1. Succession is described as a mode of acquiring ownership. What is the mode and title in succession?

Explain.

Article 778 of the civil code provides that Succession may be Testamentary, Legal or intestate, or mixed.
Testamentary succession is  the mode of succession which results from the designation of an heir, made
in a will executed in the form prescribed by law. Intestate Succession on the other hand is the mode of
succession that takes place by operation of law if a person dies without a will, or with a void will, or one
which has subsequently lost its validity. Mixed succession is that effected partly by will and partly by
operation of law.

2. There are two general theories regarding the basis of succession. Which of the two underlying
theories is more persuasive to you ? Why.

The two general theories regarding the basis of succession are the negative theories and positive
theories. The negative theories refer to those which deny to succession any rational basis and provides
that there can be no testamentary succession because these rights are merely creations of the will of a
person, who has no longer any will since he is already dead. On the other hand, the positive theories can
be generally classified into three, the theories which base the right of succession on the right of private
property, the theories which base the right of succession on the right of the family, and the eclectic
theories. Theories which base the right of succession on the right of private property provides that if a
man has the right to own private property,  he has the power to dispose of such property freely,
imposing such licit terms and conditions as he might deem convenient. Theories which base the right of
succession on the right of the family provides that if the family is recognized as the heart and soul of
society, the idea of succession must, therefore, revolve around it. Lastly, the eclectic theories provides
that the basis of testamentary succession is the right of ownership but the basis of legal or intestate
succession is the ties of blood and the right of family co-ownership.

The positive theories are more persuasive to me, because it gives the owner the chance to choose the
persons who will be taking care of his properties after his death.

3. One of the underlying principles of the Civil Code is the socialisation of ownership, not in the sense
of "socialism," but in the sense of effectively adapting property to the needs of society. How does
succession adapt property to the needs of society?

Succession adapts property to the needs of society through the continuing and perpetuating individual
ownership. Without the continuing and perpetuating individual ownership, there will be no continuity in
the enjoyment of material wealth and rights. Succession provides stability to the whole family by passing
down ownership of properties and rights, continuing to flow to subsequent generations of a family.

4. What is an inheritance? What is NOT included in the inheritance?

Article 776 of the Civil Code provides that the inheritance includes all the property, transmissible rights
and obligations of a person at the time of his death. Inheritance refers to the universality of all the
property, rights, and obligations of a decedent, which are not extinguished by his death. 

Not included in the inheritance are those rights and obligations of a person which are extinguished by
his death, such as personal rights.

5. Are heirs devisees/legatees? Are devisees/legatees heirs? Explain

Yes, heirs are devisees or legatees, however devisees or legatees are not always heirs. Article 782 of the
civil code provides that an heir is a person called to the succession either by the provision of a will or by
operation of law, and devisees and legatees are persons to whom gifts of real and personal property are
respectively given by virtue of a will. As to the means of succession, the heirs succeed by means of a will
or by operation of law. On the other hand, devisees and legatees only succeed by means of a will only.
Heirs are deemed to succeed to an indeterminate or aliquot portion of an estate, while Devisees or
Legatees are deemed to succeed to individual items of property.

1. In the Philippines, the making of a will is privilege granted to the people by the State. Should
the State encourage people to make wills? Why or why not?

Yes, the State should encourage people to make wills in order for the latter to properly transfer his
property after his death. The making of wills help protect the last wishes of the dead, and for the family
to have less quarrels about the properties to be received. 

2. What steps can be taken by the State to encourage people to make wills? Give suggestions.
 The state can encourage the people to make wills by providing uniform templates that contains
the prerequisites needed by law, that may be obtained in an authorized office. By providing such
templates, the people may easily fill out a will that is accessible within their reach. Such templates shall
indicate the needed disposition of property, which should be executed with animus testandi.

3. Wills are required to be in writing here in the Philippines. Are you in favor of allowing oral
wills? Explain

No, I am not in favor of allowing oral wills, because allowing such may increase the confusion of the
interpretation of an oral will. With the requirements provided by the Civil Code, it helps tighten the
passage of property from one generation to another by providing a written instrument that contains
such provisions that signify the transfer of property.

4. Why is Mi Ultimo Adios by Jose Rizal not considered to be a will? Explain.

Mi Ultimo Adios by Jose Rizal is not considered to be a will because it is considered a literary piece of
work. Article 783 of the Civil Code provides that a will is an act whereby a person is permitted with the
formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to take effect
after his death. Mi Ultimo Adios by Jose Rizal is not considered a will, because it does not contain a
disposition of property, and was not executed with animus testandi. Hence, Mi Ultimo Adios by Jose
Rizal is not considered to be a will.

