
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 Wills; Prohibition to Partition of a Co-
them void, even though authorized of Owned Property (2010)
the country where they were executed. No.I. True or False.

(2) Are the testamentary dispositions (B) X, a widower, died leaving a will
valid? stating
Explain. (2%) that the house and lot where he lived
cannot be partitioned for as long as
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the
Since the joint will is void, all the youngest of his four children desires
testamentary disposition written therein to stay
are also void. However, if the will is there. As coheirs and co-owners, the
valid, the institutions of the heirs shall other
be annulled because Joshur was three may demand partition anytime.
preterited. He was preterited because (1%)
he
will receive nothing from the will, will SUGGESTED ANSWER:
receive nothing in testacy, and the facts FALSE, The other three co – heirs may
do not show that he received anything not anytime demand the partition of the
as house and lot since it was expressly
an advance on his inheritance. He was provided by the decedent in his will that
totally excluded from the inheritance of the same cannot be partitioned while his
his parents. youngest child desires to stay there.
Article 1083 of the New Civil Code
(3) Is the testamentary prohibition allows a decedent to prohibit, by will, the
against partition of a property and his estate for
the division of the London estate valid? a period not longer than 20 years no
Explain. (1%) matter what his reason maybe. Hence,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the three co-heir cannot demand its
Assuming the will of John and Maria partition at anytime but only after 20
was years from the death of their father.
valid, the testamentary prohibition on the Even if the deceased parent did not
division of the London estate shall be leave a will, if the house and lot
valid constituted their family home, Article
159 of the Family Code prohibits its
partition for a period of ten (10) years, or Wills; Testamentary Disposition;
for as long as there is a minorbeneficiary Period
living in the family home. to Prohibit Partition (2008)

Wills; Notarial Wills; Blind Testator; No. XI. John and Paula, British citizens
Requisites (2008) No. XIV. at
birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by
Stevie was born blind. He went to naturalization after their marriage.
school for the blind, and learned to During
read in their marriage the couple acquired
Baille Language. He Speaks English substanial landholdings in London and
fluently. Can he: in Makati. Paula bore John three
children, Peter, Paul and Mary. In one of
(A). Make a will? (1%) their trips to London, the couple
SUGGESTED ANSWER: executed a joint will appointing each
Assuming that he is of legal age (Art. other as their heirs and providing that
797, Civil Code) and of sound mind at upon the death of the survivor between
the time of execution of the will (Art. them the entire estate
798, Civil Code), Stevie, a blind person, would go to Peter and Paul only but the
can make a notarial will, subject to two
compliance with the "two-reading rule" could not dispose of nor divide the
(Art. 808, Civil Code) and the provisions London
of Arts. 804, 805 and 806 of the Civil estate as long as they live. John and
Code. Paul
died tragically in the London Subway
(B). Act as a witness to a will? (1%) terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul
SUGGESTED ANSWER: filed a petition for probate of their
Stevie cannot be a witness to a will. Art. parent's will before a Makati Regional
820 of the Civil Code provides that "any Trial Court. (C). Is the testamentary
person of sound mind and of the age of prohibition against the division of the
eighteen years or more, and not blind, London estate valid? (2%)
deaf or dumb, and able to read and
write, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
may be a witness to the execution of a No. the testamentary prohibition against
will. the division of the London estate is void
(Art. 870, Civil Code). A testator,
(C). In either of the above instances, however, may prohibit partition for a
must period which shall not exceed twenty
the will be read to him? (1%) (20) years (Art. 870 in relation to Art.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 494, par 3, Civil Code).
