MIDTERMS

WILLS AND SUCCESSION

WILLS & SUCCESSION MIDTERM EXAMINATIONS 04 NOVEMBER 2023 “CHEATING IS EASY . . . TRY
SOMETHING MORE CHALLENGING … LIKE BEING HONEST.”

2023 GOLDEN NOTES 399

QUESTION 1 Conchita and Eduardo Cruz had two (2) daughters namely Rachel and Monica. When
Eduardo died, Monica followed preceding Conchita and leaving her children. Thereafter, Conchita died
leaving several properties. Jack, son of Monica, filed a petition to settle the intestate estate of Conchita
alleging that Conchita’s heirs include Monica’s children and Rachel. Thereafter, Rachel filed a motion to
dismiss the petition for intestate proceedings stating that she already filed for the probate of Conchita’s
will. Rachel asked that the will be allowed probate and that it be approved that she be named as the
executrix in the will, she prayed that the letters testamentary be issued in her favor. Jack filed an
opposition to Rachel’s petition for probate alleging that the will’s attestation clause did not state the
number of pages. Rachel countered that there was substantial compliance with Article 805 of the Civil
Code. Although the attestation clause did not state the number of pages comprising the will, the number
of pages, five (5), was clearly indicated in the acknowledgement portion. Moreover, Jack’s allegations
were not supported by proof. Can the will of Conchita be probated even though the will does not
conform to the formalities required by law under Article 805? Answer with legal reasoning. (10 points)

2023 GOLDEN NOTES

10 POINTS (CORRECT)
2023 ust golden notes
A: YES. The rule on substantial compliance in Art. 809 presupposes that the defects in the attestation
clause can be cured or supplied by the text of the will or a consideration of matters apparent therefrom
which would provide the data not expressed in the attestation clause or from which it may necessarily
be gleaned or clearly inferred that the acts not stated in the omitted textual requirements were actually
complied with in the execution of the will. In other words, the defects must be remedied by intrinsic
evidence supplied by the will itself. In the case, the attestation clause indisputably omitted to mention
the number ofpages comprising the will. Nevertheless, the acknowledgment portion of the will supplied
the omission by stating that the will has five pages, to wit: “Ang HULING HABILING ito ay binubuo ng
lima (5) na dahon, kasama ang dahong kinaroroonan ng Pagpapatunay at Pagpapatotoong ito.”
Undoubtedly, such substantially complied with Art. 809 of the NCC. Mere reading and observation of the
will, without resorting to other extrinsic evidence, yields the conclusion that there are actually five pages
even if the said information was not provided in the attestation clause. In any case, the CA declared that
there was substantial compliance with the directives of Art. 805 of the NCC. When the number of pages
was provided in the acknowledgment portion instead of the attestation clause, the spirit behind the law
was served though the letter was not. Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial
requirements ofthe law in order to ensure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should
be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may only
defeat the testator's will. (In the matter of the petition for the probate of the will of Consuelo Santiago
Garcia: Catalino Tanchanco and Ronaldo Tanchanco v. Natividad Garcia Santos, G.R. No. 204793, 08 June
2020, as penned by J. Hernando)

UST GOLCEN NOTE 386 FORTUNATA

QUESTION 4 Maritess died while her action for quieting of title of parcels of land was pending. Alison
and Anton, children of Maritess, then filed a motion before the court where the quieting of title was
pending that they will substitute their mother in the claim. Marisol, the defendant in the case opposed
such motion reasoning that Alison and Anton are not real-parties-interest. Does the death of Maritess
result in the extinguishment of the action or may her heirs substitute her in the case? Answer with legal
reasoning. (5 points)

10 POINTS (CORRECT)

A: NO, her death did not extinguish the action. Her heirs may substitute her because the action
is not extinguished by her death. Since the rights to the succession are transmitted from the
moment of the death of the decedent, the heirs become the absolute owners of his property,
subject to the rights and obligations of the decedent, and they cannot be deprived of their
rights thereto except by the methods provided for by law. The right of the heirs to the property
of the deceased vests in them upon such death even before judicial declaration of their being
heirs in the testate or intestate proceedings. When she died, her claim or right to the parcels of
land in litigation was not extinguished by her death but was transmitted to her heirs upon her
death. Her heirs have, thus, acquired interest in the properties in litigation and became parties
in interest in the case. (Bonilla v. Barcena, G.R. No. L41715, 18 June 1976)

2015 UST CIVIL LAW page 1

QUESTION 5 Barry and Chloe were both former Filipino citizens. They were married in the Philippines,
but they later migrated to Canada where they were naturalized as citizens thereof. In their union they
were able to accumulate several real properties both in Canada and in the Philippines. Unfortunately,
they were not blessed with children. In Canada, they executed a joint will instituting as their common
heirs to divide their combined estate in equal shares, the five (5) siblings of Barry and the three (3)
siblings of Chloe. Barry passed away in 2016 and a year later, Chloe also died. The siblings of Barry who
were all Canadian citizens instituted probate proceedings in Canadian court impleading the siblings of
Chloe who were all in the Philippines. Answer with legal reasoning. (10 points)

A) Was the joint will executed by Barry and Chloe valid?

WRONG ANSWER (1 POINT)

2023 ust golden notes

YES, the joint will of Alden and Stela is valid. Being no longer Filipino citizens at the time they executed
their joint will, the prohibition under our Civil Code on joint wills will no longer apply to Alden and Stela.
For as long as their will was executed in accordance with the law of the place where they reside, or the
law of the country of which they are citizens or even in accordance with the Civil Code, a will executed
by an alien is considered valid in the Philippines. (Art. 816)

B) Can the joint will produce legal effect in the Philippines with respect to the properties of Barry and
Chloe found here in the country? If so, how?

WRONG ANSWER (1 POINT)

10 POINTS FROM CIVIL LAW BAR QA 2009-2017

YES, the joint will of Alden and Stela can take effect even with respect to the properties located in the
Philippines because what governs the distribution of their estate is no longer Philippine law but their
national law at the time of their demise. Hence, the joint will produces legal effect even with respect to
the properties situated in the Philippines.
Alden and Stela were both former Filipino citizens. They were married in the Philippines but they later
migrated to the United States where they were naturalized as American citizens. In their union they
were able to accumulate several real properties both in the US and in the Philippines. Unfortunately,
they were not blessed with children. In the US, they executed a joint will instituting as their common
heirs to divide their combined estate in equal shares, the five siblingsand of Alden the seven siblings of
Stela. Alden passed away in 2013 and a year later, Stela also died. The siblings of Alden who were all
citizens of the US instituted probate proceedings in a US court impleading the siblings of Stela who were
all in the Philippines. a) Was the joint will executed by Alden and Stela who were both former Filipinos
valid? Explain with legal basis. (3%) b) Can the joint will produce legal effect in the Philippines with
respect to the propertiesand of Alden Stela found here? If so, how? (3%) c) Is the situation presented in
Item I an example of depe9age? (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela is
considered valid. Being no longer Filipino citizens at the time they executed their joint will, the
prohibition under our Civil Code on joint wills will no longer apply to Alden and Stela. For as long as their
will was executed in accordance with the law of the place where they reside, or the law of the country of
which they are citizens or even in accordance with the Civil Code, a will executed by an alien is
considered valid in the Philippines. (Article 816) b) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela can take effect
even with respect to the properties located in the Philippines because what governs the distribution of
their estate is no longer Philippine law but their national law at the time of their demise. Hence, the
joint will produces legal effect even with respect to the properties situated in the Philippines. c) No,
because depecage is a process of applying rules of different states on the basis of the precise issue
involved. It is a conflict of laws where different issues within a case may be governed by the laws of
different states. In the situation in letter (a) no conflict of laws will arise because Alden and Stela are no
longer Filipino citizens at the time of the execution of their joint will and the place of execution is not
the Philippines.

Ust golden notes 403 stevie

QUESTION 6 Nelson was born blind. He went to school for the blind and learned to read in Braille
language. He speaks English fluently. Can he?

a) Make a will?

10 points correct

2023 ust golden notes

A: YES. Nelson may make a notarial will. A blind man is not expressly prohibited from executing
a will Nelson, however, may not make a holographic will in Braille because the writing in Braille
is not handwriting. A holographic will to be valid must be entirely written, signed, and dated by
the testator in his own handwriting.. In fact, Art. 808 of the NCC provides for an additional
formality when the testator is blind.
b) Act as a witness to a will?

8 points CORRECT PERO WRONG TYPING/WRONG GRAMMAR

2023 ust golden notes

A: NO. A blind man is disqualified by law to be a witness to a notarial will.

c) In either of the instances, must the will be read to him? (10 points)

8 points WRONG TYPING/WRONG GRAMMAR PERO CORRECT

2023 ust golden notes

A: In case Nelson executes a notarial will, it has to be read to him twice. First by one of the instrumental
witnesses and second by the notary public before whom the will was acknowledged. (Art. 808, NCC)

2023 Ust 407 mr reyes

QUESTION 12 Joey Del Mundo executed a will completely valid as to form. A week later, however, he
executed another will which expressly revoked his first will, upon which he tore his first will to pieces.
Upon the death of Joey, his second will was presented for probate by his heirs, but it was denied due to
formal defects. Assuming that a copy of the first will is available, may it now be admitted to probate and
given effect? Answer with legal reasoning. (5 points)

3 points WRONG TYPING/WRONG GRAMMAR PERO CORRECT

2023 ust golden notes

A: YES. The first will may be admitted to probate and given effect because the will that was supposed to
revoke the same was never admitted to probate on account of formal defects. Admission to probate of
the subsequent revoking will is one of the requisites for express revocation to take place.

QUESTION 13 Ben executes a document in his handwriting denominated as “Kasulatan sa Pag-aalis ng

Mana.” The document reads: “Ako, si Ben may asawa, naninirahan sa 123 Bagbag St., Bagumbong,
Caloocan City, at nagtataglay ng maliwanag na pagiisip at disposisyon, ay tahasan at hayagang inaalisan
ko ng lahat at anumang mana ang panganay kong anak na si Rey dahil siya ay nagging lapastangan sa
akin at ilang beses siyang nagsalita ng masama sa harapan ko at kapatid nya na si Ann na labis kong
ikinasama ng loob.” Rey opposes the will on grounds that it does not contain any disposition of estate
and therefore does not meet the definition of a will under Article 783 of the Civil Code. Rey claims that
the will only shows an alleged act of disinheritance by Ben and nothing else. Is the document a valid
will? Answer with legal reasoning. (5 points)

5 POINTS CORRECT

2023 ust golden notes 390

Q: The document, a holographic one, contained only a clause of disinheritance of one of the testator’s
son. Does the document meet the definition of the will under Art. 783 of NCC although it does not
contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased?

A: The document, although it may initially come across as mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to
the formalities of holographic will. The disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the
testator in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of the disinherited heir. (Seangio v. Reyes,
G.R.Nos. 140371–72, 27 Nov. 2006)

Ust 2023 397

QUESTION 3 Clara, thinking of her mortality, drafted a will and asked Charlene, Lyn, Tina and Benedict to
be witnesses. During the day of the signing of the will, Clara fell down the stairs and broke both her arms
and wrists. Coming from the hospital, where it was determined that she will be put in a cast for six (6)
months, Clara, insisted on signing her will by her thumbmark. Four (4) days after the execution of the
will, Clara was run over by a drunk driver in BGC. May the will of Clara be admitted to probate? Answer
with legal reasoning. (5 points)

5 POINTS CORRECT

2023 ust golden notes

A: YES. Clara’s thumbmark in this case has all the hallmarks of a valid signature. Clara clearly intended to
use her thumbmark as her signature and the circumstances justified her use of her thumbmark. (Garcia
v. La Cuesta, G.R. No. L-4067, 29 Nov. 1951)

QUESTION 9 Teddy executes in favor of Amy a document denominated as “Deed of Donation Inter
Vivos” involving a parcel of land. The deed of donation contains a provision that it becomes effective
only upon the death of the donor, and that in the event the donee should die before the donor, the
donation shall be deemed automatically rescinded and of no further force and effect. Shortly after
Teddy’s death, his heirs promptly filed an action seeking to annul the donation. They contend that the
donation is mortis causa and not inter vivos and therefore void for failure to comply with the formalities
of wills. Is the donation inter vivos or mortis causa? Answer with legal reasoning. (10 points)

5 points only (wrong reasoning, correct answer but wrong provision)

Civil law bar qa 2009-2017

The donation is a donation inter vivos. When the donor intends that the donation shall take effect
during the lifetime of the donor, though the property shall not be delivered till after the donor’s death,
this shall be a donation inter vivos (Art. 729). The Civil Code prefers inter vivos transmissions. Moreover,
mortis causa donations should follow the formalities of a will (Art. 728). Here there is no showing that
such formalities were followed. Thus, it is favorable to Jennifer that the deed is a donation inter vivos.
Furthermore, what is most significant in determining the type of donation is the absence of stipulation
that the donor could revoke the donation; on the contrary, the deeds expressly declare them to be
“irrevocable,” a quality absolutely incompatible with the idea of conveyances mortis causa where
revocability is the essence of the act, to the extent that a testator cannot lawfully waive or restrict his
right of revocation. The provisions of the deed of donation which state that the same will only take
effect upon the death of the donor and that there is a prohibition to alienate, encumber, dispose, or sell
the same should be harmonized with its express irrevocability (Austria-Magat v. CA, G.R. No. 106755,
February 1, 2002

QUESTION 10 On his deathbed, Larry was executing a will. In the room were his chosen witnesses,
Marissa, Carmella, Vicente and Atty. De Guzman, a notary public. Suddenly, there was a street brawl
which caught Vicente’s attention, prompting him to look out the window. Vicente did not see Larry sign
the will. Can the will still be considered valid? Answer with legal reasoning. (5 points)

5 points . correct.