5. Complete freedom to dispose of property by will is the familiar rule in England and the United
States, unlike the Philippines where there are restrictions on the disposition of property by
will. Which system is better? Why?

The system used in the Philippines is better. The disposition of property by will in the Philippines is
better, because it provides more security on the disposition of the estate. The Civil Code requires that a
will must contain a disposition of property and an execution with animus testandi, with these
requirements, the interpretation of the will is easier and secured, unlike the disposition of property in
American law  where any instrument which simply names an executor or administrator of the estate of
the testator, is considered a valid will. 
Jewel made a will In late 1997 giving all of her property equally to sixteen blood relatives and one non-
relative, a person who took much time caring for her until her death. However, her cousins opposed the
will on the ground that a year before the making the will, her physician diagnosed her as legally blind
and suffering from dementia; that three months after the making of the will, a petition for guardianship
was filed for Jewel because she had an irrational fear that her home was being flooded. She even
refused to get into the bathtub, and insisted on spongebaths. Visitors to her home were not allowed to
flush the toilet. in mid-December of 1997, only a month after executing the will, Ms. Jewel was
disoriented as to time and believed that it was March, she was unaware that Christmas was imminent.
Should the will be allowed?

The three witnesses signed T ’s will in T’s dining room while T was in her bedroom. T knew that the
witnesses were signing and could have walked into the dining room to see them sign. Is the will valid?

The manager of a bank writes a will for a customer. The customer, seriously ill, drives to the bank and
parks. The manager takes the will to the customer’s car. The customer signs the will propped on his
steering wheel. Two bank tellers, seated at a window facing the side of the car, watches the customer
sign. The manager signs as a witness in the car and then takes the will to the tellers inside the bank. The
tellers, sitting at the window, signs as witnesses and waves to the customer, who waves back. The
manager then takes the will outside to the customer, who asks the manager to keep it. Have the tellers
signed as a witness in the presence of the testator?

In Anthony's notarial will is found the following typewritten line, just below the testator’s signature: “I
give Karen my diamond ring.” Said line was added before the testator signed his name. Aside from the
aforesaid line, the notarial will complies with all the requirements for a valid notarial will. Is the will
valid?

Meeson, Augusta, and three others, including a notary public, were shipwrecked on a remote island.
Meeson had suffered injuries during the shipwreck and knew he would not survive until rescue came.
Augusta allowed Meeson to tattoo his will (a short one, "All of my property to my wife") on her back,
using a fishbone and cuttlefish ink. Augusta (using a mirror) and the two other companions likewise
tattoed their signatures on Augusta's back. Thereafter, they acknowledged the same before the notary
public. Is the will valid?

1. Frank made a will wherein he gave all of his free portion to his wife Luisa. After the execution of the
will, he requested Luisa to destroy it. Thereupon, in his presence, Luisa burned an envelope, falsely
declaring to Frank that the will was contained therein. Frank then and until his death, believed that the
will was in the envelope, and was destroyed by burning, when in fact some other paper was enclosed
therein. The will was not destroyed or burned, and all this was done by Luisa for the purpose of
deceiving Frank in order to secure to herself the property left her by the will. Upon Frank’s death, Luisa
filed a petition for probate of the will. Should the will be admitted to probate

1. No, the will should not be admitted to probate. Article 830 of the civil code provides that a will shall
be revoked by burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it, by
the testator himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction. In the case
given, the will was considered revoked as it complies with the requirements of the civil code as Luisa
was instructed by Frank to destroy such will, and Frank has the actual intent to revoke the will executed.
The actual physical act of destruction is also complied as Frank believed of such destruction
demonstrated by the outward and visible sign of burning the envelope which contains the will, as told by
Luisa. Hence, the will should not be admitted to probate. YES

2. In 2011, Carmela executes a will giving all her property to Elpidio. In 2016, Carmela makes a will giving
her diamond ring to Gemma and her car to Ronaldo. Suppose that in early 2017 Carmela dies. How
should her properties be distributed?

 The diamond ring must be given to Gemma, the car to Ronaldo, and the rest of the free property to
Elpidio. Article 831 of the Civil Code provides that subsequent wills which do not revoke the previous
ones in an express manner, annul only such dispositions in the prior wills as are inconsistent with or
contrary to those contained in the later wills. In the case given, there was no express revocation of the
prior will, hence implied revocation will apply. In implied revocation two separate and distinct wills may
be probated if one does not revoke the other and provided that the statutory requirements relative to
the execution of wills have been complied with. The fact that the subsequent will is posterior and
incompatible with the first does not mean that the first is entirely revoked, because revocation may be
total, or partial. 