If Stevie makes a will, the will must be
read to him twice, once by one of the
subscribing witnesses, and again, by the Wills; Witnesses to a Will, Presence
notary public before whom the will is required; Thumbmark as Signature
acknowledged (Art. 808, Civil Code). (2007)No.VI.
 direction (Jaboneta v. Gustilo, 5 Phil
Clara, thinking of her mortality, 541, 1906; Nera v. Rimando, 18 Phil
drafted a will and asked Roberta, 451, 1914). Therefore, the testatrix
Hannah, signed the will in the presence of only
Luisa and Benjamin to be witnesses. two witnesses, and only two witnesses
During the day of signing of her will, signed the will in the presence of the
Clara fell down the stairs and broke testatrix and of one another.
her arms. Coming from the hospital,
Clara insisted on signing her will by It is to be noted, however, that the
thumb mark and said that she can thumb mark intended by the testator to
sign her full name later. While the will be his signature in executing his last will
was being signed, Roberta and testament is valid (Payad
experienced a stomach ache and kept v.Tolentino, 62 Phil 848, 1936; Matias v.
going to the restroom for long Salud, L-104 Phil 1046, 23 June, 1958).
periods of time.
Hannah, while waiting for her turn to The problem, however, states that Clara
sign the will, was reading the 7th "said that she can sign her full name
Harry Potter book on the couch, later;" Hence, she did not consider her
beside the table on which everyone thumb mark as her "complete"
was signing. Benjamin, aside from signature, and intended further action on
witnessing the will, also offered to her part. The testatrix and the other
notarize it. A week after, Clara was witness signed the will in the presence
run over by a drunk driver while of Hannah, because she was aware of
crossing the street in Greenbelt. her function and role as witness and
May the will of Clara be admitted to was in a position to see the testatrix and
probate? Give your reasons briefly. the other witnesses sign by merely
(10%) casting her eyes in the proper direction.
Donation
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Donations; Formalities; In Writing
Probate should be denied. The (2007)
requirement that the testator and at least No. VIII.
three (3) witnesses must sign all in the
"presence" of one another was not In 1986, Jennifer and Brad were
complied with. Benjamin who notarized madly in love. In 1989, because a
the will is disqualified as a witness, certain Picasso painting reminded
hence he cannot be counted as one of Brad of her, Jennifer acquired it and
the three witnesses (Cruz v. Villasor, 54 placed it in his bedroom. In 1990,
SCRA 31, 1973). The testatrix and the Brad and Jennifer broke up. While
other witnesses signed the will not in the Brad was mending his broken heart,
presence of Roberta because she was he met Angie and fell in love.
in the restroom for extended periods of Because the Picasso painting
time. Inside the restroom, Roberta could reminded Angie of him, Brad in his
not have possibly seen the testatrix and will bequeathed the painting to Angie.
the other witnesses sign the will by Brad died in 1995. Saddened by
merely casting her eyes in the proper Brad's death, Jennifer asked for the
Picasso painting as a remembrance
of him. Angie refused and claimed descendants, brothers, and sisters,
that Brad, in his will, bequeathed the nephews and nieces, she gets the
painting to her. Is Angie correct? entire estate.
Why or why not?(10%)
Barrier between illegitimate &
SUGGESTED ANSWER: legitimate relatives (1993)
NO. Angie is not correct. The Picasso
painting is not given or donated by A is the acknowledged natural child
Jennifer to Brad. She merely "placed it of B who died when A was already 22
in his bedroom." Hence, she is still the years old. When B's full blood
owner of the painting. Not being the brother, C, died he (C) was survived
owner of the Picasso painting, Brad by his widow and four children of his
cannot validly bequeath the same to other brother D. Claiming that he is
Angie (Art. 930, NCC). Even assuming entitled to inherit from his father's
that the painting was impliedly given or brother C. A brought suit to obtain
donated by Jennifer to Brad, the his
donation is nevertheless void for not share in the estate of C. Will his
being in writing. The Picasso painting action prosper?
must be worth more than 5,000 pesos.
Under Art. 748, NCC, the donation and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
acceptance of a movable worth more No, the action of A will not prosper. On
than 5,000 pesos must be in writing, the premise that B,C and D are
otherwise the donation is void. The legitimate brothers, as an illegitimate
donation being void, Jennifer remained child of B, A cannot inherit in intestacy
the owner of the Picasso painting and from C who is a legitimate brother of B.