Page 398 2023 ust golden notes

No, the will is not valid. The notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot be
considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself having signed
the will. He cannot split his personality into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge
his participation in the making of the will. To permit such a situation to obtain would be sanctioning a
sheer absurdity. (Cruz v. Villasor, G.R. No. L-32213, 26 Nov. 1973)
Long Quiz before Mid-Terms
July 27, 2016

QUESTION 2 Dean, a lawyer and a bisexual executed a holographic will in the Philippines name his
boyfriend Gabby as sole heir to his estate, this despite the fact that years before he became a lawyer, he
sired an illegitimate child, Angel, by a woman, while intoxicated. Later, he migrated to New York, U.S.A.,
and became a naturalized citizen later on. In New York, a holographic will is not recognized, nor does it
recognize compulsory heirs.

A) May the holographic will be probated in the Philippines? Why? (5 points)

I. Dean, a lawyer and a bisexual executed a holographic will in the Philippines naming
his boyfriend Gabby as sole heir to his estate, this despite the fact that years before he
became a lawyer, he sired an illegitimate child, Angel, by a woman, while
intoxicated. Later, he migrated to the New York, USA and therein became a
naturalized citizen. In the said state, holographic will is not recognized nor does it
recognize compulsory heirs
A. May the holographic will be probated in the Philippines? Why? 5%
B. May Angel insists that she be given her legitime? Why? 5%

A. Answer: Yes the holographic will may be probated in the Philippines. It was executed in
the Philippines while Atty. X was still a Filipino citizen. In probate of wills, only the due
execution in accordance with the formalities required at the time of the execution of the
will is the sole issue.
B. No Angel cannot insist on her legitime. Atty. X died as an American citizen and
therefore the national law of the testator determines the law on succession. Under the
New York law, compulsory heirs are not recognized and therefore Angel cannot insist on
her legitime. She will not inherit as a compulsory heir. The national law of the decedent
in testate and intestate succession shall govern with regards to four issues, namely:
01. Order of Succession
02. Amount of Successional Rights
03. Intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will
04. Capacity to Succeed.

Civil law bar QA 2009-2017

On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes executed a holographic will, wherein he gave nothing to his
recognized illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. Fuentes left for the United States, passed the New York medical
licensure examinations, resided therein, and became a naturalized American citizen. He died in New
York in 2007. The laws of New York do not recognize holographic wills or compulsory heirs.

[a] Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes be admitted to probate in the Philippines? Why or why not?
(3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes may be admitted to probate in the
Philippines because there is no public policy violated by such probate. The only issue at probate is the
due execution of the will which includes the formal validity of the will. As regards formal validity, the
only issue the court will resolve at probate is whether or not the will was executed in accordance with
the form prescribed by the law observed by the testator in the execution of his will. For purposes of
probate in the Philippines, an alien testator may observe the law of the place where the will was
executed (Article 17, NCC), or the formalities of the law of the place where he resides, or according to
the formalities of the law of his own country, or in accordance with the Philippine Civil Code (Art. 816,
NCC).Since Dr. Fuentes executed his will in accordance with Philippine law, the Philippine court shall
apply the New Civil Code in determining the formal validity of the holographic will. The subsequent
change in the citizenship of Dr. Fuentes did not affect the law governing the validity of his will. Under the
New Civil Code, which was the law used by Dr. Fuentes, the law in force at the time of execution of the
will shall govern the formal validity of the will (Article 795, NCC).

B) May Angel insist that she be given her legitime as an illegitimate child? Why? (5 points)

Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that he be given his legitime?
Why or why not? (3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Jay cannot insist because under New York law he is not a compulsory heir
entitled to a legitime. The national law of the testator determines who his heirs are, the order that they
succeed, how much their successional rights are, and whether or not a testamentary disposition in his
will is valid (Article 16, NCC). Since, Dr. Fuentes was a US citizen, the laws of New York determines who
his heirs are. And since New York law does not recognize the concept of compulsory heirs, Jay is not a
compulsory heir of Dr. Fuentes entitled to a legitime.

QUESTION 8 Before his death, Seokjin borrowed from Suga Php100,000.00 as evidenced by a promissory
note. Seokjin died without paying the debt. Seokjin left no property, but he is survived by his son,
Jungkook, who is making good in the food catering business. Subsequently, Suga brought an action
against Jungkook for the collection of Php100,000.00 plus legal interest thereon on the ground that,
since Jungkook is the only heir of Seokjin, he inherited from the latter not only the latter’s property, but
also all his rights and obligations as dictated under the New Civil Code. Will the action prosper? Answer
with legal reasoning. (5 points)
When in the testator’s will there is a legacy of a credit against a third person or of the remission of a
debt of the legatee, and subsequently, after the execution of the will, the testator brings an action
against the debtor for the payment of his debt. In such case, the legacy is revoked. (Arts. 935 and 936,
NCC)

It includes all theproperty, rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death.
(Art. 776, NCC) The inheritance of a person includes not only the property and the transmissible rights
and obligations existing at the time of his death, but also those which have accrued thereto since the
opening of the succession. (Art. 781, NCC)

NOTE: The rights to a person’s succession are transmitted from the moment of his death. In addition,
the inheritance of a person consists of the property, and transmissible rights and obligations existing at
the time of his death (by virtue of succession), as well as those which have accrued thereto (by virtue of
ownership, by right of accession) since the opening of the succession. (Balus v. Balus, G.R. No. 168970,
10 Jan. 2010)

Succession bar q and a - reviewer

QUESTION 7 Harry died leaving a last will and testament wherein he explicitly stated that he was legally
married to Ginny by whom he had two (2) legitimate children, Al and Rose. Harry stated in his will that
the free portion of his estate shall be given to Katrina who was living with him at the time of his death.
In said will, Harry explained that he had been estranged from his wife, Ginny, for more than twenty (20)
years and he has been living with Katrina as man and wife since his separation from his legitimate family.
In the probate proceedings, Katrina asked for the issuance of letters testamentary in accordance with
the will where she was named as sole executrix. The probate court sided with Ginny and her children
with the opposition they filed. Was the court correct with its decision? Answer with legal reasoning. (5
points)

Civil law bar QA 2009-2017

Mario executed his last will and testament where he acknowledges the child being conceived by his live-
in partner Josie as his own child; and that his house and lot in Baguio City be given to his unborn
conceived child. Are the acknowledgment and the donation mortis causa valid? Why? (2014 BAR)
ANSWER: YES, the acknowledgment is considered valid because a will (although not required to be filed
by the notary public) may still constitute a document, which contains an admission of illegitimate
filiation. The recognition of an illegitimate child does not lose its legal effect even though the will
wherein it was made should be revoked (Art. 834). This provision by itself warrants a conclusion that a
will may be considered as proof of filiation. The donation mortis causa may be considered valid because
although unborn, a fetus has a presumptive personality for all purposes favorable to it provided it be
born under the conditions specified in Art. 41.
Wills; Probate; Intrinsic Validity (1990) H died leaving a last will and testament wherein it is stated that
he was legally married to W by whom he had two legitimate children A and B. H devised to his said
forced heirs the entire estate except the free portion which he gave to X who was living with him at the
time of his death. In said will he explained that he had been estranged from his wife W for more than 20
years and he has been living with X as man and wife since his separation from his legitimate family. In
the probate proceedings, X asked for the issuance of letters testamentary in accordance with the will
wherein she is named sole executor. This was opposed by W and her children. (a) Should the will be
admitted in said probate proceedings? (b) Is the said devise to X valid?

Wills and succession compilation bar qs

QUESTION 11 Johnny, with no known living relatives, executed a notarial will giving all his estate to his
girlfriend, Janice. One day, he had a serious altercation with Janice prompting the end of their
relationship. A few days later, Johnny was introduced to Olivia who later on became his fiancée. Soon
after, Johnny executed a holographic will making Olivia his sole heir and expressly revoked the notarial
will he earlier executed. One day when he was clearing his desk, Johnny mistakenly burned, along with
other papers, the only copy of his holographic will. His business associate and assigned best man, Eddie,
knew well the contents of the will which was shown to him by Johnny the day it was executed. A few
days after the burning incident, Johnny died. Both wills were sought to be probated in two separation
petitions. Will either or both petitions prosper? Answer with legal reasoning. (10 points)

Succession; probate of notarial and holographic wills 1997 No. 10: Johnny, with no known living
relatives, executed a notarial will giving all his estate to his sweetheart. One day, he had a serious
altercation with his sweetheart. A few days later, he was introduced to a charming lady who later
became a dear friend. Soon after, he executed a holographic will expressly revoking the notarial will and
so designating his new friend as sole heir. One day when he was clearing up his desk, Johnny mistakenly
burned, along with other papers, the only copy of his holographic will. His business associate, Eduardo.
knew well the contents of the will which was shown to him by Johnny the day it was executed. A few
days after the burning Incident, Johnny died. Both wills were sought to be probated in two separate
petitions. Will either or both petitions prosper? Answer: The probate of the notarial will will prosper.
The holographic will cannot be admitted to probate because a holographic will can only be probated
upon evidence of the will Itself unless there Is a photographic copy. But since the holographic will was
lost and there was no other copy, it cannot be probated and therefore the notarial will will be admitted
to probate because there is no revoking will. Additional Answers; 1. In the case of Gan vs. Yap (104 Phil
509), the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the
bare testimony of witnesses who have seen or read such will. The will itself must be presented
otherwise it shall produce no effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof of
authenticity. Moreover, in order that a will may be revoked by a subsequent will, it is necessary that the
latter will be valid and executed with the formalities required for the making of a will. The latter should
possess all the requisites of a valid will whether it be ordinary or a holographic will, and should be
probated in order that the revocatory clause thereof may produce effect. In the case at bar, since the
holographic will itself cannot be presented, it cannot therefore be probated. Since it cannot be
probated, it cannot revoke the notarial will previously written by the decedent. 2. On the basis of the
Rules of Court, Rule 76, Sec. 6, provides that no will shall be proved as a lost or destroyed will *** unless
its provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible witnesses. Hence, if we abide
strictly by the two-witness rule to prove a lost or destroyed will, the holographic will which Johnny
allegedly mistakenly burned, cannot be probated, since there is only one witness, Eduardo, who can be
called to testify as to the existence of the will. If the holographic will, which purportedly, revoked the
earlier notarial will cannot be proved because of the absence of the required witness, then the petition
for the probate of the notarial will should prosper.

2023 Golden Notes

Q: Mr. Reyes executed a will completely valid as to form. A week later, however, he executed
another will which expressly revoked his first will, upon which he tore his first will to pieces.
Upon the death of Mr. Reyes, his second will was presented for probate by his heirs, but it
was denied due to formal defects. Assuming that a copy of the first will is available, may it
now be admitted to probate and given effect? Why? (2003 BAR)

A: YES. The first will may be admitted to probate and given effect because the will that was
Admission to probate of the subsequent revoking will is one of the requisites for express
revocation to take place. supposed to revoke the same was never admitted to probate on
account of formal defects.

Mindtap Long Questions Test

QUESTION 14 Abe has a severe heart attack and is taken to the hospital. He is not expected to live, and
he knows it. Because he is a bachelor without close relatives nearby, Abe gives his car keys to Rey, telling
Rey that he is expected to die and that the car is Rey’s. Abe survives the heart attack, but two (2)
months later he dies from pneumonia. The administrator of Abe’s estate wants Rey to return the car.
Rey refuses, claiming the car was given to him by Abe as a gift. Is Rey required to return the car to Abe’s
estate? Answer with legal reasoning. (5 points)

Jaspal has a severe heart attack and is taken to the hospital. He is aware that he is not
expected to live. Because he is a bachelor with no close relatives nearby, Jaspal gives his car
keys to his close friend Friedrich, telling Friedrich that he is expected to die and that the car is
Friedrich's. Jaspal survives the heart attack, but two months later he dies from pneumonia.
Sam, Jaspal's uncle and the executor of his estate, wants Friedrich to return the car. Friedrich
refuses, claiming that the car was a gift from Jaspal. Discuss whether Friedrich will be required
to return the car to Jaspal's estate.

