Ga, Vanessa May C.

Quiz 2 Succession 2020

1. If a person is a beneficiary under the will, is he competent to act as an

instrumental witness? (3 pts)
No. The law is clear. Art. 823 states that if a person attests the execution of
a will, to whom or to whose spouse, or parent, or child, a devise or legacy
is given by such will, such devise or legacy shall, so far only as concerns
such person, or spouse, or parent, or child of such person, or any one
claiming under such person or spouse, or parent, or child, be void, unless
there are three other competent witnesses to such will.

2. A will was presented for probate, and no objection was presented, After the
judgement had become final and executory, a codicil made after the
execution of the will was presented for probate. May the codicil be still
probated? Explain (4pts)
Yes, the codicil may still be probated since the intention of the decedent
would be defeated if the codicil may not be given effect. It is the intention of
the decedent which determines the disposition.
Yes, since the codicil may have revoked expressly or impliedly the will, and it is well-known that a will is
essentially revocable. It is not indeed essential for both the will and the codicil to have been presented
for probate at the same Art. 829 time. Moreover, opposition to the probate of the codicil may still be
allowed, even if the oppositor had not objected to the will itself. This is because, in the opinion of the
oppositor, the codicil may be defective.

3.      T executed a will with his nephews, X who was living with him, as
principal beneficiary. With intent to revoke the will, he sent X to get it from
his safe so that he could destroy it. X, however, knowing of the intent of his
uncle, substituted another paper inside the envelope and hid the real will. It
was this envelope which he gave to T. The latter, without investigating the
contents, subsequently destroyed it by burning. After T’s death, X
presented the will, which he had hidden, for probate. Is there a revocation
in this case? Decide ( 4 pts)

There is no revocation by burning because, although there was the intent to

revoke, yet there was no actual act of physical destruction. But then, the
act of “X” is classified as an act of unworthiness under the law.
Consequently, “X” cannot inherit from “T.” Therefore, although there is no
 revocation of the will under No. 3 of Art. 830 of the NCC, there is a
revocation of the testamentary disposition in favor of “B” by implication of
law.

4. T is twice a widower. He has 3 children by his first marriage, and 2 children

by his second marriage. In his will, T institutes as his exclusive heirs the
children of his second marriage. Upon T’s death, how will the hereditary
estate be divided? (4 pts)
Art. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory
heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will
or born after the death the testator, shall annul the institution of heir. Since
the institution is annulled, it is as if there was no institution, hence, intestate
succession takes place.
The estate should be divided equally among the 5-compulsory heir.