1.

Yes, the suit will prosper because the donation did not comply with the formalities of a
will. In this instance, the fact that the donor did not intend to transfer ownership or
possession of the donated property to the donee until the donor’s death, would result in a
donation mortis causa and in this kind of disposition, the formalities of a will should be
complied with, otherwise, the donation is void.

The donation mortis causa in this case which is embodied only in a public instrument without the
formalities of a will could not have transferred ownership of the disputed property to Y.

2. Despite the substitution, the children are not liable.

The remedy of the plaintiff, the creditor, is to proceed against the estate of the deceased debtor.

3. Yes, because the heirs also inherit the obligations of the deceased which are not
extinguished by death.
4. The sale is valid because the rights of A to the inheritance became vested upon T’s death.
5. Yes, subject to two exceptions:
a) presumed death of a person.
b) judicial dissolution of marriage.

6. No, because the presumption is already established by law.

A judicial declaration of presumptive death is required only for purposes of remarriage
under Article 41 of the Family Code.
7. GENERAL RULE
There is no difference in their capacity, effect and solemnities.

EXCEPTION:

Distinction is important in cases of:

PRETERITION
IMPERFECT DISINHERITANCE.

8. The preterition of C annuls the institution of A, B and F as T’s heirs. Intestacy results.
A, B and C will each get 30,000.
The friend, F, gets nothing.

9. The omission of F and M constitutes preterition which will result in the annulment of the
institution of S.
Consequently, the entire will is void; estate is to be distributed as in intestacy.
10. The preterition of B renders the institution of heirs void.
The legacy is effective for the legitime has not been impaired.
Therefore, the remaining 90,000 will be divided intestate as follows:
A = 45,000
B = 45,000
 F = 10,000

11. The preterition of B renders void the institution of A and Y.

The legacy to X, though valid, is reducible because it impairs the legitime of A and B.
A = 25,000
B = 25,000
X = 50,000
Y=0
12. The institution of B and C remains valid, but their shares are to be reduced to give A his
legitime.
Had there been preterition here, each would receive 30,000 each. Therefore:

A - 15,000
B - 37,500
C - 37,500

13. X (legatee) gets only 50,000. The legacy to him is reducible by 20,000 so as not to impair
Y’s legitime. Y (disinherited heir) gets his legitime of 50,000
14. In sum the estate of T will be distributed as follows:
A 25,000
B 45,000
W 25,000
E 5,000
M 0

15. This is intrinsic ambiguity; the doubt arises because of circumstances outside the will.
Yes, but it is inadmissible to cure the defect.
B should inherit in view of the written memorandum which is admissible
extrinsic evidence.
(oral declaration is still an extrinsic evidence though inadmissible)
NOTE: In the law on evidence, evidence is admissible if it is relevant
and competent.
16. Three only.
(however if the testator stated that and any car acquired after my death, then all 8 cars,
since the testator must expressly state his intention)
Art 781. 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. (this article does not apply in the present case
since such provision refers to instituted heirs not devise or legacy)
17. There is no law which requires that the will must expressly state the language used in the
will and that such language was known by the testator.
What the law requires is that the language was known by the testator.
18. Yes, but his institution as an heir, or the legacy or devise given to him, shall be rendered
void, unless there are three other competent witnesses. (Art. 823, CC) In other words, he is
disqualified from inheriting from the testator. (Art. 1027, CC)

19. Yes, the will as ORIGINALLY WRITTEN may be probated. The insertions and alterations
were void since they were not authenticated by the full signature of T pursuant to Article
814 of the Civil Code.
The original will remains valid because a holographic will is not invalidated by the
unauthenticated insertions or alterations. (Ajero v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 468)

