1975-2004
Court of
Succession; acceptance, repudiation, collation
1977 No. XIII-a
Distinguish acceptance and repudiation of inheritance
from collation.
Answer
Acceptance is the act of an heir, legatee or devisee in
manifesting his desire in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by law to succeed to the
inheritance, legacy or devise, while repudiation is the
act of an heir, legatee or devisee in manifesting his
desire in accordance with the formalities prescribed
by law not to succeed to such inheritance, legacy or
devise.
Collation, on the other hand, refers to the act of
restoring to the common mass of the hereditary
estate, either actually or fictitiously, any property or
right, which a compulsory heir, who succeeds with
other compulsory heirs, may have received by way
of donation or any other gratuitous title from the
decedent during the lifetime of the latter, but which is
understood for legal purposes as an advance of his
legitime.
(NOTE: The above answer may be stated substantially).
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).
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.
Appeals, 182 SCRA 427).
Succession; barrier between illegitimate and
legitimate relatives 1993 No. 2;
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?
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)
Alternative Answer:
The action of A will not prosper. Being an illegitimate, he
is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting
ab intestato from the legitimate relatives of his father.
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.
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. Twenty-one
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).
(NOTE: The above problem is obviously a
modification of the problem resolved in Parish Priest
of Victoria vs. Rigor, 89 SCRA 493. Because of the
fact that only one out of several conditions imposed by
the testator was retained by the Honorable Bar
Examiner in the above hypothetical problem, the
Committee
respectfully prays that either one of the above
assumptions should be considered as a correct answer.
The Committee further prays that if a bar candidate
assumes that the seminarian was born before the
death of Father "R" and then advances the opinion
that the land should be delivered to him because the
condition has already been fulfilled, such an answer
should be considered as a correct answer.)
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?
Answer:
Yes, because there is a presumed donation in favor
of Joaquina under Art. 1448 of the Civil Code (De los
Santos v. Reyes, 27 January 1992, 206 SCRA 437).
However, the donation should be collated to the
hereditary estate and the legitime of the other heirs
should be preserved.
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.)
Succession; collation 1978 No. VII-a
Are the following subject to collation? Explain fully your
answers.
1. Gifts bestowed by the deceased father during his
lifetime for the debts of a son,
2. Money paid by the deceased parent during his
lifetime for the debts of a son.
Answer
1. Gifts bestowed by the deceased father during his
lifetime to the spouse of his son should not be subject to
collation. This means that the law will not consider such
gifts as advances made by the decedent of the
legitime of his son, and therefore, chargeable against
such legitime during the partition of the hereditary
estate. Instead, the law considers such gifts as ordinary
donations inter vivos made to a stranger, and
therefore, chargeable against the disposable free
portion of the estate. It would be different if the gifts
are bestowed to the spouses jointly. In such case, one-
half (1/2) of the value of such gifts would then be
charged against the legitime of the son and the other
one-half (1/2) against the disposable free portion.
2. Money paid by the deceased parent during his
lifetime for the debts of a son should be brought to
collation. In reality, what we have here is a donation inter
vivos made to a compulsory heir. From the point of
view of the law, the money is considered as an
advance of the legitime. Consequently, in the
portion of the hereditary estate, the amount should be
charged against the legitime of the son.
(NOTE: The above answers are based on Arts. 1066
and 1069 of the Civil
Code and on the view sustained by practically all
commentators on the real meaning
of collation under Arts. 1061, et seq., of the Civil Code.)
Succession; disinheritance 1999 No VIII,
(a.) Mr. Palma, widower, has three daughters D, D-l and
D-3. He executes a Will disinheriting 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. (5%)

ANSWER:
(a) 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,OOO.OO each. Hence, the shares will be:
(paragraph form!)
D - P166,666.66
D-l P166,666.66 + P25O.OOO.OO
D-2 P166,666.66 + P250,000.00
Succession; disinheritance vs preterition
2000 No IV
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? (5%)
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
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
The disinheritance of Wilma was effective because
disrespect of, and raising of voice to, her father
constitute maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the
New Civil Code. She is, therefore, not entitled to inherit
anything. Her inheritance will go to the other legal heirs.
The total omission of Elvira Is not preterition because she
is not a compulsory heir in the direct line. She will
receive only 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, isqualified to receive the legacy. Ernie will
receive the legacy In his favor because it is not
inofficious. The institution of Baldo, which applies only
to the free portion, will be respected. In sum, the estate
of Lamberto shall be distributed as follows:
Heir Legitime Legacy Institution
TOTAL
Baldo 500,000 200.000
700,000
Elvira 250,000
250,000
Ernie 50,000 50,000
TOTAL 750,000 50,000 200,000
1,000,000
Succession; disinheritance vs preterition
1993 No. 7:
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?