Brad could not have validly disposed of Only the wife of C in her own right and
said painting in favor of Angie in his will. the
legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the children
SUCCESSION of D as C's How will you rule on Jorge's
Amount of Successional Rights opposition to the probate of legitimate
(2004) nephews inheriting as collateral
relatives) can inherit in intestacy. (Arts.
Mr. XT and Mrs. YT have been 992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975, Civil Code)
married for 20 years. Suppose the
wife, YT, died childless, survived only ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
by her husband, XT. What would be The action of A will not prosper. Being
the share of XT from her estate as an illegitimate, he is barred by Article
nheritance? Why? Explain. (5%) 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting ab
intestato from the legitimate relatives of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: his father.
Under the Civil Code, the widow or
widower is a legal and compulsory heir
of the deceased spouse. If the widow is Barrier between illegitimate &
the only surviving heir, there being no legitimate relatives (1996)
legitimate ascendants,
Cristina the illegitimate daughter of v. Reyes, 27 January 1992, 206 SCRA
Jose and Maria, died intestate, 437). However, the donation should be
without any descendant or collated to the hereditary estate and the
ascendant. Her valuable estate is legitime of the other heirs should be
being claimed by Ana, the legitimate preserved.
daughter of Jose, and Eduardo, the
legitimate son of Maria. Is either, ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
both, or neither of them entitled to Yes, the action against Joaquina Roxas
inherit? Explain. will prosper, but only
to the extent of the aliquot hereditary
SUGGESTED ANSWER: rights of the legitimate
Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to children as heirs. Joaquina will be
inherit of ab intestate from Cristina. Both entitled to retain her own
are legitimate relatives of Cristina's share as an illegitimate child, (Arts. 1440
illegitimate parents and therefore they and 1453. Civil
fall under the prohibition prescribed by Code; Art. 176, F. C.)
Art. 992, NCC (
Disinheritance; Ineffective;
Collation (1993) Preterition (2000)
In his last will and testament, Lamberto
Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio 1) disinherits his daughter Wilma
Cruz a residential lot of 300 because "she is disrespectful towards
square meters in Quezon City for me and raises her voice talking to me",
which Joaquin paid Julio the 2) omits entirely his spouse
amount of P300,000.00, When the Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of
deed was about to be P100,000.00 to his mistress Rosa and
prepared Joaquin told Julio that it be P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4)
drawn in the name of institutes his son Baldo as his sole heir.
Joaquina Roxas, his acknowledged How will you distribute his estate of
natural child. Thus, the P1,000,000.00? (5%)
deed was so prepared and executed SUGGESTED ANSWER:
by Julio. Joaquina then The disinheritance of Wilma was
built a house on the lot where she, ineffective because the ground relied
her husband and children resided. upon by the testator does not constitute
Upon Joaquin's death, his legitimate maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the
children sought to recover New Civil Code.
possession and ownership of the lot,
claiming that Joaquina Roxas was Hence, the testamentary provisions in
but a trustee of their father. Will the the will shall be annulled but only to the
action against Joaquina Roxas extent that her legitime was impaired.
prosper? The total omission of Elvira does not
constitute preterition because she is not
SUGGESTED ANSWER: a compulsory heir in the direct line. Only
Yes, because there is a presumed compulsory heirs in the direct line may
donation in favor of Joaquina under Art. be the subject of preterition. Not having
1448 of the Civil Code (De los Santos
been preterited, she will be entitled only 50,000 50,000 TOTAL 750,000 50,000
to her legitime. 200,000 1,000,000

The legacy in favor of Rosa is void Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Shares (2003)
under Article 1028 for being in Luis was survived by two legitimate
consideration of her adulterous relation children, two illegitimate children, his
with the testator. She is, therefore, parents, and two brothers. He left an
disqualified to receive the legacy of estate of P1 million. Luis died intestate.