3. Alejandro Verde died three weeks ago. His wife has come to you bringing with her, Verde's will. The
will gives Verde's entire free portion "to my wife, Martha, if she survives me; otherwise to my children in
equal shares." The will names Martha Verde as executrix. An interview with Mrs. Verde reveals that the
Verde family consists of two adult sons and several grandchildren and that Verde owned the following
property, all acquired during the marriage: car (P450,000), furniture (P50,000), mutual funds (P100,000),
joint checking account (P30,000), and life insurance policy naming Martha Verde as beneficiary
(P300,000). Mr. Verde is also an SSS member, and has named Martha Verde as the beneficiary for his
SSS survivor's benefits. Verde owned no real property; he and his wife lived in a rented apartment.
Verde's debts consisted of last month's utility bills (P8,000) plus some credit card charges at a local
department store (P25,000.00). There is also a funeral bill (P180,000) and the cost of a cemetery lot
(P80,000.00). Mrs. Verde wants your advice. What should she do with the will? Must it be offered for
probate? Suppose instead that Verde comes to you and tells you that he does not have a will. He
describes his family situation and the property owned by him, as described in the opening paragraph of
this problem. His question: In view of his family situation and his modest estate, does he really need a
will?
If Mrs. Verde came to me, I would advice her to offer the will for probate. Probate is a special
proceeding mandatorily required for the purpose of establishing the validity of a will, hence the law
expressly requires it. No will shall pass any property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with
the Rules of Court. 

With regard the question whether or not he needs a will, i would recommend him to obtain a will
because he has more assets than his liabilities. The free property left after the liquidation can still be
distributed to his heirs. DI NA KAILANGAN FOR PROBATE

4. Enrique dela Peña entered in to a marriage ceremony with Rosita Lim, a rich heiress. After living
together happily for one year, Rosita died leaving a will wherein she gave her free portion to “my
husband Enrique Dela Peña.” It then came to light that Rosita had been seduced by Enrique into a
marriage which was no marriage at all because of the fact, which he had concealed from Rosita, that he
already had a spouse, who was still living, and that he had also married several other women for the
purpose of swindling and defrauding them of money. Is the will valid? 

Yes, the will is valid, however, it may be disallowed. The will is valid because article 805 provides for the
requirements of a will, and by express provision, it does not require a lawful marriage. The will may be
disallowed on the ground of undue influence. Article 1337 of the civil code states that there is undue
influence when a person takes improper advantage of his power over the will of another, depriving the
latter of a reasonable freedom of choice. In the case given, there is undue influence where Enrique
concealed from Rosita that he already had a spouse, which constitutes fraud, and deceit. Such action
done with fraud and deceit constitutes undue influence sufficient to invalidate a will.

5. Mary Mae Nacionales was married three times; each of her husbands died. During the second
marriage, she struck up a friendship with Nestor Gapuzan, a lawyer 15 years her junior. After the death
of her third husband, Gapuzan became Mrs. Nacionales' lover as well as lawyer, and this relationship
continued for several years until Mrs. Nacionales died at age 57. During the six or seven years preceding
her death, Mrs. Nacionales suffered from serious heart trouble, had a breast removed because of
cancer, and became an alcoholic. Throughout this period, Gapuzan was almost daily in attendance upon
Mrs. Nacionales, on terms of the utmost intimacy. The aging Mrs. Nacionales, seriously ill, disfigured by
surgery, and hopelessly addicted to alcoholic excesses, was completely mesmerized by the constant and
amorous attentions of Gapuzan, a man 15 years her junior. She even entertained the hope that he might
marry her. Three years before death she made a will devising almost all of her property to Gapuzan. This
will was drafted by a lawyer, Aurelio Nava, who had no connection with Gapuzan. Mrs. Nacionales's
closest relative was an elder sister. The sister attacked the will on the ground of undue influence. Is the
will valid?
 Yes, the will is valid. Article 1337 of the civil code states that there is undue influence when a person
takes improper advantage of his power over the will of another, depriving the latter of a reasonable
freedom of choice. The following circumstances shall be considered: the confidential, family, spiritual
and other relations between the parties, or the fact that the person alleged to have been unduly
influenced was suffering from mental weakness, or was ignorant or in financial distress. Fair arguments,
persuasion, appeal to emotions, and entreaties which, without fraud, deceit, or actual coercion,
compulsion, or restraint do not constitute undue influence sufficient to invalidate a will. In the case
given, Gapuzan did not commit any action with fraud, deceit, actual coercion, compulsion or restraint
inorder for him to acquire all the property of Mrs. Nacionales. Hence, the will is valid.