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 one-half. Jorge is still
entitled to one-half of the estate as his legitime. (Art.
1001, Civil Code)
Succession; disinheritance, ineffective
1982 No. 13
"X’ s only living relatives are his brothers "A" and
"B". "X" executed a will providing as follows: "I
institute my brother "A" as my sole and universal heir;
and I am disinheriting my brother "B" because he
refused to support me when I had nothing." After
"X"' s demise, is "B" entitled to share in the
inheritance on the ground that the disinheritance
was ineffective because "X" had not proved that he
in fact refused to support the testator? Reason.
Answer
"B" is not entitled to share in the inheritance not
on the ground that the
disinheritance was ineffective because "X" had not
proved that he in fact refused to support the testator.
The reason is evident, "B" is not a compulsory heir. The
law on disinheritance applied only to compulsory
heirs, never to voluntary heirs or to legatees or
devisees. Consequently, even assuming that indeed "X"
had not proved that "B" refused to support him, such
fact would not have only effect whatsoever. The act
of "X" in disinheriting "B" is clearly a surplusage. (Note:
The above answer is based on Arts, 915, et seq. of the
Civil Code.)
Succession; disinheritance, ineffective
1984 No, 10
A had two legitimate children, namely, B and C. He made
a will, instituting G and a friend, D, as his heirs and giving
a P10,000 legacy to E, his former driver. He, however,
expressly disinherited B without specifying the reason
therefore. Assuming that A's net estate is worth P100,000
upon his death, how will it be
distributed?
Answer.
A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma
The disinheritance of B is invalid, because there is
no specification of the cause therefore. However, the
institution of the heirs will only be partially annulled
insofar as it may prejudice his legitime (Art. 918).
The legacies and other testamentary dispositions
remain valid insofar as it will not impair his
legitime. B therefore gets his legitime which is 1/4
of the estate, or P25,000.00. The legacy of P10,000
to E will be paid. The balance of the estate of
P65,000 will, be divided equally between the instituted
heirs, C and D.
B. Comments and Suggested Answer
We suggest that the following should be accepted as a
correct answer:
The disinheritance of B is defective or imperfect
because there is no
specification of the cause in the will as required by
law. However, the institution of
heirs will only be partially annulled insofar as it may
prejudice his legitime (Art 918,
Civil Code). Therefore B will still be entitled to his
legitime which is 1/2 of 1/2 of P100,000, or P25,000.
The legacies, however, are valid so long as they are
not inofficious (Ibid.) It is obvious that the legacy of
P10,000 given to E is not inofficious because it can
easily be contained in the free portion of P50,000.
Therefore, E will be entitled to such legacy. Since A had
instituted as heirs his child C and his friend D as heirs
without designation of shares, therefore, applying
the view of Manresa, which has been adopted by
commentators in this country, Tolentino among them (6
Manresa 98-99; 3 Tolentino 161; Art. 846, Civil Code), the
legitime of C, which is 1/2
of 1/2 of P100,000 or P25,000, must first be separated
and allotted to him because the testator cannot deprive
him of not. Then, the remainder of P40,000 which is the
disposable free portion, will be divided equally between
C and D, the two instituted heirs.
Consequently, the estate of P100,000.00 will be
distributed as follows:
B — P25,000 as compulsory heir; C—P25,000 as
compulsory heir;
P20,000 as voluntary heir; D—P20,000 as
voluntary heir; E— P10,000
as legatee.
Succession; disinheritance; compulsory heirs
1977 No. XII-c
Who are compulsory heirs? Give five (5) instances
which shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance
of children and descendants, legitimate as well as
illegitimate.
Answer
In general, compulsory heirs are those for whom the
law has reserved a portion of the testator's estate
which is known as the legitime.
In particular, the following are compulsory heirs:
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with
respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants;
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents
and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate
children and descendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children and natural children
by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Art. 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are not
excluded by those in Nos, 1 and 2; neither do they
exclude one another. In all cases of illegitimate children,
their filiation must be duly proved.
The father or mother of illegitimate children of the
classes mentioned shall
inherit from them in the manner and to the extent
established by the Civil Code. (Art.
887, Civil Code).