100,000 pesos. The legacy of 50,000 Who are his intestate heirs, and
pesos in favor of Ernie is not inofficious how much is the share of each in his
not having exceeded the free portion. estate?
Hence, he shall be entitled to receive SUGGESTED ANSWER:
it.The institution of Baldo, which applies The intestate heirs are the two (2)
only to the free portion, shall be legitimate children and the two (2)
respected. In sum, the estate of illegitimate children. In intestacy the
Lamberto estate of the decedent is divided among
will be distributed as follows: the legitimate and illegitimate children
Baldo-----------------450,000 such that the share of each illegitimate
Wilma---------------250,000 child is one -half the share of each
Elvira-----------------250,000 legitimate child.
Ernie-----------------50,000 Their share are : For each legitimate
1,000,000 child –
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: P333,333.33 For each illegitimate child
The disinheritance of Wilma was –
effective because disrespect of, P166,666.66
and raising of voice to, her father
constitute maltreatment under Article Intestate Succession (1998)
919(6) of the New Civil Code. She is, Tessie died survived by her husband
therefore, not entitled to Mario, and two nieces, Michelle and
inherit anything. Her inheritance will go Jorelle, who are the legitimate children
to the other legal heirs. The total of an elder sister who had predeceased
omission of Elvira is not preterition her. The only property she left behind
because she is not a compulsory heir in was a house and lot worth two million
the direct line. She will receive only her pesos, which Tessie and her husband
legitime. The legacy in favor of Rosa is had acquired with the use of Mario's
void under Article with the testator. She savings from his income as a doctor.
is, therefore, disqualified to receive the How much of the property or its value, if
legacy. Ernie will receive the legacy in any, may Michelle and Jorelle
his favor because it is not claim as their hereditary shares? [5%]
inofficious. The institution of Baldo, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
which applies only to the free portion, Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides,
will be respected. In sum, the estate of "Should brothers and sisters or their
Lamberto shall be distributed as follows: children survive with the widow or
Heir Legitime Legacy Institution TOTAL widower, the latter shall be entitled to
Baldo 500,000 200.000 700,000 Elvira one-half of the inheritance and the
250,000 250,000 Ernie brothers and sisters or their children to
the other half." Tessie's gross estate illegitimate child as much of his
consists of a house and lot acquired estate as he can legally do. His estate
during her marriage, making it part of has an aggregate net amount of
the community property. Thus, one-half Pl,200,000.00, and
of the said property would have to all the above-named relatives are still
property. The other half, amounting to living. Emil now comes to you for
one million pesos, is her advice in making a will. How will you
conjugal share (net estate), and should distribute his estate according to his
be distributed to her intestate heirs. wishes without violating the law on
Applying the above provision of law, testamentary succession? (5%)
Michelle and Jorelle, Tessie's nieces,
are entitled to one-half of her conjugal SUGGESTED ANSWER:
share worth one million pesos, or P600,000.00 — legitime to be divided
500,000 pesos, while the other one-half equally between Tom, Henry and
amounting to P500,000 will go to Mario, Warlito as the legitimate children. Each
Tessie's surviving spouse. Michelle and will be entitled to P200,000.00. (Art. 888,
Jorelle are then entitled to P250,000 Civil Code) P100,000.00 --
pesos each as their hereditary share. share of Ramon the illegitimate child.
Equivalent to 1/2 of the share of each
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: legitimate child. (Art. 176, Family Code)
INTESTATE SUCCESSION P200,000.00 — Adette the wife. Her
ESTATE: P180,000.00 share is equivalent to the share of one
W- (widow gets 1/2 share) P90.000.00 legitimate child. (Art. 892, par. 2, Civil
(Art. 998) A- (son who repudiated his Code)
inheritance) None Art. 977) B - Pepe and Pilar, the parents are only
(Granddaughter) None secondary compulsory heirs and they
C - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) cannot inherit if the primary compulsory
P45.000.00 (Art.998) heirs (legitimate children) are alive. (Art.
D - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) 887, par. 2, Civil Code) Brother Mark
P45,000.00 (Art. 998) The and sister Nanette are not compulsory
acknowledged illegitimate child gets 1/2 heirs since they are not included in the
of the share of each enumeration under Article 887 of the
legitimate child. Civil Code.
The remaining balance of P300,000.00
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs vs. is the free portion which can be given to
Secondary Compulsory the illegitimate child Ramon as an
Heirs (2005) instituted heir. (Art. 914, Civil Code) If so
given by the decedent, Ramon would
Emil, the testator, has three receive a total of P400,000.00.
legitimate children, Tom, Henry and
Warlito; a wife named Adette; parents Preterition; Compulsory Heir (1999)
named Pepe and Pilar; an illegitimate
child, Ramon; brother, Mark; and a (a) Mr, Cruz, widower, has three
sister, legitimate children, A, B and C. He
Nanette. Since his wife Adette is well- executed a Will instituting as his
off, he wants to leave to his heirs to his estate of One Million
(P1,000,000.00) Pesos his two City, where he had a mansion and
children A and B, and his friend F. where two of his youngest children now
Upon his death, how should Mr. live and work. Two of his oldest children
Cruz's estate be divided? Explain. are farmers in Sulu, while the two
(3%) middle-aged children are employees in
Zamboanga City. Finding that the
(b) In the preceding question, deceased left no will, the youngest son
suppose Mr. Cruz instituted his two wanted to file intestate proceedings
children A and B as his heirs in his before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu
Will, but gave a legacy of P City. Two other siblings objected,
100,000.00 to his friend F. How arguing that it should be in Jolo before a
should the estate of Mr, Cruz be Shari’a mother, in favor of another
divided upon his death? Explain, (2%) sister, with their mother not
court since his lands are in Sulu. But
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Adil’s sisters in Pakistan want the
(a) Assuming that the institution of A, B proceedings held in Lahore before a
and F were to theentire estate, there Pakistani court. Which court has
was preterition of C since C is a jurisdiction and is the proper venue for
compulsory heir in the direct line. The the intestate proceedings? The law of
preterition will result in the total which country shall govern succession
annulment of the institution of heirs. to his estate? (5%)
Therefore, the institution of A, B and F
will be set aside and Mr. Cruz's estate SUGGESTED ANSWER:
will be divided, as in intestacy, equally In so far as the properties of the
among A, B and C as follows: A - decedent located in the Philippines are
P333,333.33; B - P333.333.33; and C - concerned, they are governed by
P333,333.33. Philippine law (Article 16, Civil Code).
Under Philippine law, the proper venue
(b) On the same assumption as letter for the settlement of the estate is the
(a), there was preterition of C. domicile of the decedent at the time of
Therefore, the institution of A and B is his death. Since the decedent last
annulled but the legacy of 100.000.00 resided in Cebu City, that is the proper
to F shall be respected for not being venue for the intestate settlement of his
inofficious. Therefore, the remainder of estate. However, the successional rights
P900.000.00 will be to the estate of ADIL are governed by
divided equally among A, B and C. Pakistani law, his national law, under
Article 16 of the Civil Code.
Proceedings; Intestate Proceedings;
Jurisdiction (2004) BAR 2017
In his lifetime, a Pakistani citizen, ADIL, Don Ricardo had 2 legitimate children-
married three times under Pakistani law. Tomas and Tristan. Tristan has 3
When he died an old widower, he left children. Meanwhile, Tomas had a
behind six children, two sisters, three relationship with Nancy, who was also
homes, and an estate worth at least 30 single and had the legal capacity to
million pesos in the Philippines. He was marry. Nancy became pregnant and
born in Lahore but last resided in Cebu gave birth to Tomas, Jr. After the birth of
Tomas, Jr., his father, Tomas, died. classification Indeed, the equal
Later, Don Ricardo died without a will protection clause permits classification.