BODY HEAT

Q1. Assuming that Philippine laws apply, No, it will not result the second will being declared void, with
all the properties going to the spouse. Article 870 of the civil code states that the dispositions of the
testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are void. In the case
given, such stipulation is of no effect but in applying article 870, the stipulation shall be valid, but only
for the first 20 years.  if the Edmund Walker states in his will that the property bequeathed or devised
shall not be alienated, under this provision, the prohibition shall be valid only for twenty years, but with
respect to the excess it is null and void. Hence, the second will shall not be declared void, and Heather
still has the right to possess the property without alienating it for 20 years.  

Q2. The doctrine of dependent relative revocation shall not apply. Assuming that Philippine law was
applied, Article 832 of the civil code provides that a revocation made in a subsequent will shall take
effect, even if the new will should become inoperative by reason of the incapacity of the heirs, devisees
or legatees designated therein, or by their renunciation. In the case given,  the cause of inoperative state
of the second will was not one of the causes stated in the aforesaid article to apply the doctrine. Hence,
the second will did not effectively revoked the first one.

Q3. As the lawyer of Heather, I would advice my client to invoke the disallowance of the will. Under
Philippine laws, Article 839 of the Civil code provides that the will shall be disallowed in any of the
following cases:

(1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied with;

(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its
execution;

(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;

(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of
some other person;
(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;

(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will at
the time of affixing his signature thereto.

In the case provided, if the second will was fraudulently prepared by Walker's spouse, Heather may raise
Article 839 which provides for the grounds of disallowance of wills in order to prohibit the probate of
the will. 

Tomas, in his own handwriting, executed an instrument stating, “Kapag ako'y namatay, gusto ko na lahat
ng ari-arian ko ay mapunta kay Nanay.” The instrument is dated and signed by Tomas. When asked to
identify this instrument, Tomas would say, “This is my death instructions.” Asked to define “will,” Tomas
would say, “Will is my Kuya, who gives away 1,000 android tablets.” Does Tommy have a valid will?

1. Yes, the will is valid. Article 799 of the Civil Code provides that to be of sound mind, it is not necessary
that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken,
unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause. It shall be sufficient if the testator was able
at the time of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of
his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act. To be of sound mind, it shall be sufficient if the
testator was able at the time of

making the will to know the Nature of the estate to be disposed of, Proper objects of his bounty; and
Character of the testamentary act

In the case given, Tomas has a sound mind for at the time of making the will, because he has complied
with the requirements of having a sound mind. Nature of the estate to be disposed of as showed by the
statement lahat ng ari-arian ko. Proper objects of his bounty where such properties is to be received by
his Nanay. Lastly, the character of the testamentary act as showed by the statement "Kapag ako'y
namatay" where it is the disposition of property signed by him, written in an instrument, to be made
after his death. Hence Tomas has a valid will.

Lola decided to make a will leaving the free portion of her property to her grandchildren. When she
wrote her will, she believed she had twenty-four grandchildren but could only remember the names of
twenty. In reality, she had twenty-six grandchildren. Is Lola’s will valid?

No, Lola's will is not valid. Article 845 of the Civil Code provides that every disposition in favor of an
unknown person shall be void, unless by some event or circumstance his identity becomes certain.
However, a disposition in favor of a definite class or group of persons shall be valid. In the case given, a
group of persons was instituted by Lola, however, such institution is invalid because it is not possible to
ascertain the identity of the instituted heirs either by intrinsic or extrinsic evidence. Lola's will contained
24 grandchildren where only 20 are named, hence the determination of the remaining 6 grandchildren
cannot be made, because there is only room for four grandchildren, whereas there is still 6
grandchildren left. Thus, the will is not valid because of an improper designation. VALID

Forrest Gump is a a philanthropist, a war veteran, businessman, and college football player. But in
elementary and high school, he was a slow learner and had to attend special classes. In fact, he has been
diagnosed as meeting six criteria for DSM-V autistic disorder. Forrest Gump inherited some property
from his parents.May Forrest make a will disposing of this property to his friend, Jenny and Lieutenant
Dan?

Yes, Forrest may make a will disposing of this property to his friend, Jenny and Lieutenant Dan. Article
799 of the Civil Code states that to be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full
possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or
unshattered by disease, injury or other cause. It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of
making the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and
the character of the testamentary act. There must be a complete loss of mental faculties in order for a
will to be invalid. As long as Forrest knows the nature of the estate to be disposed of, Proper objects of
his bounty, and Character of the testamentary act, the will is still valid even if he is diagnosed with DSM-
V autistic disorder. Hence, Forrest may make a will disposing of this property to his friend, Jenny and
Lieutenant Dan.