1. A gift is a voluntary transfer of property for which no consideration is given.

. For a gift to be effective, there must be _________ intent on the part of the ________, actual or
constructive _________, and ______________ by the donee. donative
donor
deliver
acceptance

3. A gift given during one's lifetime that meets the criteria is called a gift causa mortis. Jaspal's action of
handing the keys to Friedrich and telling Friedrich that he expected to die so the car is Friedrich's would
indicate the intent to make a gift, as well as constitute the delivery of the gift to Friedrich. When
Friedrich took the keys and began driving the car, it was a(n) acceptance of the gift. In giving the gift,
Jaspal was anticipating his death due to the heart attack. Jaspal did survive the heart attack. When Jaspal
survived the heart attack, the gift likely was revoked. If the gift was revoked, then Friedrich does have to
return the car to Jaspal's uncle. Assume Jaspal and Friedrich were at dinner with several
other friends when Jaspal handed his keys to Friedrich, telling Friedrich that the car is
Friedrich's. Moments later, Japsal had his heart attack and was taken to the hospital
where he died. This gift would be a gift inter vivos. With this situation, the additional
requirement that the donor die of the expected cause would not apply. In this situation, Jaspal
would not have to give the car to Friedrich in order for the gift to be complete.
Use under the rule lagi
FINALS
UST 2023

1. Rosie Treyes, the wife of Dr. Nixon Treyes, died without any children and without a will. She left
behind 7 siblings, Antonio, Emilio, Heddy, Rene, Celeste, Judy, and Yvonne (Antonio, et al.). Dr. Nixon
executed two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication, transferring the estate of Rosie unto himself, claiming that
he was the sole heir. Later, Antonio, et al. filed a complaint for annulment of the said affidavits,
reconveyance of ownership and possession, partition and damages. Dr. Nixon, thereafter, filed a Motion
to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction to decide on the complaint because the
determination of the legal heirs in a separate special proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary suit for
recovery of ownership and possession of property instituted by the legal heirs. Is his contention correct?

A: NO. The determination of heirship in a prior special proceeding is not a prerequisite for the resolution
of an ordinary civil action. Otherwise stated, the legal heirs may commence an ordinary civil action
arising out of a right based on succession without the necessity of a previous and separate judicial
declaration of their status as such. Here, it would be highly inimical to the very purpose of the Rules to
require a separate and lengthy special proceeding for the solitary purpose of establishing the status of
Antonio, et al. as legal heirs of Rosie, when their heirship has already been deemed established by virtue
of civil law, with Dr. Nixon not seriously and substantially refuting that they are siblings of the decedent.
If the Court will subscribe to Dr. Nixon’s arguments and grant the instant Petition, it would sanction
superfluity and redundancy in procedure. To accept his stance will necessarily mean that, moving
forward, heirs will not even be able to extra-judicially and summarily settle the estate of a decedent
without a prior judicial declaration of heirship in a special proceeding. Ironically, even his Affidavits of
SelfAdjudication would be legally baseless as he himself has not previously established in a prior special
proceeding his status as the husband and heir of Rosie. (Treyes v. Larlar, G.R. No. 232579, 08 Sept. 2020)
2. Q: In 1991, Alfredo Misa (Alfredo) died intestate and without any compulsory heir. Among the
properties he left behind is a real property consisting approximately 282 square meters located in
Barangay Mauway, Mandaluyong City (lot), which passed on by law to his brother, Simplicio Misa
(Simplicio), who also died intestate. Moises Misa (Moises), son of Simplicio, succeeded to the property
in his father's stead. Upon Moises' death, his son Magdaleno Misa (Magdaleno) and daughter Remedios
Misa-De Leon (Remedios) succeeded him and took over the lot. Magdaleno is the spouse of respondent
Lucy Misa (Lucy) while Remedios is the mother of respondent Mina Mia Alviar (Mina). For more than 20
years since Alfredo's death, Lucy and Mina have been residing on the subject lot. In October 2012,
petitioners Pascual and Dolores Borlongan (Sps. Borlongan) demanded that Mina and Lucy purchase the
lot. Believing that there was no reason to buy something they already owned, Mina and Lucy ignored
the demand. They later learned that the subject lot had allegedly been fraudulently registered under
Sps. Borlongan's name. Hence, Mina and Lucy instituted a petition seeking the judicial cancellation of
TCT No. 008-2012000208. In their Answer, Sps. Borlongan denied the allegations of Mina and Lucy and
disputed their claim that they are heirs of Alfredo. They insisted that Alfredo died with two compulsory
heirs, Fe Misa (Fe) and petitioner Dolores Borlongan, who were adopted by Alfredo as evidenced by a
Decision dated 02 July 1965 issued by the City Court of Quezon City, Branch III in Special Proceedings No.
276. They maintained inter alia that Mina and Lucy failed to prove their right to succeed as heirs of
Alfredo and their title to the subject property. Is the contention of Sps. Borlongan correct?

A: NO, Mina and Lucy do not need to institute a separate special proceeding to determine their status as
purported heirs of Alfredo. As held in Treys v. Larlar (G.R. No. 232579, 08 Sept. 2020), legal heirs of a
decedent are parties in interest to an ordinary civil action arising out their respective right of succession
without the need to file a separate special proceeding for declaration of heirship. To quiet title, Art. 477
of the NCC requires that the plaintiff must have a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real
property that is the subject matter of the action. Here, the ordinary civil action Mina and Lucy instituted
may prosper as their successional rights as collateral relatives of Alfredo are transmitted and
enforceable at the very moment of his death without need of a separate judicial determination. (Sps.
Borlongan v. Alviar, G.R. No. 240154 (Notice), 10 Nov. 2020)

3. Q: Raymond, single, named his sister Ruffa in his will as a devisee of a parcel of land which he owned.
The will imposed upon Ruffa the obligation of preserving the land and transferring it, upon her death, to
her illegitimate daughter Scarlet who was then only one year old. Raymond later died, leaving behind his
widowed mother, Ruffa and Scarlet. (2008 BAR) a. Is the condition imposed upon Ruffa to preserve the
property and to transmit it upon her death to Scarlet, valid

A: When an obligation to preserve and transmit the property to Scarlet was imposed on Ruffa, the
testator Raymond intended to create a fideicommissary substitution where Ruffa is the fiduciary and
Scarlet is the fideicommissary. Having complied with the requirements of Art. 863 and 869 of the NCC,
the fideicommissary substitution is valid

b. If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, who inherits the property?

A: If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, the latter, as the former’s heir, will be entitled to the property. But since
it is also Ruffa’s death which will trigger the fideicommissary substitution, the practical effect of her
death would be to allow her (Ruffa’s) mother to inherit the property as Ruffa’s heir. The transfer of the
property from Scarlet to Ruffa (as Scarlet’s heir) is what allows Ruffa’s mother to inherit the property,
which she would otherwise be disqualified to inherit under Art. 992 of the NCC.

c. If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, can Scarlet inherit the property directly from Raymond?

A: One requirement of a valid fideicommissary substitution is that both heirs should be alive at the time
of the testator’s death. Ruffa predeceasing Raymond means that the fideicommissary substitution is no
longer valid. In this regard, the only way by which Scarlet can inherit the property directly from
Raymond is by legal succession. Her right to do so, however, is negated by (1) the presence of Raymond
and Ruffa’s mother, who necessarily excludes her; and (2) the provisions of Art. 992 of the NCC.

4. Q: 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, sampung 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? (2008, 2014 BAR)

A: NO, the provision is not valid. At first glance, the provision may appear valid as it provides for the
transfer of title in favor of Alex and Rene over the parcel of land. A legacy or devise is to be construed as
a donation effective mortis causa, and it is intended to transfer ownership to the legatee or devisee.
Since the ownership is legally transferred to the Alex and Rene, they cannot be prohibited by the
testator from alienating or partitioning the same perpetually. The dispositions of the testator declaring
all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are void. (Art. 870, NCC)

5. Q: Ramon Mayaman died intestate, leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00. Determine how much
each heir will receive from the estate: (2009 BAR) (a) If Ramon is survived by his wife, three fullblood
brothers, two half-brothers, and one nephew (the son of a deceased full-blood brother)? Explain.

A: Having died intestate, the estate of Ramon shall be inherited by his wife and his full and half-blood
siblings or their respective representatives. In intestacy, if the wife concurs with no one but the sibling of
the husband, all of them are the intestate heirs of the deceased husband. The wife will receive half of
the intestate estate, while the siblings or their respective representatives willinheritthe other half to be
divided among them equally. If some siblings are of the full-blood and the others of the half-blood, a
half blood sibling will receive half of the share of a full-blood sibling. 1. The wife of Ramon will,
therefore, receive ½ of the estate or the amount of P5,000,000.00; 2. The three full-blood brothers will,
therefore, receive P1, 000, 000.00 each; 3. The nephew will receive P1,000,000.00 by right of
representation; 4. The two half-brothers will receive P500, 000.00 each
(b) If Ramon is survived by his wife, a halfsister, and three nephews (sons of a deceased full-blood
brother)? Explain

A: The wife will receive one half of the estate or P5,000, 000.00. The other half shall be inherited by (1)
the full-blood brother, represented by his three children, and (2) the half-sister. They will divide that
other half between them such that the share of the half-sister is just half of the share of the fullblood
brother. The share of the full-blood brothe shall in turn be inherited by the three (3) nephews in equal
shares by right of representation. Therefore, the three (3) nephews will receive P1, 111, 111.10 each and
the half-sister will receive the sum of P1, 666, 666.60.

6. Q: Araceli Mayuga alleged that she is one of the three (3) surviving legitimate and forced heirs of the
late Perfecto Atienza who died intestate in 1978 without a will. He left two (2) properties in Romblon.
According to her, she was entitled to 1/3 of the disputed lots on the assumption that the decedent left
only three legal heirs (his children Araceli, Benjamin, Sr. and Armando) and that the lots were part of the
inheritance. She contends that through the manipulation and misrepresentation with intent to defraud a
coheir, Antonio was able to secure Free Patent 11636 while Benjamin was able to secure Free Patent
11637. However, Perfecto executed the Confirmation Affidavit in 1973 almost five years prior to his
death. Was Araceli preterited?

A: NO, Araceli could not claim preterition by virtue of the Confirmation Affidavit on the assumption that
the disputed two lots pertained to Perfecto's inheritance, he had only three legal heirs and he left
Araceli with no share in the two lots. Although Araceli was a compulsory heir in the direct descending
line, she could not have been preterited. Perfecto left no will. As contemplated in Article 854, the
presence of a will is necessary (Mayuga v. Atienza, G.R. No. 208197, 10 Jan. 2018). A spouse CANNOT be
preterited. While a spouse is a compulsory heir, he/she is not in the direct line (ascending or
descending). (Cain v. IAC, G.R. No. 72706, 27 Oct. 1987

7. Q: Virginia P. Viado died intestate in 1982. Her part in the conjugal property was transmitted to her
heirs—her husband Julian and their children Nilo Viado, Rebecca Viado, Leah Viado and Delia Viado. The
inheritance, which vested from the moment of death of the decedent, remained under a co-ownership
regime among the heirs until partition. The heirs later on executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement to
the exclusion of Delia Viado, alleged to be a retardate. Can Delia Viado rescind the extrajudicial
settlement among other heirs?

A: NO. The exclusion of petitioner Delia Viado from the deed of extrajudicial settlement verily has the
effect of preterition. This kind of preterition, however, in the absence of proof of fraud and bad faith,
does not justify a collateral attack on Transfer Certificate of Title. The relief instead rests on Article 1104
of the NCC to the effect that where the preterition is not attended by bad faith and fraud, the partition
shall not be rescinded but the preterited heir shall be paid the value of the share pertaining to her.(Non
v. CA, G.R. No. 137287, 15 Feb. 2000)

8. Q: Marionne and Larry, Sr. died testate. Larry, Jr., one of their six children, died intestate after his
mother’s death but before his father’s. Thus, the surviving heirs are the five children (and siblings of
Larry, Jr.) of Marionne and Larry, Sr., as well as the four grandchildren (children of Larry, Jr.) of Marionne
and Larry, Sr. namely: Dianna, Greg, Matthew, and David. Greg filed before the RTC a petition for the
probate of the Wills of Marionne and Larry, Sr. which Wills were admitted to probate. Greg was
appointed as administrator of the estates. However, Darlene filed a Motion for Intervention stating that
she has a legal interest in the estate of Marionne and Larry, Sr. because she is the surviving spouse of
Larry, Jr. having married him. Later on, Darlene filed a motion for intervention in the intestate
settlement of Larry Jr.'s estate proceedings which was granted. As to the Motion of Darlene filed before
the RTC having jurisdiction over the testate proceedings of Marionne and Larry, Sr., Greg argued that
Darlene’s rights and interests, if any, can be fully protected in the settlement of Larry, Jr.'s estate
proceeding, which directly involves the settlement of Larry, Jr.'s intestate estate. Thus, her intervention
in the testate proceedings which involves the wills of Marionne and Larry, Sr., is completely unnecessary
and superfluous. Is Greg’s contention correct?

A: YES. Larry, Jr. died after his mother's death but before his father's death. When Marionne died, Larry,
Jr. would have inherited from her as a compulsory heir by virtue of Art 887(1) of the Civil Code, which
states:
9.

