(2019)

D, an Overseas Filipino Worker, was on his way home to the Philippines after working for
so many years in the Middle East. He had saved ₱100,000.00 in his local savings account
which he intended to use to start up a business in his home country. On his flight home,
tragedy struck as a suicide bomber blew up the plane. All the passengers, including D,
died. He left behind his widowed mother M; his common-law wife, W, who is the mother
of his twin sons, T and S; and his brother, B. He left no will, no debts, no other relatives,
and no other properties except the money in his savings account.

Who are the heirs entitled to inherit from D and how much should each receive? Explain.

D’s twin sons T and S are entitled to inherit half of the estate of F which is P50,000.00 or
P25,000.00 each. M, the mother of D, is also entitled to the other half which is P50,000.00.

Under Art. 991 of the Civil Code, if legitimate ascendants are left, the illegitimate children
shall divide the inheritance with them, taking one-half of the estate, whatever be the number of
the ascendants or of the illegitimate children.

Here, D is survived by his mother, twin sons, his common law wife, and his brother. D
died intestate and his heirs are the mother (legitimate ascendant) and his twin sons
(illegitimate). W, the common-law wife” is not an heir ab intestato because she is not a legal
spouse. She is merely a partner in a non-marital union. B, the brother is also not entitled to
inherit since he is excluded because of the presence of the children of the decedent and the
mother of the decedent.
(2019)

M. single, named his sister N in his will, as a devisce over a certain parcel of land that he
owned, with the obligation of preserving the land and transferring it, upon N’s death, to
her illegitimate daughter O. who was then only a year old.

Is the condition imposed on N to preserve the land and to transmit it upon her death to a
valid case of fideicommissary substitution? Explain.

Yes ,the condition imposed on N to preserve the land and to transmit it upon her death is
a valid case of fideicommissary substitution.

Article 863 of the Civil Code provides that a fideicommissary substitution by virtue of
which the fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to
transmit to a second heir the whole or part of the inheritance, shall be valid and shall take effect,
provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted,
and provided further, that the fiduciary or first heir and the second heir are living at the time of
the death of the testator

The condition that both N and O are living at the time of M’s death is a valid condition in
a fideicommissary substitution since it may be required in this kind of substitution that the
fiduciary must preserve and transmit the property to the second heir and that they mist be both
living at the time of testator’s death. There is the absolute obligation imposed upon the fiduciary
N to preserve and to transmit to the fideicommissary the part of the inheritance. Also, O, the
fideicommissary, as the fiduciary’s illegitimate daughter is one degree from the fiduciary.
Furthermore, O’s illegitimate status is of no moment, because Art. 863, referring to the “heir”
does not distinguish between legitimate from illegitimate relationships.
(2019)
Prior to his death, H, married to W, with children X, Y, and Z, executed a holographic will entirely
written, dated, and signed by him. In his will, H instituted W, X, and Y as his heirs, and
consequently, made testamentary dispositions in their favor. H, however, expressly disinherited
Z on the ground that the latter once filed a civil case against him in order to collect a particular
sum of money he previously owed Z.

(a) Was the disinheritance of Z proper? Explain. (3%)

(b) Assuming that the disinheritance of Z was improper, how will it affect the institution of
heirs and testamentary dispositions made in H's will? Explain. (3%)

a. No, the disinheritance of Z was not proper.

Article 919 of the same Code provides that the following shall be sufficient causes for the
disinheritance of children and descendants, legitimate as well as illegitimate. One of which is
when a child or descendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes
imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation has been found groundless

Here, the reason that Z once filed a civil case against him in order to collect a particular
sum of money he previously owed is not one of the grounds for valid disinheritance. Since what
Z filed was a mere civil case to collect a debt and not a criminal case for a crime which the law
prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, the disinheritance was not proper.

b. Article 918 of the Civil Code provides that disinheritance for a cause which is not one of
those set forth in this Code, shall annul the institution of heirs insofar as it may prejudice
the person disinherited; but the devises and legacies and other testamentary
dispositions shall be valid to such extent as will not impair the legitime.
(2014)

Crispin died testate and was survived by Alex and Josine, his children from his first wife;
Rene and Ruby, his children from his second wife; and Allan, Bea, and Cheska, his
children from his third wife.

One important provision in his will reads as follows:

"Ang lupa at bahay sa Lungsod ng Maynila ay ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan nila Alex at
Rene hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang
nila at nang ang sinuman sa aking mga anak, sampu ng aking mga apo at kaapuapuhan
ko sa habang panahon, ay may tutuluyan kung magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o sa
kalapit na mga lungsod."

Is the provision valid?

No, the provision is not valid

Art 870 of the Civil Code provides that the dispositions of the testator declaring all or
part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are void.

Here, the provision imposing the division of the property “habang panahon” is invalid.
Hence, the provision leaving the administration of the house and lot to Alex and Rene is valid
but the provision “habang buhay” is invalid as to the excess beyond 20 years.
(2012)

a) Ricky and Arlene are married. They begot Franco during their marriage. Franco had an
illicit relationship with Audrey and out of which, they begot Arnel. Franco predeceased
Ricky, Arlene and Arnel. Before Ricky died, he executed a will which when submitted to
probate was opposed by Arnel on the ground that he should be given the share of his
father, Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel correct? Why? (5%)

b) How can RJP distribute his estate by will, if his heirs are JCP, his wife; HBR and RVC,
his parents; and an illegitimate child, SGO?

a. NO, his opposition is not correct.

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

Arnel cannot inherit from Ricky in representation of his father, Franco. The
representative must not only be a legal heir of the person he is representing but he must also be
a legal heir of the decedent he seeks to inherit from. While Arnel is a legal heir of Franco, he is
not a legal heir of Ricky because an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the
legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. Arnel is disqualified to Inherit from Ricky
because Arnel is an illegitimate child of Franco and Ricky is a legitimate relative of Franco.

b. RJP may distribute his estate in the following manner: the legitime of JCP, his wife is 1/8
of the estate; SGO, his illegitimate son, is 1⁄4 of the estate and that of HBR and RVC, his
parents, is 1⁄2 of the hereditary estate under Art. 889 of the Civil Code, the remaining 1/8
of the estate is the free portion which the testator may dispose of by will.

Art. 889 of the Civil Code provides that The legitime of legitimate parents or
ascendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estates of their children and
descendants. The children or descendants may freely dispose of the other half, subject
to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.