After a contractual dispute with his musical label, Wea Records, the musician Ray-An Fuentes, decided
to forego the use of his name and began to use the symbol Æ as his identification. He made a will and
drew the symbol Æ at the end of the will. Is the will valid?

Yes, the will is valid. Any mark or combination of marks placed on a will by the testator is a sufficient
compliance, even if at the time of placing it, the testator knew how to write and is able to do so. Thus, it
is sufficiently signed by writing a person's initials, or his first name only, or he may even use an assumed
name or a name (Æ) different from the one used to designate him as a testator in the body of the will.

Carmina is able to read and write and is not physically challenged. Nevertheless, Carmina directs Zoren
to sign her name in her will in her presence and in the presence of two witnesses. Is the will properly
signed?

No, the will is not properly signed. Article 805 of the Civil Code provides that every will, other than a
holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name
written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed
by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. In the case
given, 2 witnesses are only present and the law requires three or more credible witnesses. Hence the
will is not properly signed.

After Jimmy died, it was discovered that Jimmy did not know that his estate was worth approximately
P2,000,000.00 more than he had thought when he wrote his will. Does this affect Jimmy’s testamentary
capacity?

Yes, this will affect Jimmy's testamentary capacity. Paragraph 2 of Article 799 of the Civil Code provides
that, it shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the nature of the
estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act. In
the case given, Jimmy did not know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, as shown by the error of
the amount of his estate. Hence, such violation will affect Jimmy's testamentary capacity.

Modesto was a 25-year old married man, with two children, when he decided to take up law. After two
years in law school, he decided to join Alpha Q, the premier law fraternity in the school. As part of the
initiation rites and as a test of his academic abilities, he was locked inside a room until he wrote a will.
As Modesto had just taken up Succession, he quickly made a holographic will naming his mother as the
beneficiary of all his free portion. Five years later, Modesto died survived by his wife, his two children,
and his mother. Will Modesto’s mother receive the free portion of Modesto's estate?

No, Modesto's mother will not receive the free portion of Modesto's estate. Article 839 of the Civil Code
states that the will shall be disallowed if it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence
of fear, or threats or if it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of
the beneficiary or of some other person. The will must be executed freely, knowingly, and voluntarily,
otherwise it will be disallowed. In the case given, Modesto was locked inside a room and was instructed
to write a will as an initiation, as a result, the will is invalid. Modesto's will was made through force and
under improper pressure which falls under article 839 of the civil code. Thus, Modesto's mother cannot
receive the free portion of Modesto's estate.

While vacationing at the luxurious Henann Crystal Sands Boracay hotel, Regina decided to write her will.
When she opened the desk drawer in her hotel room, she found a piece of stationery with a letterhead
containing the hotel’s name, address, and telephone number. She wrote her will on this piece of
stationery. Is the will a valid holographic will?

No, the will is not a valid holographic will. Article 810 of the Civil Code provides that a person may
execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator
himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be
witnessed. In the case given, the will is not entirely dated by the hand of Regina. The date in a
holographic will should include the day, month, and year of its execution. Thus, the will is not a valid
holographic will, because of the lack of date. VALID

In his will, Roberto left his classic 1965 Ford Mustang convertible to his son Arturo. Shortly before
Roberto’s death, carnappers stole the Ford Mustang and the police were unable to recover it.
Accordingly, the insurance company paid P2,000,000, the car's insured value, which amount was
released only after Roberto died. What is Arturo entitled to receive?

Arturo is entitled to receive the P2,000,000 proceeds from the car. Article 776 of the Civil Code provides
that the inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not
extinguished by his death. A property right in an insurance policy is not extinguished by death which is
therefore a part of the estate. In the case, the proceeds from the insurance company forms part of the
estate of Roberto. Hence, Arturo is entitled to receive the P2,000,000 proceeds from the insurance
company.

Efren’s will has the following dispositions: I leave my gold watch to Randy. I give P100,000 to Valentina. I
leave P50,000 to Melissa. I leave the remainder of my estate to Alvin. Efren’s estate consists of P200,000
in cash and the gold watch with a fair market value of P250,000. There is also P125,000 worth of debts,
funeral expenses, administration expenses, etc. How should Efren's estate be distributed?

Randy receives P180,555.55

Valentina receives P72,222.22

Melissa and Alvin both receives P36,111.11

The amounts were computed through the formula for the pro rata reduction of legacies or devises
which are not preferred, which is Value of legacy or device which must be reduced (Values to be
received by the legatees) divided by total value of all legacies (P450,000) then multiplied by the Amount
of free disposal (P325,000)