10. Q: Alex was an Air Afrique pilot. On 30 Jan. 2000, as a non-paying passenger, he boarded Kenya Air
flight 431 bound for Nairobi, Kenya. The plane departed from Abidjan, Ivory Coast. While in transit over
the Ivory Coast, the plane exploded mid-air, killing everyone on board. Esther is Alex's surviving widow.
Esther executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication as Alex's sole heir, adjudicating to herself two parcels of
land and two motor vehicles. Esther sought appointment as the legal representative of Efren's estate,
which the RTC granted. She then filed a claim for damages with Kenya Air for "indemnity and
compensation for the loss of her husband," which Kenya Air amicably settled with her. She received an
award of US$430,000.00. Thereafter, Felicidad and Cecilio, representing their siblings and their nephews
and nieces (Alex's collateral relatives), filed a Complaint for Partition of Estate and Declaration of Nullity
of Affidavit of Selfadjudication and Damages. They argued that they have a rightful share in Efren's
estate as his collateral relatives. On the other hand, Esther alleged that her husband died as a result of a
quasi-delict, considering he had no ticket when he rode the airplane. Thus, it is the Fatal Accidents Act of
Kenya which is applicable, and it clearly defined who the dependents are: the spouse, descendants, and
ascendants. Esther was able to properly plead the Kenyan Law. Do the Filipino decedent's collateral
relatives be indemnified along with the surviving widow?

A: NO. Courts do not take judicial notice of foreign law. However, Esther properly pleaded and proved
the applicable Kenyan law. The Kenyan Law provides that the action for damages shall be for the family
of the deceased — wife, husband, parent, or child — which makes no mention of collateral relatives.
Thus, it is clear that the Fatal Accidents Act of Kenya applies. Accordingly, petitioner, as the wife, is
entitled to the totality of the US$430,000.00 indemnity that Kenya Air paid her as settlement. Invoking
the Civil Code, the collateral relatives of Alex seek a share of the settlement proceeds and pray for its
division among them. However, as found that Kenyan law properly applies here, there is no basis to
apply Philippine law on the matter. As far as the Fatal Accidents Act of Kenya is concerned, a decedent's
heirs are only the surviving spouse, ascendants, and descendants. Nowhere does it mention the
collateral relatives of a deceased person. (Vda. De Alcañeses v. Alcañeses, G.R. No. 187847, 30 June
2021)

11. Q: Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived together as common law spouses and agreed to raise a
son of Bert's living brother as their child without legally adopting him. Bert worked while Joe took care
of their home and the boy. In their 20 years of cohabitation they were able to acquire real estate assets
registered in their names as co-owners. Unfortunately, Bert died of cardiac arrest, leaving no will. Bert
was survived by his biological siblings, Joe, and the boy. What are the successional rights of Joe and the
boy they raised as their son? (2015 BAR)

A: Neither of the two will inherit from Bert. Joe cannot inherit because the law does not recognize the
right of a stranger to inherit from the decedent in the absence of a will. Their cohabitation will not vest
Joe the right to inherit from Bert. The child will likewise not inherit from Bert because of the lack of
formal adoption of the child. A ward (ampon), without the benefit of formal (judicial) adoption, is
neither a compulsory nor a legal heir. (Ibid.)

12. Q: Donato, Sr. was legally married to Anatacia Santos and they had two children, namely:
Emerenciana, and Milagros. During his marriage, Donato, Sr. had illicit relation with Emiliana dela Cruz.
They begot four children, namely: Flora, born on 09 May 1928; Donato, Jr., born on 22 Apr. 1930;
Ruperto, born on 27 Mar. 1934; and Virgilio, born on 28 May 1937. Flora and Donato, Jr., now deceased,
are substituted by their heirs in the present action. On 21 Aug. 1956, Donato, Sr. died intestate, leaving
several properties he acquired during his lifetime. In said settlement proceedings of Emerenciana's
estate, Judge Cuevas declared that respondents Flora, Donato, Jr., Ruperto and Virgilio, all surnamed
Pacheco, the illegitimate children of the deceased Donato R. Pacheco, Sr. and are, therefore, entitled
not only to intervene in the proceedings but also to inherit from his estate pursuant to the pertinent
provisions of the New Civil Code. According to the RTC and CA, the respondents are the illegitimate
children and nephews and nieces of the late Donato, Sr. and the legitime of each illegitimate child shall
consist of 1/2 of the legitime of legitimate child. Are the RTC and CA correct?

A: NO. The legitime of an illegitimate child who is neither an acknowledged natural, nor a natural child
by legal fiction, shall be equal in every case to
13.
Ust 2015 SUGGESTED ANSWERS
14. Julie had a relationship with a married man who had legitimate children. A son was born out of that
illicit relationship in 1981. Although the putative father did not recognize the child in his certificate of
birth, he nevertheless provided the with child all the support he needed and spent time regularly with
the child and his mother. When the man died in 2000, the child was already 18 years old so he filed a
petition to be recognized as an illegitimate child of the putative father and sought to be given a share in
his putative father's estate. The legitimate family opposed, saying that under the Family Code his action
cannot prosper because he did not bring the action for recognition during the lifetime of his putative
father. a) If you were the judge in this case, would how you rule? (4%) b) Wishing to keep the peace, the
child during the pendency of the case decides to compromise with his putative father's family by
abandoning his petition in exchange for Yi of what he would have received as inheritance if he were
recognized as an illegitimate child. As the judge, would you approve such a compromise? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) If I were the judge, I will not allow the action for recognition filed after the
death of the putative father. Under the Family Code, an illegitimate child who has not been recognized
by the father in the record of birth, or in a private handwritten instrument, or in a public document and
may prove his filiation based on open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child but
pursuant to Article 175, he or she must file the action for recognition during the lifetime of the putative
father. The provision of Article 285 of the Civil Code allowing the child to file the action for recognition
even after the death of the father will not apply because in the case presented, the child was no longer a
minor at the time of death of the putative father. b) No, I will not approve the compromise agreement
because filiation is a matter to be decided by law. It is not for the parties to stipulate whether a person is
a legitimate or illegitimate child of another. (De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon 366 SCRA 499) In all cases of
illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved. (Article 887, Civil Code)

15 Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived together as common law spouses and agreed to raise a son
of Bert's living brother as their child without legally adopting him. Bert worked while Joe took care of
their home and the boy. In their 20 years of cohabitation they were able to acquire real estate assets
registered in their names as co-owners. Unfortunately, Bert died of cardiac arrest, leaving no will. Bert
was survived by his biological siblings, Joe, and the boy. a) Can Article 147 on co-ownership apply to Bert
and Joe, whereby all properties they acquired will be presumed to have been acquired by their joint
industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares? (2%) b) What are the successional rights of the
boy Bert Joe and raised as their son? (2%) c) If Bert and Joe had decided in the early years of their
cohabitation to jointly adopt the boy, would they have been legally allowed to do so? Explain with legal
basis. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) No, Article 147 cannot apply to Bert and Joe because the law only applies to a
man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other who live together as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. In the case of Bert and Joe, they are both men
so the law does not apply. b) Neither of the two will inherit from Bert. Joe cannot inherit because the
law does not recognize the right of a stranger to inherit from the decedent in the absence of a will. Their
cohabitation will not vest Joe with the right to inherit from Bert. The child will likewise not inherit from
Bert because of the lack of formal adoption of the child. A mere ward or “ampon” has no right to inherit
from the adopting parents. (Manuel v. Ferrer, 247 SCRA 476) c) No, because joint adoption is allowed
between husband and wife. Even if Bert and Joe are cohabiting with each other, they are not vested
with the right to jointly adopt under the Family Code or even under the Domestic Adoption Act. (Section
7, R.A. 8552)

16. Mrs. L was married to a ship captain who worked for an international maritime vessel. For her and
her family's support, she would claim monthly allotments from her husband's company. One day, while
en route from Hong Kong to Manila, the vessel manned by Captain L encountered a severe typhoon at
sea. The captain was able to send radio messages of distress to the head office until all communications
were lost. In the weeks that followed, the search operations yielded debris of the lost ship but the
bodies of the crew and the passengers were not recovered. The insurance company thereafter paid out
the death benefits to all the heirs of the passengers and crew. Mrs. L filed a complaint demanding that
her monthly allotments continue for the next four years until her husband may be legally presumed
dead because of his absence. If you were the magistrate would how you rule? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I would rule against Mrs. L. There is no merit in her contention that the monthly allotments to her
should continue despite the presumptive death of the husband. In case of disappearance where there is
danger of death, the person shall be presumed to have died at the beginning of the four (4) year period
although his succession will be opened only at the end of the four year period. (Article 391, Civil Code)
Since the husband of Mrs. L is presumed to have died at about the time of disappearance, he is no
longer entitled to receive his salary from the day the presumption of death arises.

CIVIL LAW BAR 2009-2017

17. II. Testamentary Succession Don Ricardo had 2 legitimate children - Tomas and Tristan. Tristan has 3
children. Meanwhile, Tomas had a relationship with Nancy, who was also single and had the legal
capacity to marry. Nancy became pregnant and gave birth to Tomas, Jr. After the birth of Tomas, Jr., his
father, Tomas, died. Later, Don Ricardo died with- out a will and Tristan opposed the motion of Tomas,
Jr. to be de- clared an heir of the deceased since he is an illegitimate child. Tomas, Jr. countered that
Article 992 of the Civil Code is unconsti- tutional for violation of the equal protection of the laws. He ex-
plained that an illegitimate child of an illegitimate parent is al- lowed to inherit under Articles 902, 982
and 990 of the Civil Code while he - an illegitimate child of a legitimate father - cannot. Civil Law
commentator Arturo Tolentino opined that Article 992 created an absurdity and committed an injustice
because while the illegit- imate descendant of an illegitimate child can represent, the illegit- imate
descendant of a legitimate child cannot. Decide the case and explain. (5%) (2016 BAR)
A: I will deny the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be declared as an heir of the deceased. Tomas Jr., being an
illegitimate child of the deceased legiti- mate son, Tomas, cannot inherit ab intestate from the deceased,
Don Ricardo, because of the iron curtain rule under Article 992 of the Civil Code. Tomas cannot argue
that Article 992 is violative of the equal protection clause because equal protection simply requires that
all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights con- ferred and
responsibilities imposed (Ichong v. Hernandez 101 Phil. 1155 [May 31, 1957]). It, however, does not
require the universal appli- cation of the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply
requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal
protection clause permits classification.

18. Natividad’s holographic will, which had only one (1) substantial provision, as first written, named
Rosa as her sole heir. However, when Gregorio presented it for probate, it already contained an
alteration, naming Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as sole heir, but without authentication by Natividad’s
signature. Rosa opposes the probate alleging such lack of proper authentication. She claims that the
unaltered form of the will should be given effect. Whose claim should be granted? Explain. (1996, 2012)

ANSWER: It depends. If the cancellation of Rosa's name in the will was done by the testator himself,
Rosa's claim that the holographic will in its original tenor should be given effect must be denied. The said
cancellation has revoked the entire will as nothing remains of the will after the name of Rosa was
cancelled. Such cancellation is valid revocation of the will and does not require authentication by the full
signature of the testator to be effective. However, if the cancellation of Rosa's name was not done by
the testator himself, such cancellation shall not be effective and the will in its original tenor shall remain
valid. The efficacy of a holographic will cannot be left to the mercy of unscrupulous third parties. The
writing of Gregorio‘s name as sole heir was ineffective, even though written by the testator himself,
because such is an alteration that requires the authentication by the full signature of the testator to be
valid and effective. Not having been authenticated. The designation of Gregorio as an heir was
ineffective. (Kalaw v. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207, September 28, 1984).

19. 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? (2014 BAR)

NO. The provision imposing the division of the property “habang panahon” is invalid. In Santiago v.
Santiago (G.R. No. 179859, August 9, 2010), a similar provision appears in the will. However, Art. 1083
provides that the period of indivision imposed by the testator shall not exceed 20 years. 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.
20. John Sagun and Maria Carla Camua, British citizens at birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by
naturalization after their marriage. During their marriage, the couple acquired substantial landholdings
in London and in Makati. Maria begot three (3) children, Jorge, Luisito, and Joshur. In one of their trips
to London, the couple executed a joint will appointing each other as their heirs and providing that upon
the death of the survivor between them, the entire estate would go to Jorge and Luisito only but the
two (2) could not dispose of nor divide the London estate as long as they live. John and Maria died
tragically in the London subway terrorist attack in 2005. Jorge and Luisito filed a petition for probate of
their parents’ will before a Makati RTC. Joshur vehemently objected because he was preterited. (2000,
2008, 2012) a. Should the will be admitted to probate? Explain.

ANSWER: NO, the will should not be admitted to probate since the couple are both Filipino citizens. Arts.
818 and 819 shall apply. Said Articles prohibit the execution of joint wills and make them void, even
though authorized by the laws of the country where they were executed

b. Are the testamentary dispositions valid? Explain.

ANSWER: NO. Since the joint will is void, all the testamentary dispositions written therein are also void.
However, if the will is valid, the institutions of heirs shall be annulled because Joshur was preterited. He
was preterited because he will receive nothing from the will, will receive nothing by intestacy, and the
facts do not show that he received anything as an advance on his inheritance. He was totally excluded
from the inheritance of his parents.

c. Is the testamentary prohibition against the division of the London estate valid? Explain

ANSWER: Assuming the will of John and Maria is valid, the testamentary prohibition on the division of
the London estate shall be valid but only for 20 years. A testamentary disposition of the testator cannot
forbid the partition of all or part of his estate for a period longer than twenty (20) years (Arts. 1083 and
494).