20. The will is not valid either as a notarial will or a holographic will. It is not valid as a notarial
will because this requires three witnesses. Neither is it valid as a holographic will because
the will must be entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of the testator. The fact
that the witnesses testified as to the date of execution of the will did not cure the defect.
Lacking the date, it cannot be probated as a holographic will.
21. Yes, since acknowledgement by notary public and number of witnesses refer to the
extrinsic validity of a will, and the law which governs the extrinsic validity of a will in case
of a Filipino citizen who executes his will abroad shall be the law of the Philippines and the
law of the place where the will was executed, since it is valid in Kuwait where he executed
the will, it is also valid here in the Philippines, therefore it can be admitted probate.
22. Yes, the will can be probated in the Philippines insofar as the estate of Eleanor is
concerned. While the Civil Code prohibits the execution of joint wills here and broad, such
prohibition applies only to Filipinos. Hence, the joint will which is valid where executed is
valid in the Philippines, but only with respect to Eleanor. Under Article 819, it is void with
respect to Manuel whose joint will remains void in the Philippines despite being valid
where executed.
23. A fideicommissary substitution has no effect unless it is made expressly. The testamentary
clause under consideration is not a fideicommissary substitution.

The will establishes only a simple or common substitution, the necessary result of which is
that B, upon the death of T, became the owner of an undivided half of the property.
Being a co-owner, B can demand partition of the property.

24. No. B, the second heir, acquires a right to the succession from the time of the testator’s
death, even though he, B, should die before the fiduciary, A.
B inherited from T as second heir when the latter died in 1990. When B died in
1995, he was able to transmit his right to his own heirs, E and F.

When A (first heir) died in 2000, the right of E and F over the property became
absolute.

25. In a conditional institution, such as what is involved in the problem, the instituted heir (B)
must survive not only the testator but also the fulfilment of the condition in the will. (Art.
1034, CC) Since B did not survive the condition, his institution is inoperative. Intestacy
 results. A’s estate must therefore be distributed to all nephews and nieces in equal shares
at 30,000 each.
(which means that if a condition is not met, intestacy results)
26. The condition is valid insofar as the free portion is concerned, since the absolute
prohibition to remarry was imposed by the deceased spouse.
The condition is void insofar as the legitime is concerned for no condition can be imposed
on the legitime. (see Art. 874, CC)
(the condition is void therefore, its as if no condition has been imposed by the testator)
27. Yes, but he must give a security to guarantee he would not enter any gambling casino for
one whole year upon T’s death.
The security is called “caucion muciana.”
If he enters any casino during the prohibited period, he should return whatever he may
have received, together with its fruits and interest.
28. A = 30,000 as compulsory heir
15,000 as voluntary heir
B = 30,000 as compulsory heir
15,000 as voluntary heir
D = 10,000 by right of rep.
15,000 as voluntary heir
E = same as D
F = same as D
M = 15,000 as voluntary heir

29. 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 photocopy. 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.
(2-witness rule may apply, where if 2 witnesses can prove the content and provisions of
the lost will, then the will can be probated.)
30. First view
ESTATE 300,000
SON 150,000 (plus 50,000)
WIDOW 75,000 (plus 25,000)
FP 75,000

Second View
SON 150,000
WIDOW 75,000
FP 75,000
Considering that the value of the ricefield is 100,000, the bequest is inofficious to the
extent of 25,000; it shall be reduced to that extent.

31. ince the net hereditary estate is 120,000, the legitime of the legitimate children is
60,000.
 Since there are two children, each will receive 30,000 as his legitime.
The legitime of A is only 30,000. The 50,000 donation to him should first be charged to the
legitime.

32. The donation to C (100,000) does not exceed the free portion of 125,000. Hence, there is
no need to reduce it.
33. A, B, C and S are all entitled to their legitimes even if all of them are present.
F and M are entitled to their legitimes only in default of a legitimate child such as A.
If only F and A are present, A is entitled to his legitime, but not F.
W, A’s wife is not a compulsory heir of T but is a compulsory heir of A.
34. A 12,500
B 12,500
C 12,500
D 12,500
W 12,500
FP 37,500
TOTAL 100,000

35. A 50,000
B 50,000
C 25,000
D 25,000
FP 50,000
TOTAL 200,000

36. A 50,000
W 25,000
B 25,000
FP 0

37. F 0
A 20,000
B 20,000
C 20,000
W 20,000
D 10,000
E 10,000
FP 20,000
TOTAL 120,000

38. If all (except T) survive, the grandparents get nothing. 50,000 is the legitime of F and M
together, so each gets 25,000. The remaining 50,000 is the free portion.
 If M predeceased T, F gets 50,000 as legitime. The remaining 50,000 is the free portion. C
and D cannot represent M, because there is no right of representation in the ascending
line.
The rule of proximity also applies.