and Tristan opposed the motion of
Tomas, Jr. to be declared an heir of the XX: RESERVA TRONCAL
deceased since he is an illegitimate
child. Tomas, Jr.countered that Article Princess married:Roberto and bore a
992 of the Civil Code is unconstitutional son, Onofre. Roberto died in a plane
for violation of the equal protection of crash Princess later married Märk
the laws. He explained that an and they also had a son-Pepito.
illegitimate child of an illegitimate parent Onofre donated to Pepito, his half-
is allowed to inherit under Articles brother, a lot in Makati City worth
902,982 and 990 of the Civil Code while p3,000,000.00. Pepito succumbed to
he-an illegitimate child of a legitimate an illness and died intestate. The lot:
father-cannot. Civil Law commentator given to Pepito by Onofre was
Arturo Tolentino opined that Article 992 inherited by his father, Mark. Mark
created an absurdity and committed an also died intestate. Lonely, Princess
injustice because while the illegitimate followed Mark to the life beyond. The
descendant of an illegitimate child can claimants: to the subject lot emerged-
represent, the illegitimate descendant of jojo, the father of Princess; Victor,
a legitimate child cannot. Decide the the father of Mark; and Jerico, the
case and explain. (5%) father of Roberto.

SUGGESTED ANSWER Who among the three (3) ascendants

is entitled to the lot? Explain. (5%)
I will deny the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be
declared as an heir of the deceased. SUGGESTED ANSWER
Tomas jr., being an illegitimate child of
the deceased legitimate son, Tomas, Jojo, Princess’s father, is entitled to the
cannot inherit ab intestate from the lot: This is a clear case of reserva
deceased, Don Ricardo, because of the troncal. The Origin is Onofre. The
iron curtain rule under Article 992 of the Prepositus is Pepito. The mode of
Civil Code. Tomas cannot argue that transmission from Onofre to Pepito is
Article 992 is violative of the equal donation (hence by gratuitous title), The
protection clause because equal Reservista is Mark, who acquired it from
protection simply requires that all his descendant (son) Pepito by legitime
persons or things similarly situated and intestacy (hence, by operation of
should be treated alike, both as to rights law). The Reservatario is Princess, a
conferred and responsibilities imposed relative of the Prepositus Pepito within
(Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, the third degree and who belonged to
May 31, 1957, 101 Phil: 7755). It, the line of origin (the maternal line). Line
however, does not require the universal of origin is the maternal line because
application of the laws to all persons or Onofre (the Origin) and Pepito. (the
things without distinction. What it simply Prepositus) are maternal half-blood
requires is equality among equals as siblings. When Mark (Reservista) died,
determined according to a valid the property passed to Princess as sole.
reservatario, thus extinguishing the
reserva troncal. Upon Princess’s death, other hand, is a legitimate child because
the property was transmitted ab she was conceived or born inside a valid
intestato to her father Jojo. marriage. Pedro’s surviving parents are
Transmission to Jojo is by the ordinary not legal heirs because they are
rules of compulsory and intestate excluded by Alex. In intestate
succession, not by reserva troncal, succession, the legitimate ascendants
because the reserva was extinguished do not become legal heirs if there is a
upon the transmission of the property to surviving legitimate descendant, such as
Princess, this making Princess the Alex in the problem. Veneranda is not a
absolute owner subject to no reserva. legal heir of Pedro because she and
Pedro were not married.
Bar Questions and Answers 2017
Ordinarily, the share of an illegitimate
Pedro had worked for 15 years in child in intestate succession is one-half
Saudi Arabia when he finally decided of the share of the legitimate child.
to engage in farming in his home Considering, however, that the three
province where his 10-hectare illegitimate chidlren will impair the
farmland valued at P2,000,000 was legitime of Alex if the foregoing formula
located. He had already P3,000,000 is followed, Alex is entitled instead to get
savings from his long stint in Saudi his legitime, which is ½ of the estate, or
Arabia. Eagerly awaiting Pedro’s P2.5 Million, while the remaining P2.5
arrival at the NAIA were his aging Million is to be divided equally among
parents Modesto and the three illegitimate children of Pedro.