21. Mario executed his last will and testament where he acknowledges the child being conceived by his
live-in partner Josie as his own child; and that his house and lot in Baguio City be given to his unborn
conceived child. Are the acknowledgment and the donation mortis causa valid? Why? (2014 BAR)

ANSWER: YES, the acknowledgment is considered valid because a will (although not required to be filed
by the notary public) may still constitute a document, which contains an admission of illegitimate
filiation. The recognition of an illegitimate child does not lose its legal effect even though the will
wherein it was made should be revoked (Art. 834). This provision by itself warrants a conclusion that a
will may be considered as proof of filiation. The donation mortis causa may be considered valid because
although unborn, a fetus has a presumptive personality for all purposes favorable to it provided it be
born under the conditions specified in Art. 41.
22. 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? (2012 BAR

ANSWER: NO, his opposition is not correct. 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 (Art. 992). Arnel is disqualified to Inherit from
Ricky because Arnel is an illegitimate child of Franco and Ricky is a legitimate relative of Franco.

23. In reserva troncal, all reservatarios (reservees) inherit as a class and in equal shares regardless pf
their proximity in degree to the prepositus (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: FALSE. Not all of the relatives within the third degree will inherit as reservatario,
and not all of those who are entitled to inherit will inherit in equal shares. The applicable laws of
intestate succession will determine who among the relatives will inherit as reservatarios and what
shares they will take, i.e., the direct line excludes the collateral, the descending direct line excludes the
ascending, the nearer excludes the more remote, the nephews and nieces exclude the uncles and the
aunts, and half blood relatives inherit half the share of full- blood relatives.

24. On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes executed a holographic will, wherein he gave nothing to
his recognized illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. Fuentes left for the United States, passed the New York medical
licensure examinations, resided therein, and became a naturalized American citizen. He died in New
York in 2007. The laws of New York do not recognize holographic wills or compulsory heirs. [a] Can the
holographic will of Dr. Fuentes be admitted to probate in the Philippines? Why or why not? (3%) (2009
Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes may be admitted to probate in the
Philippines because there is no public policy violated by such probate. The only issue at probate is the
due execution of the will which includes the formal validity of the will. As regards formal validity, the
only issue the court will resolve at probate is whether or not the will was executed in accordance with
the form prescribed by the law observed by the testator in the execution of his will. For purposes of
probate in the Philippines, an alien testator may observe the law of the place where the will was
executed (Article 17, NCC), or the formalities of the law of the place where he resides, or according to
the formalities of the law of his own country, or in accordance with the Philippine Civil Code (Art. 816,
NCC).Since Dr. Fuentes executed his will in accordance with Philippine law, the Philippine court shall
apply the New Civil Code in determining the formal validity of the holographic will. The subsequent
change in the citizenship of Dr. Fuentes did not affect the law governing the validity of his will. Under the
New Civil Code, which was the law used by Dr. Fuentes, the law in force at the time of execution of the
will shall govern the formal validity of the will (Article 795, NCC).
Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that he be given his legitime?
Why or why not? (3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Jay cannot insist because under New York law he is not a compulsory heir
entitled to a legitime. The national law of the testator determines who his heirs are, the order that they
succeed, how much their successional rights are, and whether or not a testamentary disposition in his
will is valid (Article 16, NCC). Since, Dr. Fuentes was a US citizen, the laws of New York determines who
his heirs are. And since New York law does not recognize the concept of compulsory heirs, Jay is not a
compulsory heir of Dr. Fuentes entitled to a

25. III. Legal or Intestate Succession Pedro had worked for 1$ years in Saudi Arabia when he finally
decided to engage in farming in his home province where his 10-hectare farmland valued at P2,000,000
was located. He had already P3,000,000 savings from his long stint in Saudi Arabia. Eagerly awaiting
Pedro's arrival at the NAIA were his aging parents Modesto and Jacinta, his common-law spouse
Veneranda, their three children, and Alex, his child by Carol, his departed legal wife. Sadly for all of
them, Pedro suffered a stroke because of his over-excitement just as the plane was about to land, and
died without seeing any of them. The farmland and the savings were all the properties he left. (a) State
who are Pedro's legal heirs, and the shares of each legal heir to the estate? Explain your answer. (4%)
(2017 BAR)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Pedro's legal heirs areAlex, who is his legitimate child by his deceased wife
(Article 979, NCC), and his three children by Veneranda, who are his illegitimate children (Article 873,
NCC). Modesto and Jacinta, his parents, are excluded by Alex, his legitimate child. Veneranda, as a
common-law spouse, is not among Pedro's legal heirs. Assuming that the farmland and savings are the
exclusive properties of Pedro, Pedro's estate amounts to P5,000,000. Alex is entitled to one-half of
Pedro's estate, amounting to P2,500,000, while three illegitimate children divide the remaining one-half
equally, such that each will receive P833,333.33.

(b) Assuming that Pedro's will is discovered soon after his funeral. In the will, he disposed of half of his
estate in favor of Veneranda, and the other half in favor of his children and his parents in equal shares.
Assuming also that the will is admitted to probate by the proper court. Are the testamentary
dispositions valid and effective under the law on succession? Explain your answer. (4%) (2017 BAR)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: (b) The testamentary dispositions are invalid insofar as they impair the legitimes
of Pedro's compulsory heirs. Pedro's compulsory heirs are Alex and his three illegitimate children (Article
887, NCC). Alex, as Pedro's sole legitimate child, is entitled to a legitime to one-half of his father's estate,
amounting to P2,500,000 (Article 888, NCC). The three illegitimate children of Pedro are theoretically
entitled to a legitime equal to one-half of the legitime of Alex, amounting to P1,250,000 each or
P3,750,000 total, but as this exceeds the balance of the estate amounting to P2,500,000, the latter
amount must be divided equally among the three, amounting to P833,333.33 each. The other
testamentary dispositions to Veneranda and Pedro's parents, may not be given effect, as there is
nothing le(t of the estate to distribute. [Note: If the farmland and the NM savings were acquired during
the cohabitation of Pedro and Veneranda, these are owned in common by both of them (Art. 147,
Family Code). One-half of the P5M belongs to Veneranda as her share in the co-ownership]

26. Princess married Roberto and bore a son, Onofre. Roberto died in a plane crash. Princess later
married Mark and they also had a son - Pepito. Onofre donated to Pepito, his half-brother, a lot in
Makati City worth P3, 000,000.00. Pepito succumbed to an illness and died intestate. The lot given to
Pepito by Onofre was inherited by his father, Mark. Mark also died intestate. Lonely, Princess followed
Mark to the life beyond. The claimants to the subject lot emerged - Jojo, the father of Princess; Victor,
the father of Mark; and Jerico, the father of Roberto. Who among the three (3) ascendants is entitled to
the lot? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jojo, Princess’s father, is entitled to the lot. This is a clear case of reserva troncaL
The Origin is Onofre. The Prepositus is Pepito. The mode of transmission from Onofre to Pepito is
donation (hence, by gratuitous title). The Reservista is Mark, who acquired it from his descendant (son)
Pepito by legitime and intestacy (hence, by operation of law). The Reservatario is Princess, a relative of
the Prepositus Pepito within the third degree and who belonged to the line of origin (the maternal line).
Line of origin is the maternal line because Onofre (the Origin) and Pepito (the Prepositus) are maternal
half-blood siblings. When Mark (Reservista) died, the property passed to Princess as sole reservatario^
thus extinguishing the reserva troncaL Upon Princess’s death, the property was transmitted ah intestato
to her father Jojo. Transmission to Jojo is by the ordinary rules of compulsory and intes- tate succession,
not by reserva troncaL because the reserva was extinguished upon the transmission of the property to
Princess, this mak- ing Princess the absolute owner subject to no reserva.

27. Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived together as common law spouses and agreed to raise a son
of Bert's living brother as their child without legally adopting him. Bert worked while Joe took care of
their home and the boy. In their 20 years of cohabitation they were able to acquire real estate assets
registered in their names as co-owners. Unfortunately, Bert died of cardiac arrest, leaving no will. Bert
was survived by his biological siblings, Joe, and the boy. a. Can Article 147 on co-ownership apply to Bert
and Joe, whereby all properties they acquired will be presumed to have been acquired by their joint
industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares?

ANSWER: No, Article 147 cannot apply to Bert and Joe because the law only applies to a man and a
woman who are capacitated to marry each other who live together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. In the case of Bert and Joe, they are both men so the law
does not apply.

b. What are the successional rights of the boy Bert and Joe raised as their son? (2015 BAR)

ANSWER: The boy has no successional rights. Since Bert died without a will, intestate succession shall
apply. While the boy is the son of Bert’s living brother, and hence is Bert’s nephew, he cannot inherit
from Bert as a legal heir since he is excluded by his father under the proximity rule (Art. 962). He cannot
invoke the rights of an adopted child to inherit from Bert since the boy was not legally adopted. A mere
ward or “ampon” has no right to inherit from the adopting parents (Manuel v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 117246,
August 21, 1995).

c. If Bert and Joe had decided in the early years of their cohabitation to jointly adopt the boy, would they
have been legally allowed to do so? Explain with legal basis.

\ ANSWER: NO, Bert and Joe could not have jointly adopted the boy. Under the Domestic Adoption Act,
joint adoption is permitted, and in certain cases mandated, for spouses. Here, Bert and Joe are not
spouses.

28. Esteban and Martha had four (4) children: Rolando, Jun, Mark, and Hector. Rolando had a daughter,
Edith, while Mark had a son, Philip. After the death of Esteban and Martha, their three (3) parcels of
land were adjudicated to Jun. After the death of Jun, the properties passed to his surviving spouse Anita,
and son Cesar. When Anita died, her share went to her son Cesar. Ten (10) years after, Cesar died
intestate without any issue. Peachy, Anita’s sister, adjudicated to herself the properties as the only
surviving heir of Anita and Cesar. Edith and Philip would like to recover the properties claiming that they
should have been reserved by Peachy in their behalf and must now revert back to them. Is the
contention of Edith and Philip valid? (2014 BAR)

ANSWER: NO, the contention is not valid. The property adjudicated to Jun from the estate of his parents
which he in turn left to Anita and Cesar is not subject to reservation in favor of Edith and Philip. In
Mendoza et. al. v. Policarpio, et. al. (G.R. No. 176422, March 20 2013) the court ruled that lineal
character of the reservable property is reckoned from the ascendant from whom the propositus
received the property by gratuitous title. The ownership should be reckoned only from Jun, as he is the
ascendant from where the first transmission occurred or from whom Cesar inherited the properties.
Moreover, Art. 891 provides that the person obliged to reserve the property should be an ascendant.
Peachy is not Cesar’s ascendant but a mere collateral relative. On the assumption that the property is
reservable, Edith and Philip being first cousins of Cesar who is the propositus are disqualified to be
reservatarios as they are not third degree relatives of Cesar.

29. On March 30, 2000, Mariano died intestate and was survived by his wife, Leonora, and children,
Danilo and Carlito. One of the properties he left was a piece of land in Alabang where he built his
residential house. After his burial, Leonora and Mariano’s children extrajudicially settled his estate.
Thereafter, Leonora and Danilo advised Carlito of their intention to partition the property. Carlito
opposed invoking Article 159 of the Family Code. Carlito alleged that since his minor child Lucas still
resides in the premises, the family home continues until that minor beneficiary becomes of age.

Is the contention of Carlito tenable? (2014 BAR)

ANSWER: NO, the contention of Carlito is not tenable. To qualify as beneficiary of the family home, the
person must be among those mentioned in Art. 154, he/she must be actually living in the family home
and must be dependent for legal support upon the head of the family (Patricio v. Dario, G.R. No. 170829,
November 20, 2006). While Lucas, the son of Carlito satisfies the first and second requisites, he cannot
however, directly claim legal support from his grandmother, Leonora because the person primarily
obliged to give support to Lucas is his father, Carlito. Thus, partition may be successfully claimed by
Leonora and Danilo.

30. Armand died intestate. His full-blood brothers, Bobby and Conrad, and half-blood brothers, Danny,
Edward and Floro, all predeceased him. The following are the surviving relatives: (2013 BAR) 1. Benny
and Bonnie, legitimate children of Bobby; 2. Cesar, legitimate child of Conrad; 3. Dante, illegitimate child
of Danny; 4. Ernie, adopted child of Edward; and 5. Felix, grandson of Floro. The net value of Armand's
estate is P 1,200,000. (2012 BAR)

1) How much do Benny and Bonnie stand to inherit by right of representation? (1%)

(A) P200,000

(B) P300,000

(C) P400,000

(D) P150,000

(E) None of the above.

ANSWER: E - In intestate succession if all the brothers and sisters of the decedent predeceased the
latter, the nephews and nieces inherit in their own right or per capita and not by right of representation.
(See Article 975)

2) How much is Dante's share in the net estate? (1%)

(A) P150,000.

(B) P200,000.

(C) P300,000.

(D) P400,000.

(E) None of the above.