If F and M predeceased T, and the others are still alive, the paternal line gets half of the
legitime and the maternal line gets the other half. The paternal line gets 25,000 and this
should be divided equally between A and B.
What has been said of the paternal line is also true of the maternal line.

39. F 25,000
M 25,000
W 25,000
FP 25,000

40. F 18,000
M 18,000
W 9,000
A 9,000
B 9,000
FP 9,000

41. W 30,000
A 15,000
B 15,000
FP 30,000

42. F 12,500
M 12,500
W 25,000
FP 50,000

43. Yes, but subject to the reserva.

The reservatarios can get the real property from the transferee as soon as ownership is
transferred to such reservatarios, without prejudice to our Land Registration Laws.
44. If the child had an intra-uterine life of not less than seven months, it inherited from the
father. Consequently, the estate of 100,000 shall be divided equally between the child and
his mother as legal heirs. Upon the death of the child, its share of 50,000 goes by
operation of law to the mother, W, which is subject to reserva troncal.

However, if the child had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months, half of the estate
of H, or 50,000, will be inherited by W, the widow, while the other half, or 50,000, will be
inherited by the parents of H. Upon the death of W, her estate of 50,000 will be inherited
by her own parents, C and D.
 B is not entitled to the reservable portion of the property.
Although a relative of the propositus in the second degree, B is merely related by affinity
to the ascendant (A) from whom the property came. She does not, therefore, belong to
the “line from which the property came.”
A reservatario must not only be related by consanguinity to the propositus within the third
degree, but he must also be related by consanguinity to the ascendant from whom the
property came.

C is entitled to the reservable portion of the property since he is not only a third degree
relative by consanguinity of the propositus, but he also belongs to the line from which the
property came.
G, on the other hand, is entitled to the part of the property which is not reservable in
accordance with the ordinary rules of intestate succession.

45. Half to C; other half to G.

F, the propositus, died with a will instituting his mother, E, as sole heir.
Consequently, only one-half of the property passed to her by operation of law since that is
her legitime. Only this portion of the property has become reservable.

46. B alone is entitled to the property.

The property is reservable.
FIRST, the property had been acquired by operation of law by an ascendant (F) from his
descendant (Y) upon the death of the latter.
SECOND, the property had been previously acquired by gratuitous title by the descendant
(Y) from a brother (X).

THIRD, descendant (Y) died without any legitimate issue who can inherit from him.
In order to determine who can qualify as a reservatario, two tests should be applied:

First, is the claimant a relative of the descendant-propositus within the third degree?
Second, does he belong to the line from which the reservable property came?
Applying the tests, it is clear that:
A cannot qualify because he is not even a relative of the descendant-propositus, Y.

Neither can C qualify because he does not belong to the line from which the property
came. He is not related by consanguinity to X.

47. HOUSE: This property was acquired by D from his grandfather, A, and was transmitted by
D to B, his father. There is no reserva troncal because there is no change of line. Hence, E
alone is entitled to inherit the house.
FARM: The farm originally came from B, the father of D. and from D it went to his mother,
C. There is a change of line line from paternal to maternal line. The farm is reservable
 property and must be acquired by relatives within the third degree of the propositus (D)
and belonging to the paternal line.

There are two theories:

In the “delayed intestacy doctrine,” the preferences in the rules of intestate succession
must be observed.

Under this theory, A alone will inherit the farm because in intestacy, the direct line
excludes the collateral line. Hence, A, the grandfather of P, should exclude E, the brother
of D.