The following shall be sufficient causes for the
disinheritance of children and descendants, legitimate as
well as illegitimate:
(1) When a child or descendant has been found guilty of
an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her
spouse, descendants, or ascendants;
(2) When a child or descendant has accused the
testator of a crime for
which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years
or more if the accusation has
been found groundless;
(3) When a child or descendant has been convicted
of adultery or
concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
(4) When a child or descendant by fraud,
violence, intimidation, or undue
influence causes the testator to make a will or to change
one already made;
(5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the
parent or ascendant
who disinherits such child or descendant;
(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by
the child or descendant;
(7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or
disgraceful life;
(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the
penalty of civil interdiction.
{Art. 919, Civil Code).
Succession; disinheritance; grounds
1989 No. 11:
(2) Jose and Ana are husband and wife. On January 10,
1980, Jose learned that Ana was having illicit relations
with Juan, In fact, Jose personally saw his wife and
Juan leaving a motel on one occasion. Despite all the
evidence he had at hand, Jose did not bring any action
for legal separation against Ana. Instead, Jose simply
prepared a will wherein he disinherited Ana for her
acts of infidelity. The validity of
the disinheritance was questioned by Ana upon Jose's
death. If you were the judge, how would you resolve this
question? Give your reasons.
Answer:
The disinheritance is valid. Under the Civil Code, the
legal ground for disinheriting a spouse is that the
spouse has given cause for legal separation.
Therefore, a final judgment is not needed.
Alternative Answer:
The disinheritance is not valid. The facts indicate that
there was condonation by Jose of Ana's illicit relationship
with Juan since they appear to have continued to live
together,
Succession; donation of a spouse’s share
1982 No. 10
"H" and "W" are husband and wife. They have
neither descendants or ascendants. "H" died and
while the conjugal partnership was under judicial
administration and pending liquidation, "W" donated
all her share in her husband's estate to a friend "F".
"W" died while the proceeding for the settlement of
the conjugal partnership was pending. The collateral
heirs of "W" and the administrator
of the estate brought an action against the donee, "F", to
set aside the donation on
the ground that it is void, as it is a donation of future
property. Decide with reasons.
Answer:
The contention of the collateral heirs of "W" and
the administrator of the estate that the donation made
by "W" to her friend "F" is void because the donation is a
donation of future property is untenable. The reason is
crystal clear. According to the Civil Code, by future
property is understood anything which the donor cannot
dispose of at the time of the donation. Obviously,
"W's" share in her husband's
estate does not fall within the purview of the definition.
Because of the principle that
successional rights are transmitted at the very moment
of the death of the decedent,
it is evident that "W" had a perfect right to donate her
share in her husband's estate
to her friend "F". (Note: The above answer is based
on Arts 777 and 751 of the Civil Code. The
Committee recommends most respectfully that if the
bar candidate arrives at the same conclusion by
invoking the provisions of Art. 493 of the Civil Code, he
or
she should be properly credited.)
Succession; incapacity 1988 No. 7:
(b) Suppose that the beneficiary in a will is the
wife of the minister of the gospel who rendered aid to
the testator during the letter's last illness, would she be
disqualified from inheriting from the testator? Explain.
Answer:
(b) We believe that the wife of the minister would
not be disqualified from
inheriting from the testator. Under No. 2 of Art.
1027 of the Civil Code, the law
extends the disqualification of priests and ministers
of the gospel to their relatives
within the fourth degree as well as to the church,
order, chapter, community, organization or institution
to which they may belong. The spouse is not
included.
Consequently, such spouse is not disqualified. Otherwise,
we would be reading into the law what is not found
there. Besides, capacity to succeed is the general
rule, while incapacity to succeed is the exception.
Hence, the rules on incapacity must always be strictly
construed.
Suggested Alternative Answer To: No. 7(b):
(b) If the testamentary disposition was actually intended
to favor the Minister as a disqualified person and was
ostensibly made thru an intermediary, namely, the wife,
then the Minister is considered disqualified as the real
and intended heir.
Succession; incapacity; effect of legal separation
1976 No. VI-c
In case of a legal separation between A and the
widow, will the surviving widow inherit? Explain.
Answer
It depends. If the widow is the guilty spouse, she cannot
inherit. If she is the innocent spouse, she may inherit.