ANSWER: E- Dante will not inherit because his is an illegitimate child of a legitimate half-brother of
Armand thus the barrier applies.

3) How much is Ernie's share in the net estate. (1%)

(A) P 0.

(B) P400,000.

(C) P150,000.

(D) P200,000.
(E) None of the above.

ANSWER: A - Ernie will not inherit because being an adopted child of Edward, he cannot inherit from the
relatives of the latter as the adoption creates only a relationship between adopter and adopted. (Sayson
v. CA 205 SCRA 321)

4) How much is Felix's share in the net estate? (1%)

(A) P400,000.

(B) P150,000.

(C) P300,000.

(D) P0.

(E) None of the above

ANSWER: D – Felix is not entitled to inherit because the right of representation in the collateral line is
only available to nephews and nieces of the decedent and not to grandnephews or grandnieces.

31. The spouses Peter and Paula had three (3) children. Paula later obtained a judgment of nullity of
marriage. Their absolute community of property having been dissolved, they delivered PI million to each
of their 3 children as their presumptive legitimes. Peter later re-married and had two (2) children by his
second wife Marie. Peter and Marie, having successfully engaged in business, acquired real properties.
Peter later died intestate. Who are Peter’s legal heirs and how will his estate be divided among them?
(5%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The legal heirs of Peter are his children by the first and second marriages and his
surviving second wife. Their shares in the estate of Peter will depend, however, on the cause of the
nullity of the first marriage. If the nullity of the first marriage was psychological incapacity of one or both
spouses, the three children of that void marriage are legitimate and all of the legal heirs shall share the
estate of Peter in equal shares. If the judgment of nullity was for other causes, the three children are
illegitimate and the estate shall be distributed such that an illegitimate child of the first marriage shall
receive half the share of a legitimate child of the second marriage, and the second wife will inherit a
share equal to that of a legitimate child. In no case may the two legitimate children of the second
marriage receive a share less than one-half of the estate which is their legitime. When the estate is not
sufficient to pay all the legitimes of the compulsory heirs, the legitime of the spouse is preferred and the
illegitimate children will suffer the reduction.

Computation:

A. If the ground of nullity is psychological incapacity:

3 children by first marriage ------------------ 1/6th of the estate for each

2 children by second marriage -------------- 1/6th of the estate for each

Surviving second spouse --------------------- 1/6th of the estate

B. If the ground of nullity is not psychological incapacity

2 legitimate children --------------------------- 1/4 of the estate for each of second marriage

Surviving second spouse ---------------------1/4 of the estate

3 illegitimate children -------------------------- 1/12 of estate for each of first marriage

Note: The legitime of an illegitimate child is supposed to be Yu the legitime of a legitimate child or 1/ 8th
of the estate. But the estate will not be sufficient to pay the said legitimes of the 3 illegitimate children,
because only Y* of the estate is left after paying the legitime of the surviving spouse which is preferred.
Hence, the remaining Y* of the estate shall be divided among the 3 illegitimate children.

What is the effect of the receipt by Peter’s 3 children by his first marriage of their presumptive legitimes
on their right to inherit following Peter’s death? (5%) (2010 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the distribution of Peter’s estate, one-half of the presumptive legitime received
by the three children of the first marriage shall be collated to Peter’s estate and shall be imputed as an
advance on their respective inheritance from Peter. Only half of the presumptive legitime is collated to
the estate of Peter because the other half shall be collated to the estate of his first wife.

32. Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his son Roberto both died in a fire that gutted their home
while they were sleeping in their air-conditioned rooms. Roberto’s wife, Marilyn, and their two children
were spared because they were in the province at the time. Dr. Lopez left an estate worth P20M and a
life insurance policy in the amount of P1M with his three children --- one of whom is Roberto --- as
beneficiaries. Marilyn is now claiming for herself and her children her husband’s share in the estate left
by Dr. Lopez, and her husband’s share in the proceeds of Dr. Lopez’s life insurance policy. Rule on the
validity of Marilyn’s claims with reasons. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: As to the Estate of Dr. Lopez: Marilyn is not entitled to a share in the estate of Dr.
Lopez. For purposes of succession, Dr. Lopez and his son Roberto are presumed to have died at the same
time, there being no evidence to prove otherwise, and there shall be no transmission of rights from one
to the other (Article 43, NCC). Hence, Roberto inherited nothing from his father that Marilyn would in
turn inherit from Roberto. The children of Roberto, however, will succeed their grandfather, Dr. Lopez,
in representation of their father Roberto and together will receive 1/3 of the estate of Dr. Lopez since
their father Roberto was one of the three children of Dr. Lopez. Marilyn cannot represent her husband
Roberto because the right is not given by law to a surviving spouse. As to the proceeds of the insurance
on the life of Dr. Lopez: Since succession is not involved as regards the insurance is not involved as
regular the insurance contract, the provisions of the Rules of Court (Rule 131, Sec. 3, [jj] [5]) on
survivorship shall apply. Under Rules, Dr. Lopez, who was 70 years old, is presumed to have died ahead
of Roberto, who is presumably between the ages of 15 and 60. Having survived the insured, Roberto’s
right as a beneficiary became vested upon the death of Dr. Lopez. When Roberto died after Dr. upon the
death of Dr. Lopez. When Roberto died after Dr. Lopez, his right to receive the insurance proceeds
became part of his hereditary estate, which in turn was inherited in equal shares by his legal heirs,
namely, his spouse and children. Therefore, Roberto’s children and his spouse are entitled to Roberto’s
one-third share in the insurance proceeds.

33. Ramon Mayaman died intestate, leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00. Determine how much each
heir will receive : from the estate: If Ramon is survived by his wife, three full-blood brothers, two half-
brothers, and one nephew (the son of a deceased full-blood brother)? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Having died intestate, the estate of Ramon shall be inherited by his wife and his
full and half-blood siblings or their respective representatives. In intestacy, if the wife concurs with no
one but the siblings of the husband, all of them are the intestate heirs of the deceased husband. The
wife will receive half of the intestate estate, while the siblings or their respective representatives, will
inherit the other half to be divided among them equally. If some siblings are of the full-blood and the
others of the half blood, a half blood sibling will receive half the share of full-blood sibling.

1. The wife of Ramon will, therefore, receive one half of the estate or the amount of P5,000.000.00,

2. The three (3) full-blood brothers, will, therefore, receive PI,000,000.00 each.

3. The nephew will receive PI,000,000.00 by right of representation.

4. The two (2) half-brothers will receive P500,000.00 each

If Ramon is survived by his wife, a half-sister, and three nephews (sons of a deceased full-blood
brother)? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Page 143 of 199 Civil Law The wife will receive one half of the estate or
P5,000,000.00. The other half shall be inherited by (1) the full-blood brother, represented by his 3
children, and (2) the halfsister. They will divide that other half between them such that the share of the
half -sister is just half the share of the full-blood brother. The share of the full-blood brother shall in turn
be inherited by the three (3) nephews in equal shares by right of representation. Therefore, the three (3)
nephews will receive P1,111,111.10 each and the half-sister will receive the sum of PI,666,666.60.

34. Four children, namely: Alberto, Baldomero, Caridad, and Dioscoro, were born to the spouses
Conrado and Clarita de la Costa. The children’s birth certificates were duly signed by Conrado, showing
them to be the couple’s legitimate children. Later, one Edilberto de la Cruz executed a notarial
document acknowledging Alberto and Baldomero as his illegitimate children with Clarita. Edilberto died
leaving substantial properties. In the settlement of his estate, Alberto and Baldomero intervened
claiming shares as the deceased’s illegitimate children. The legitimate family of Edilberto opposed the
claim. Are Alberto and Baldomero entitled to share in the estate of Edilberto? Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar
Question)
No, Alberto and Baldomero are not entitled to share in Edilberto’s estate. They are not related at all to
Edilberto. They were born during the marriage of Conrado and Clarita, hence, are considered legitimate
children of the said spouses. This status is conferred on them at birth by law. Under Philippine law, a
person cannot have more than one natural filiation. The legitimate filiation of a person can be changed
only if the legitimate father will successfully impugn such status. In the problem, therefore, the filiation
of Alberto and Baldomero as the legitimate children of Conrado cannot be changed by their recognition
by Edilberto as his illegitimate children. Before they can be conferred the status of Edilberto’s
illegitimate children, Conrado must first impugn their legitimacy. Since Conrado has not initiated any
action to impugn their legitimacy, they continue to be the legitimate children of Conrado. They cannot
be the illegitimate children of Edilberto at the same time. Not being the illegitimate children of
Edilberto, they have no right to inherit from him.

Succession bar q and a reviewer . studocu

35. Mr. XT and Mrs. YT have been married for 20 years. Suppose the wife, YT, died childless, survived
only by her husband, XT. What would be the share of XT from her estate as inheritance? Why? Explain

ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under the Civil Code, the widow or widower is a legal and compulsory heir of the
deceased spouse. If the widow is the only surviving heir, there being no legitimate ascendants,
descendants, brothers, and sisters, nephews and nieces, she gets the entire estate.

36 A is the acknowledged natural child of B who died when A was already 22 years old. When B’s full
blood brother, C, died he (C) was survived by his widow and four children of his other brother D.
Claiming that he is entitled to inherit from his father’s brother C. A brought suit to obtain his share in the
estate of C. Will his action prosper?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the action of A will not prosper. On the premise that B, C and D are legitimate
brothers, as an illegitimate child of B, A cannot inherit in intestacy from C who is a legitimate brother of
B. Only the wife of C in her own right and the legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the children of D as C’s
legitimate nephews inheriting as collateral relatives) can inherit in intestacy. (Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and
975, Civil Code)

37. Cristina the illegitimate daughter of Jose and Maria, died intestate, without any descendant or
ascendant. Her valuable estate is being claimed by Ana, the legitimate daughter of Jose, and Eduardo,
the legitimate son of Maria.

Is either, both, or neither of them entitled to inherit? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of ab intestato from Cristina. Both
are legitimate relatives of Cristina’s illegitimate parents and therefore they fall under the prohibition
prescribed by Art. 992, NCC (Manuel v. Ferrer, 242 SCRA 477; Diaz v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 427).

38. Disinheritance vs.Preterition (1993) Maria, to spite her husband Jorge, whom she suspected was
having an affair with another woman, executed a will, unknown to him, bequeathing all the properties
she inherited from her parents, to her sister Miguela. Upon her death, the will was presented for
probate. Jorge opposed probate of the will on the ground that the will was executed by his wife without
his knowledge, much less consent, and that it deprived him of his legitime. After all, he had given her no
cause for disinheritance, added Jorge in his opposition.

How will you rule on Jorge’s opposition to the probate of Maria’s will. If you were the Judge?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge’s opposition should be sustained in part and
denied in part. Jorge’s omission as spouse of Maria is not preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct
line. Hence, Art. 854 of the Civil Code does not apply, and the institution of Miguela as heir is valid, but
only to the extent of the free portion of onehalf. Jorge is still entitled to one-half of the estate as his
legitime (Art. 1001, Civil Code).

39. Mr. Palma, widower, has three daughters D, D-l and D-2. He executes a Will disinheritin g D because
she married a man he did not like, and instituting daughters D-1 and D-2 as his heirs to his entire estate
of P 1,000,000.00, Upon Mr, Palma’s death, how should his estate be divided? Explain

SUGGESTED ANSWER: This is a case of ineffective disinheritance because marrying a man that the father
did not approve of is not a ground for disinheriting D. Therefore, the institution of D-l and D-2 shall be
annulled insofar as it prejudices the legitime of D, and the institution of D-l and D-2 shall only apply on
the free portion in the amount of P500,000.00. Therefore, D, D-l and D-2 will get their legitimes of
P500.000.00 divided into three equal parts and D-l and D-2 will get a reduced testamentary disposition
of P250,000.00 each. Hence, the shares will be: D P166,666.66 D-l P166,666.66 + P250.000.00 D-2
P166,666.66 + P250,000.00

40. In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1) disinherits his daughter Wilma because “she is
disrespectful towards me and raises her voice talking to me”, 2) omits entirely his spouse Elvira, 3)
leaves a legacy of P100,000.00 to his mistress Rosa and P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4) institutes
his son Baldo as his sole heir. How will you distribute his estate of P1,000,000.00?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective because the ground relied upon by
the testator does not constitute maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code. Hence, the
testamentary provisions in the will shall be annulled but only to the extent that her legitime was
impaired. The total omission of Elvira does not constitute preterition because she is not a compulsory
heir in the direct line. Only compulsory heirs in the direct line may be the subject of preterition. Not
having been preterited, she will be entitled only to her legitime. The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under
Article 1028 for being in consideration of her adulterous relation with the testator. She is, therefore,
disqualified to receive the legacy of 100,000 pesos. The legacy of 50,000 pesos in favor of Ernie is not
inofficious not having exceeded the free portion. Hence, he shall be entitled to receive it. The institution
of Baldo, which applies only to the free portion, shall be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto will
be distributed as follows:

Baldo—————– 450,000

Wilma————— 250,000

Elvira—————– 250,000

Ernie—————– 50,000

1,000,000

41. Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both 18 years of age, were passengers of Flight No. 317 of Oriental Airlines.
The plane they boarded was of Philippine registry. While en route from Manila to Greece some
passengers hijacked the plane, held the chief pilot hostage at the cockpit and ordered him to fly instead
to Libya. During the hijacking Isidro suffered a heart attack and was on the verge of death. Since Irma
was already eight months pregnant by Isidro, she pleaded to the hijackers to allow the assistant pilot to
solemnize her marriage with Isidro. Soon after the marriage, Isidro expired. As the plane landed in Libya
Irma gave birth. However, the baby died a few minutes after complete delivery. Back in the Philippines
Irma Immediately filed a claim for inheritance. The parents of Isidro opposed her claim contending that
the marriage between her and Isidro was void ab initio on the following grounds: (a) they had not given
their consent to the marriage of their son; (b) there was no marriage license; (c) the solemnizing officer
had no authority to perform the marriage; and, (d) the solemnizing officer did not file an affidavit of
marriage with the proper civil registrar. 2. Does Irma have any successional rights at all? Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2. Irma succeeded to the estate of Isidro as his surviving spouse to the estate of
her legitimate child. When Isidro died, he was succeeded by his surviving wife Irma, and his legitimate
unborn child. They divided the estate equally between them, the child excluding the parents of Isidro.
An unborn child is considered born for all purposes favorable to it provided it is born later. The child was
considered born because, having an intra-uterine life of more than seven months, it lived for a few
minutes after its complete delivery. It was legitimate because it was born within the valid marriage of
the parents. Succession is favorable to it. When the child died, Irma inherited the share of the child.
However, the share of the child in the hands of Irma is subject to reserva troncal for the benefit of the
relatives of the child within the third degree of consanguinity and who belong to the line of Isidro.

42. Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two illegitimate children, his parents, and two brothers.
He left an estate of P1 million. Luis died intestate. Who are his intestate heirs, and how much is the
share of each in his estate?

The intestate heirs are the two (2) legitimate children and the two (2) illegitimate children. In intestacy
the estate of the decedent is divided among the legitimate and illegitimate children such that the share
of each illegitimate child is one – half the share of each legitimate child. Their share are : For each
legitimate child – P333,333.33 For each illegitimate child – P166,666.66
43. F had three (3) legitimate children: A, B, and C. B has one (1) legitimate child X. C has two (2)
legitimate children: Y and Z F and A rode together in a car and perished together at the same time in a
vehicular accident, F and A died, each of them leaving substantial estates in intestacy. a) Who are the
intestate heirs of F? What are their respective fractional shares? b) Who are the intestate heirs of A?
What are their respective fractional shares? c) If B and C both predeceased F, who are F’s intestate
heirs? What are their respective fractional shares? Do they inherit in their own right or by
representation? Explain your answer. d) If B and C both repudiated their shares in the estate of F who
are F’s intestate heirs? What are their respective fractional shares? Do they inherit in their own right or
by representation? Explain your answer

SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) B = 1/2 (b) B = 1/2 Z = 1/4 by representation of C C= 1/2 Article 982 of the Civil
Code provides that grandchildren inherit by right of representation. (c) X = 1/2 by representation of B
C=l/2 Y = 1/4 by representation of C (d) X – 1/3 in his own right Y- 1/3 in his own right 2 – 1/3 in his own
right Article 977 of the Civil Code provides that heirs who repudiate their share cannot be represented.

43. “T” died intestate on 1 September 1997. He was survived by M (his mother), W (his widow), A and B
(his legitimate children), C (his grandson, being the legitimate son of B), D (his other grandson, being the
son of E who was a legitimate son of, and who predeceased, “T”), and F (his grandson, being the son of
G, a legitimate son who repudiated the inheritance from “T”). His distributable net estate is
P120.000.00. How should this amount be shared in intestacy among the surviving heirs?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The legal heirs are A, B, D, and W. C is excluded by B who is still alive. D inherits in
representation of E who predeceased. F is excluded because of the repudiation of G, the predecessor. M
is excluded by the legitimate children of T. The answer may be premised on two theories: the Theory of
Exclusion and the Theory of Concurrence.
Under the Theory of Exclusion the legitimes of the heirs are accorded them and the free portion will be
given exclusively to the legitimate descendants. Hence under the Exclusion Theory: A will get
P20.000.00. and P 13.333.33 (1/3 of the free portion) B will get P 20,000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of the
free portion) D will get P20.000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of the free portion) W, the widow is limited to
the legitime of P20.000.00 Under the Theory of Concurrence. In addition to their legitimes, the heirs of
A, B, D and W will be given equal shares in the free portions: A: P20.000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1 /4 of the
free portion) B: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (l/4 of the free portlon) C: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1/4
of the free portion) W: P20,000.00 plus P10,000.00 (l/4 of the free portion) Alternative Answer: Shares
in Intestacy T – decedent Estate: P120.000.00 Survived by: M – Mother……………………….None W –
Widow………………………..P 30,000.00 A – Son……………………………P 30,000.00 B – Son……………………………
P30.000.00 C – Grandson (son of B)………….None D – Grandson (son of E who predeceased T)…………….P
30,000.00 F – Grandson (son of G who repudiated the Inheritance from “T”)…………………..None

Explanation: a) The mother (M) cannot inherit from T because under Art. 985 the ascendants shall
inherit in default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased. b) The widow’s share is
P30.000.00 because under Art. 996 it states that if the widow or widower and legitimate children or
descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the
children, c) C has no share because his father is still alive hence succession by representation shall not
apply (Art. 975). d) D inherits P30.000 which is the share of his father E who predeceased T by virtue of
Art. 981 on the right of representation. e) F has no share because his father G repudiated the
inheritance. Under Article 977 heirs who repudiate their share may not be represented.
44. Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary estate of P1.2 million. He is survived by his widow, three
legitimate children, two legitimate grandchildren sired by a legitimate child who predeceased him, and
two recognized illegitimate children. Distribute the estate in intestacy.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under the theory of Concurrence, the shares are as follows: A (legitimate child) =
P200,000 B (legitimate child) = P200,000 C (legitimate child) = P200,000 D (legitimate child) = O
(predeceased] E (legitimate child of D) = P100,000 – by right of representation F (legitimate child of D) =
P100,000 – by right of representation G (illegitimate child) = P100,000 – 1/2 share of the legitimate child
H (illegitimate child) = P100,000 – 1/2 share of the legitimate child W (Widow) = P200.000 – same share
as legitimate child

45. Tessie died survived by her husband Mario, and two nieces, Michelle and Jorelle, who are the
legitimate children of an elder sister who had predeceased her. The only property she left behind was a
house and lot worth two million pesos, which Tessie and her husband had acquired with the use of
Mario’s savings from his income as a doctor. How much of the prop erty or its value, if any, may
Michelle and Jorelle claim as their hereditary shares?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides, “Should brothers and sisters or their
children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance
and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half.” Tessie’s gross estate consists of a house
and lot acquired during her marriage, making it part of the community property. Thus, one-half of the
said property would have to be set aside as Mario’s conjugal share from the community property. The
other half, amounting to one million pesos, is her conjugal share (net estate), and should be distributed
to her intestate heirs. Applying the above provision of law, Michelle and Jorelle, Tessie’s nieces, are
entitled to one-half of her conjugal share worth one million pesos, or 500,000 pesos, while the other
one-half amounting to P500,000 will go to Mario, Tessie’s surviving spouse. Michelle and Jorelle are
then entitled to P250,000 pesos each as their hereditary share.

46. Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are childless, met with a serious motor vehicle accident with Mr. Cruz at the
wheel and Mrs. Cruz seated beside him, resulting in the instant death of Mr. Cruz. Mrs. Cruz was still
alive when help came but she also died on the way to the hospital. The couple acquired properties
worth One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos during their marriage, which are being claimed by the parents
of both spouses in equal shares. Is the claim of both sets of parents valid and why? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) No, the claim of both parents is not valid. When Mr. Cruz died, he was
succeeded by his wife and his parents as his intestate heirs who will share his estate equally. His estate
was 0.5 Million pesos which is his half share in the absolute community amounting to 1 Million Pesos.
His wife, will, therefore, inherit O.25 Million Pesos and his parents will inherit 0.25 Million Pesos. When
Mrs. Cruz died, she was succeeded by her parents as her intestate heirs. They will inherit all of her
estate consisting of her 0.5 Million half share in the absolute community and her 0.25 Million
inheritance from her husband, or a total of 0.750 Million Pesos. In sum, the parents of Mr. Cruz will
inherit 250,000 Pesos while the parents of Mrs. Cruz will inherit 750,000 Pesos.

47. Eugenio died without issue, leaving several parcels of land in Bataan. He was survived by Antonio, his
legitimate brother; Martina, the only daughter of his predeceased sister Mercedes; and five legitimate
children of Joaquin, another predeceased brother. Shortly after Eugenio’s death, Antonio also died,
leaving three legitimate children. Subsequently, Martina, the children of Joaquin and the children of
Antonio executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Eugenio, dividing it among themselves. The
succeeding year, a petition to annul the extrajudicial settlement was filed by Antero, an illegitimate son
of Antonio, who claims he is entitled to share in the estate of Eugenio. The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that Antero is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting from the
legitimate brother of his father. How will you resolve the motion?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The motion to dismiss should be granted. Article 992 does not apply. Antero is
not claiming any inheritance from Eugenio. He is claiming his share in the inheritance of his father
consisting of his father’s share in the inheritance of Eugenio (Dela Merced v. Dela Merced, G.R. No.
126707, 25 February 1999).

48. Intestate Succession; Reserva Troncal (1999)

Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten Million (P10,000,000.00) Pesos. His widow gave birth to a child
four months after Mr. Luna’s death, but the child died five hours after birth. Two days after the child’s
death, the widow of Mr. Luna also died because she had suffered from difficult childbirth. The estate of
Mr. Luna is now being claimed by his parents, and the parents of his widow. Who is entitled to Mr.
Luna’a estate and why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna as their
inheritance from Mrs. Luna, while the other half will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna as the
reservatarios of the reserved property inherited by Mrs. Luna from her child. When Mr. Luna died, his
heirs were his wife and the unborn child. The unborn child inherited because the inheritance was
favorable to it and it was born alive later though it lived only for five hours. Mrs. Luna inherited half of
the 10 Million estate while the unborn child inherited the other half. When the child died, it was
survived by its mother, Mrs. Luna. As the only heir, Mrs. Luna inherited, by operation of law, the estate
of the child consisting of its 5 Million inheritance from Mr. Luna. In the hands of Mrs. Luna, what she
inherited from her child was subject to reserva troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the child within
the third degree of consanguinity and who belong to the family of Mr. Luna, the line where the property
came from. When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived by her parents as her only heirs. Her parents will
inherit her estate consisting of the 5 Million she inherited from Mr. Luna. The other 5 Million she
inherited from her child will be delivered to the parents of Mr. Luna as beneficiaries of the reserved
property. In sum, 5 Million Pesos of Mr. Luna’s estate will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna, while the other
5 Million Pesos will go to the parents of Mr. Luna as reservatarios.

49. Legitime (1997) “X”, the decedent, was survived by W (his widow). A (his son), B (a granddaughter,
being the daughter of A) and C and D (the two acknowledged illegitimate children of the decedent). “X”
died this year (1997) leaving a net estate of P180,000.00. All were willing to succeed, except A who
repudiated the inheritance from his father, and they seek your legal advice on how much each can
expect to receive as their respective shares in the distribution of the estate. Give your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The heirs are B, W, C and D. A inherits nothing because of his renunciation. B
inherits a legitime of P90.000.00 as the nearest and only legitimate descendant, inheriting in his own
right not by representation because of A’s renunciation. W gets a legitime equivalent to one-half (1 / 2)
that of B amounting to P45.000. C and D each gets a legitime equivalent to one-half (1/2) that of B
amounting to P45.000.00 each. But since the total exceeds the entire estate, their legitimes would have
to be reduced corresponding to P22.500.00 each (Art. 895. CC). The total of all of these amounts to
P180.000.00.

50. Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2003) Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two illegitimate
children, his parents, and two brothers. He left an estate of P1 million. Who are the compulsory heirs of
Luis, how much is the legitime of each, and how much is the free portion of his estate, if any?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The compulsory heirs are the two legitimate children and the two illegitimate
children. The parents are excluded by the legitimate children, while the brothers are not compulsory
heirs at all. Their respective legitimate are: a) The legitime of the two (2) legitimate children is one half
(1/2) of the estate (P500,000.00) to be divided between them equally, or P250,000.00 each. b) The
legitimate of each illegitimate child is one-half (1/2) the legitime of each legitimate child or P125,000.00.
c) Since the total legitime of the compulsory heirs is P750,000.00, the balance of P250,000.00 is the free
portion
51. Legitime; Compulsory Heirs vs. Secondary Compulsory Heirs (2005) Emil, the testator, has three
legitimate children, Tom, Henry and Warlito; a wife named Adette; parents named Pepe and Pilar; an
illegitimate child, Ramon; brother, Mark; and a sister, Nanette. Since his wife Adette is well-off, he wants
to leave to his illegitimate child as much of his estate as he can legally do. His estate has an aggregate
net amount of Pl,200,000.00, and all the above-named relatives are still living. Emil now comes to you
for advice in making a will. How will you distribute his estate according to his wishes without violating
the law on testamentary succession?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: P600,000.00 — legitime to be divided equally between Tom, Henry and Warlito
as the legitimate children. Each will be entitled to P200,000.00. (Art. 888, Civil Code) P100,000.00 —
share of Ramon the illegitimate child. Equivalent to 1/2 of the share of each legitimate child. (Art. 176,
Family Code) P200,000.00 — Adette the wife. Her share is equivalent to the share of one legitimate
child. (Art. 892, par. 2, Civil Code) Pepe and Pilar, the parents are only secondary compulsory heirs and
they cannot inherit if the primary compulsory heirs (legitimate children) are alive. (Art. 887, par. 2, Civil
Code) Brother Mark and sister Nanette are not compulsory heirs since they are not included in the
enumeration under Article 887 of the Civil Code.