Jacinta, his common-law spouse Their legitimes in this case will likewise
Veneranda, their three children, and be their shares in intestate succession.
Alex, his child by Carol, his departed
legal wife. Sadly for all of them, Pedro (b) Assuming that Pedro’s will is
suffered a stroke because of his over- discovered soon after his funeral. In the
excitement just as the plane was will, he disposed of half of his estate in
about to land, and died without favor of Veneranda, and the other half in
seeing any of them. The farmland and favor of his children and his parents in
the savings were all the properties he equal shares. Assuming also that the
left. will is admitted to probate by the proper
court. Are the testamentary dispositions
(a) State who are Pedro’s legal heirs, valid and effective under the law on
and the shares of each legal heir to succession? Explain your answer. (4%)
the estate?
Explain your answer. (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because the testamentary
SUGGESTED ANSWER: dispositions impair the legitimes of
Pedro’s legal heirs are his legitimate Pedro’s compulsory heirs.
child, Alex, and his three illegitimate Following the provisions of the Civil
chidlren with Veneranda. Pedro’s Code, only Alex and Pedro’s three
chidlren with Veneranda are illegitimate illegitimate children are Pedro’s
because they were conceived and born compulsory heirs. Since Alex is Pedro’s
outside of a valid marriage. Alex, on the legitimate descendant and a primary
compulsory heir, she excludes Pedro’s entitled to inherit, the amount that
parents as compulsory heirs, the latter each of them will inherit, and where
being merely secondary compulsory (i.e., legitime/free portion/intestate
heirs. However, the three illegitimate share) their shares should be
chidlren are considered concurring charged.
compulsory heirs who are also entitled
to a share of the legitime. ANSWER:
Santino and Sara shall be entitled to half
Under the law, the legitime of Alex, of the estate as their legitime. Thus, they
being a legitimate descendant, is ½ of are entitled to 4M collectively, or 2M
Pedro’s estate, or each. The legitime of legitimate children
P2.5 Million. The legitime of each of the and descendants consists of one-half of
illegitimate children is supposed to be ½ the hereditary estate of the father and of
of the the mother (Art. 888). The priest, being
share of Alex, or P1.25 Million each. a legatee, is entitled to his 1M as
Considering, however, that the provided by the decedent’s last will and
remaining portion of the estate is no testament. This share is chargable to
longer sufficient to cover the supposed the Free Portion of the hereditary estate.
legitimes of the three illegitimate
children, they will simply share equally in The remaining 3M shall be subjected to
the remaining P2.5 Million. the rules of intestate succession. Sara is
Consequently, there is no disposable incapacitated to inherit since she was an
free portion that Pedro may validly give attesting witness.
to Veneranda or to his parents. Hence,
the will is intrinsically invalid. XX

BAR Questions 2018 Sydney, during her lifetime, was a

successful lawyer. By her own
V. Sol Soldivino, widow, passed choice, she remained unmarried and
away, leaving two (2) legitimate devoted all her time to taking care of
children: a 25- year old son, Santino her nephew and two (2) nieces:
(whom she had not spoken to for five Socrates, Saffinia, and Sophia. She
[5] years prior to her death since he wrote a will giving all her properties
attempted to kill her at that time), and remaining upon her death to the three
a 20-year-old daughter, Sara. She left (3) of them. The will was admitted to
an estate worth PhP8 million and a probate during her lifetime. Later, she
will containing only one provision: decided to make a new will giving all
that PhP1 million should be given to her remaining properties only to the
"the priest who officiated at my two (2) girls, Saffinia and Sophia. She
wedding to my children's late father." then tore up the previously probated
Sara, together with two (2) of her will. The second will was presented
friends, acted as an attesting witness for probate only after her death.
to the will. On the assumption that However, the probate court found the
the will is admitted for probate and second will to be void for failure to
that there are no debts, divide the comply with formal requirements. (a)
estate and indicate the heirs/legatees 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?

Answer
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.