The second theory is to the effect that relatives in the same degree inherit in equal shares
without distinction as to the direct or collateral line. Under this theory, which allows no
distinction as to direct or collateral line, A and E will inherit the farm in equal shares since
they are both second degree relatives of D, both belonging to the paternal line.

In any case, F does not inherit since he is not a reservatario.

48. D gets 15,000 which is A’s legitime.

B and C will each get 37,5000. D is not allowed to get the extra 15,000 because in this
respect, his father, A, was a voluntary heir.

HAD T DIED INTESTATE, D gets 30,000 corresponding to the share of A which represents
all that A would have inherited if he was not incapacitated.

49. B=45000
Y=22,500
Z=22,500

50. Y=45000
Z=45000

X won’t inherit because an illegitimate child cannot inherit from the relatives of his
legitimate parents who is B.

51. Neither A nor B is entitled to inherit ab intestato from P. Both are legitimate relatives of
P’s parents and therefore they fall under the prohibition prescribed by Article 992 of the
Civil Code. (Manuel v. Ferrer, 242 SCRA 477)
52. B cannot succeed because uncles have no right to inherit from their illegitimate nephews.
D cannot succeed either because legitimate relatives have no right to inherit from an
illegitimate child and vice-versa.
53. Yes, an heir who repudiates may represent but cannot be represented
54. W=30k
A=30k
55. A= 36k
W=18k
B=9k
C=9k
56. A=15k
B=15k
W=15k
C, D, E = 5k
57. A= 40k
B= 40k
W=40k
C=20k
(Exclusion = balance distributed only to legitimate children)
(Concurrence = balance distributed 2:2:1)

58. F=18k
M=18k
W=18k
A, B, C, D = 4.5k

59. A 20,000 plus 10,000

B 20,000 plus 10,000
F 20,000 plus 10,000
W 20,000 plus 10,000
(concurrence kanu)
F gets 30 since a representative inherits everything which the person he represents would
have inherited – xpn: free portion in case of testacy

60. W=120k
A=40k
B=40k
D=20k
E=20k

61. W=120k
X=40k
Y=40k
Z=40k

62. E= 40k
F=20k
G=20k
H=20k
I=20k
63. J=60k
K=30k
L=30k
(nephews of full blood and of the half blood inherits by 2:1 in case they inherit in their
own right since the rule of full blood and half blood is not only limited to brothers and
sisters of the decedent)

64. E 48,000 own right

F 24,000 own right
G 24,000 own right
J 24,000 representing H
L 0
TOTAL 120,000
NOTE: L is not entitled to inherit anything because in the collateral line, inheritance
extends only to nephews and nieces.

65. Only F and W are entitled to inherit, at 60,000 each.

Illegitimate parents do not exclude the surviving spouse.
A, B, and C, brothers of X, are not entitled to inherit because they are excluded by F
pursuant to the principle of preference of line.

66. A 15,000 (CH)

10,000 (VH)
B 15,000 (CH)
10,000 (VH)
F 10,000 (VH)

A’s share in the legitime goes to B in his own right (since this is the legitime).
A’s share in the free portion (10,000) will go equally to B and F by accretion since
this is the proportion in which they were were instituted to the free portion.

If F predeceases T, his share in the free portion will go to A and B by accretion.

It is so because they were instituted as voluntary heirs.

67. To A and B, not by accretion for they were not given any part of the free portion.
Intestacy then results, and A and B will get F’s share as intestate heirs.

68. A 24,000 own right

12,000 accretion

B 24,000 own right

12,000 accretion
F 12,000 own right

G 12,000 own right

 H 12,000 own right
I 12,000 own right

69. HEIR DEVISE ACCRETION TOTAL

B 20,000 6,000 26,000
C 30,000 9,000 39,000

70. A 40,000 by representation

20,000 by accretion
B 20,000 by representation
10,000 by accretion
C 20,000 by representation
10,000 by accretion

71. A 105,000 as an instituted heir

15,000 by accretion
B 52,500 as an instituted heir
7,500 by accretion
C 26,250 as an instituted heir
3,750 by accretion