The remaining balance of P300,000.00 is the free portion which can be given to the illegitimate child
Ramon as an instituted heir. (Art. 914, Civil Code) If so given by the decedent, Ramon would receive a
total of P400,000.00.

52. Preterition (2001) Because her eldest son Juan had been pestering her for capital to start a business,
Josefa gave him P100,000. Five years later, Josefa died, leaving a last will and testament in which she
instituted only her four younger children as her sole heirs. At the time of her death, her only properly
left was P900,000.00 in a bank. Juan opposed the will on the ground of preterition. How should Josefa’s
estate be divided among her heirs? State briefly the reason(s) for your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: There was no preterition of the oldest son because the testatrix donated 100,000
pesos to him. This donation is considered an advance on the son’s inheritance. There being no
preterition, the institutions in the will shall be respected but the legitime of the oldest son has to be
completed if he received less. After collating the donation of P100.000 to the remaining property of
P900,000, the estate of the testatrix is P1,000,000. Of this amount, one-half or P500,000, is the legitime
of the legitimate children and it follows that the legitime of one legitimate child is P100,000. The
legitime, therefore, of the oldest son is P100,000. However, since the donation given him was P100,000,
he has already received in full his legitime and he will not receive anything anymore from the decedent.
The remaining P900,000, therefore, shall go to the four younger children by institution in the will, to be
divided equally among them. Each will receive P225,000.

53. Preterition; Compulsory Heir (1999) (a) Mr, Cruz, widower, has three legitimate children, A, B and C.
He executed a Will instituting as his heirs to his estate of One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos his two
children A and B, and his friend F. Upon his death, how should Mr. Cruz’s estate be divided? Explain.
(b) In the preceding question, suppose Mr. Cruz instituted his two children A and B as his heirs in his
Will, but gave a legacy of P 100,000.00 to his friend F. How should the estate of Mr, Cruz be divided
upon his death? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) Assuming that the institution of A, B and F were to the entire estate, there was
preterition of C since C is a compulsory heir in the direct line. The preterition will result in the total
annulment of the institution of heirs. Therefore, the institution of A, B and F will be set aside and Mr.
Cuz’s estate will be divided, as in intestacy, equally among A, B and C as follows: A – P333,333.33; B –
P333.333.33; and C – P333,333.33. (b) On the same assumption as letter (a), there was preterition of C.
Therefore, the institution of A and B is annulled but the legacy of P100.000.00 to F shall be respected for
not being inofficious. Therefore, the remainder of P900.000.00 will be divided equally among A, B and C.

54. Proceedings; Intestate Proceedings; Jurisdiction (2004) In his lifetime, a Pakistani citizen, ADIL,
married three times under Pakistani law. When he died an old widower, he left behind six children, two
sisters, three homes, and an estate worth at least 30 million pesos in the Philippines. He was born in
Lahore but last resided in Cebu City, where he had a mansion and where two of his youngest children
now live and work. Two of his oldest children are farmers in Sulu, while the two middle-aged children
are employees in Zamboanga City. Finding that the deceased left no will, the youngest son wanted to file
intestate proceedings before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Two other siblings objected, arguing
that it should be in Jolo before a Shari’a court since his lands are in Sulu. But Adil’s sisters in Pakistan
want the proceedings held in Lahore before a Pakistani court. Which court has jurisdiction and is the
proper venue for the intestate proceedings? The law of which country shall govern succession to his
estate?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: In so far as the properties of the decedent located in the Philippines are
concerned, they are governed by Philippine law (Article 16, Civil Code). Under Philippine law, the proper
venue for the settlement of the estate is the domicile of the decedent at the time of his death. Since the
decedent last resided in Cebu City, that is the proper venue for the intestate settlement of his estate.
However, the successional rights to the estate of ADIL are governed by Pakistani law, his national law,
under Article 16 of the Civil Code.

55. Succession; Death; Presumptive Legitime (1991) a) For purposes of succession, when is death
deemed to occur or take place? b) May succession be conferred by contracts or acts inter vivos?
Illustrate. c) Is there any law which allows the delivery to compulsory heirs of their presumptive
legitimes during the lifetime of their parents? If so, in what instances?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Death as a fact is deemed to occur when it actually takes place. Death is
presumed to take place in the circumstances under Arts. 390-391 of the Civil Code. The time of death is
presumed to be at the expiration of the 10- year period as prescribed by Article 390 and at the moment
of disappearance under Article 391. B. Under Art. 84 of the Family Code amending Art 130 of the Civil
Code, contractual succession is no longer possible since the law now requires that donations of future
property be governed by the provisions on the testamentary succession and formalities of wills.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: C. Yes, under Arts. 51 and 52 of the New Family Code. In case of legal separation,
annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and the automatic termination of a
subsequent marriage by the reappearance of the absent spouse, the common or community property of
the spouses shall be dissolved and liquidated. Art, 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive
legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall
be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement, judicially
approved, had already provided for such matters. The children of their guardian, or the trustee of their
property, may ask for the enforcement of the judgment. The delivery of the presumptive legitimes
herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children accruing
upon the death of either or both of the parents; but the value of the properties already received under
the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime. Art. 52.
The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the
properties of the spouses, and the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in
the appropriate civil registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect third
persons.

58. Wills; Testamentary Disposition (2006)

Don died after executing a Last Will and Testament leaving his estate valued at P12 Million to his
common-law wife Roshelle. He is survived by his brother Ronie and his half- sister Michelle. (1) Was
Don’s testamentary disposition of his estate in accordance with the laws on succession? Whether you
agree or not, explain your answer

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Don’s testamentary disposition of his estate is in accordance with the law on
succession. Don has no compulsory heirs not having ascendants, descendants nor a spouse [Art. 887,
New Civil Code]. Brothers and sisters are not compulsory heirs. Thus, he can bequeath his entire estate
to anyone who is not otherwise incapacitated to inherit from him. A common-law wife is not
incapacitated under the law, as Don is not married to anyone.

(2) If Don failed to execute a will during his lifetime, as his lawyer, how will you distribute his estate?
Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: After paying the legal obligations of the estate, I will give Ronie, as full-blood
brother of Don, 2/3 of the net estate, twice the share of Michelle, the half- sister who shall receive 1/3.
Roshelle will not receive anything as she is not a legal heir [Art. 1006 New Civil Code].

(3) Assuming he died intestate, survived by his brother Ronie, his half-sister Michelle, and his legitimate
son Jayson, how will you distribute his estate? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jayson will be entitled to the entire P12 Million as the brother and sister will be
excluded by a legitimate son of the decedent. This follows the principle of proximity, where “the nearer
excludes the farther.”
(4) Assuming further he died intestate, survived by his father Juan, his brother Ronie, his half-sister
Michelle, and his legitimate son Jayson, how will you distribute his estate? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jayson will still be entitled to the entire P12 Million as the father, brother and
sister will be excluded by a legitimate son of the decedent [Art. 887, New Civil Code]. This follows the
principle that the descendants exclude the ascendants from inheritance.

59. Wills; Testamentary Intent (1996) Alfonso, a bachelor without any descendant or ascendant, wrote a
last will and testament in which he devised.” all the properties of which I may be possessed at the time
of my death” to his favorite brother Manuel. At the time he wrote the will, he owned only one parcel of
land. But by the time he died, he owned twenty parcels of land. His other brothers and sisters insist that
his will should pass only the parcel of land he owned at the time it was written, and did not cover his
properties acquired, which should be by intestate succession. Manuel claims otherwise.

Who is correct? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Manuel is correct because under Art. 793, NCC, property acquired after the
making of a will shall only pass thereby, as if the testator had possessed it at the time of making the will,
should it expressly appear by the will that such was his intention. Since Alfonso’s intention to devise all
properties he owned at the time of his death expressly appears on the will, then all the 20 parcels of
land are included in the devise.

Wills and Succession Compilation Bar Qs

60. Succession; barrier between illegitimate and legitimate relatives 1984 No. 9 A had two sons, one
legitimate (B) and the other illegitimate (C), who both died in a car accident. At the time of the accident,
B was not married but had an illegitimate son, D. C also had an illegitimate son, E. Upon learning of the
death of his sons, A suffered a heart attack and died. Can D and E inherit from A? Explain

Answer: A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma, D, cannot inherit. The illegitimate child cannot inherit
from the legitimate relatives of his father or mother, {Art. 992). E can inherit. The rights of illegitimate
children are transmitted upon their death to their descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. (Art 990).

61. Succession; barrier between illegitimate and legitimate relatives 1996 No. 11: Cristina. the
illegitimate daughter of Jose and Maria, died Intestate, without any descendant or ascendant. Her
valuable estate is being claimed by Ana, the legitimate daughter of Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate son
of Maria. Is either, both, or neither of them entitled to inherit? Explain.

Answer; Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of ab intestato from Cristina. Both are legitimate
relatives of Cristina's illegitimate parents and therefore they fall under the prohibition prescribed by Art.
992, NCC (Manuel v. Ferrer, 242 SCRA 477; Diaz v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 427).
63. Succession; barrier between legitimate and illegitimate relatives 1983 No. 9 A, a spurious child, died
intestate survived by B, the brother of his deceased mother, and C, his mother's legitimate
granddaughter. May B and C inherit from A? Reasons.

Answer B cannot because uncles have no right to inherit from their illegitimate nephews. C cannot
succeed either because legitimate relatives have no right to inherit from an illegitimate child and vice
versa.

64. Succession; capacity to inherit; conditional devise 1980 No. VII (a) In his will, Reverend Father "R'
devised a parcel of riceland in favor of "his nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood."
The Will was duly probated. No nephew of the testator claimed the devise and the testate proceeding
remained pending. In the interim, the riceland was to be administered by the Parish Priest of the locality
pursuant to a project of partition approved by the Probate Court. Twentyone years after the testator's
death, the Parish Priest filed a petition before the Court for delivery of the rice land to the Church as
trustee. The legal heirs of Father "R" objected and prayed instead that the bequest be declared
inoperative and that they be adjudged entitled to the rice land. It also turned out that the testator had a
grandnephew (a grandson of his first cousin) who was taking the holy orders in a Seminary. Would you
construe the testamentary provision liberally so as to render the trust operative and to prevent
intestacy, or would you declare the bequest inoperative and the legal heirs entitled to the riceland?

Answer (a) It depends. If the Seminarian, who is presently studying for the priesthood, was born before
the death of Father "R", it is submitted that the testamentary provision should be liberally construed so
as to prevent intestacy. The land should be delivered to the Parish Priest as trustee or administrator. The
reason is obvious. There is always the possibility that the seminarian might not become a priest. True,
Father "K" devised the land to his nearest nephew male relative who would study for the priesthood.
Apparently, the condition has already been fulfilled. It is however, submitted that the testatorial
intention is clear. The devisee must not only study for the priesthood; he must become a priest. Once he
becomes a priest, the land should then be delivered to him. If the seminarian was born after the death
of Father "R", bequest is certainly inoperative and the legal heirs of the testator shall, therefore, be
entitled to the rice-land. In other -words, the land shall be merged in the mass of the hereditary estate,
and from there, it shall pass to the legal heirs in accordance with the rules of intestacy (Art. 956, Civil
Code). The reason is clear. The seminarian cannot inherit from Father "R", Under our law, in order to be
capacitated to inherit, the heir, legatee or devisee must be living at the moment the succession opens,
except in case of representation when it is proper. (Art. 1025, Civil Code).

65. Succession; collation 1993 No. 17; Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio Cruz a residential lot of 300
square meters in Quezon City for which Joaquin paid Julio the amount of P300,000.00, When the deed
was about to be prepared Joaquin told Julio that it be drawn in the name of Joaquina Roxas. his
acknowledged natural child. Thus, the deed was so prepared and executed by Julio. Joaquina then built
a house on the lot where she, her husband and children resided. Upon Joaquin's death, his legitimate
children sought to recover possession and ownership of the lot. claiming that Joaquina Roxas was but a
trustee of their father. Will the action against Joaquina Roxas prosper?
Alternative Answer; Yes, the action against Joaquina Roxas will prosper, but only to the extent of the
aliquot hereditary rights of the legitimate children as heirs. Joaquina will be entitled to retain her own
share as an illegitimate child, (Arts. 1440 and 1453. Civil Code; Art. 176, F. C.)