(Article 106, paragraph 4 1002)
Succession; intestate heirs 1995 No. 18:
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 (b) The intestate heirs are the two (2) legitimate
pleaded to the hijackers to allow the assistant pilot children and the two (2)
to solemnize her marriage with Isidro. Soon after illegitimate children. In intestacy the estate of the
the marriage, Isidro expired. As the plane landed in decedent is divided among the
Libya Irma gave birth. However, the baby died a few legitimate and illegitimate children such that the
minutes after complete delivery. Back in the Philippines share of each illegitimate child is
Irma Immediately filed a claim for inheritance. The one - half the share of each legitimate child.
parents of Isidro opposed her claim contending that Their share are :
the marriage between her and Isidro was void ab For each legitimate child – P333,333.33
initio on the following grounds: (a) they had not For each illegitimate child – P166,666.66
given their consent to the marriage of their son; (b) Page 123 of 391
there was no marriage license; (c) the solemnizing (Article 983, New Civil Code; Article 176, Family Code)
officer had no authority to perform the marriage;
and, (d) the solemnizing officer did not file an affidavit Succession; intestate succession 1992 No 5:
of marriage with the proper civil registrar. F had three (3) legitimate children: A, B, and C. B has one
2. Does Irma have any successional rights at all? Discuss (1) legitimate child X. C has two (2) legitimate children: Y
fully. and Z. F and A rode together in a car and perished
together at the same time in a vehicular accident, F
Answer; and A died, each of them leaving substantial estates
2. Irma succeeded to the estate of Isidro as his in intestacy.
surviving spouse to the estate of her legitimate child. a) Who are the intestate heirs of F? What are
When Isidro died, he was succeeded by his surviving wife their respective fractional
Irma, and his legitimate unborn child. They divided the shares?
estate equally between them, the child excluding the
parents of Isidro. An unborn child is considered b) Who are the intestate heirs of A? What are
born for all purposes favorable to it provided it is their respective fractional
born later. The child was considered born because, shares?
having an intra-uterine life of more than seven
months, it lived for a few minutes after its complete c) If B and C both predeceased F, who are Fs
delivery. It was legitimate because it was born within the intestate heirs? What are
valid marriage of the parents. Succession is favorable to their respective fractional shares? Do they inherit in
it. When the child died, Irma inherited the share of the their own right or by
child. However, the share of the child in the hands of representation? Explain your answer.
Irma is subject to reserva troncal for the benefit of the
relatives of the child within the third degree of d) If B and C both repudiated their shares in the
consanguinity and who belong to the line of Isidro. estate of Ft who are F's
intestate heirs? What are their respective fractional
Alternative Answer: shares? Do they inherit in their
If the marriage is void. Irma has no successional rights own right or by representation? Explain your answer,
with respect to Isidro but she would have successional Answer:
rights with respect to the child. (a) B = 1/2 (c) X = 1/2 by representation of B
C=l/2 Y
= 1/4 by representation of C
Succession; intestate heirs and sharing (b) B = 1/2 Z = 1/4 by representation of C
1977 No. XIII-b C= 1/2
Should brothers and sisters of the full blood survive Article 982 of the Civil Code provides that
together with brothers and sisters of the half blood, grandchildren inherit by right of
how much is the former entitled compared to that of the representation.
latter? (d) X - 1/3 in his own right Y- 1/3 in his own right 2 - 1/3
in his own right
Answer
The former shall be entitled to a share double that Article 977 of the Civil Code provides that heirs
of the latter (Art. 1006, Civil Code). who repudiate their share cannot be represented.

Succession; intestate heirs; shares Succession; intestate succession

2003 No XII. 1976 No. VI-a
(b) Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two A dies without a will, leaving a modern hotel, a fleet of
illegitimate children, air-conditioned buses and three helicopters. If his
his parents, and two brothers. He left an estate of widow and brothers survive, how will they inherit
P1 million. Luis died intestate. the estate?
Who are his intestate heirs, and how much is the share of
each in his estate? Answer
One-half (1/2) to the widow and 1/2 to the brothers and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: sisters, regardless of their number. (Article 1001)

Succession; intestate succession 1976 No. VI-b
If the widow and three legitimate children are left,
what will be the share of the widow?
Answer
Under Article 996, each shall receive 1/4 as the Civil Code
provides that the widow shall have the same share as
that of each legitimate child.
Succession; intestate succession
2000 No XI
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? (5%)
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, Gr No. 126707, 25
February 1999)
. C: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1/4 of the free portion)
Succession; intestate succession 1978 No. VI-b
A, deceased, is survived by a half-sister B on his father's
aide and an aunt C his mother's sister. He left as his
only property that which was inherited from his
mother. He died intestate. Who shall succeed to A's
estate? Reasons for your answer.
Answer
B shall succeed to A's estate. The law of intestate
succession is explicit. Since both B and C are collateral
relatives of the decedent A, therefore, the rule of
proximity is applicable. Relatives nearest in degree
exclude the more distant ones, B is a second degree
relative of A, while C is a third degree relative.
Besides, under the general order of intestate succession,
brothers and sisters, whether of the full or
half blood, are always preferred to uncles or aunts.
(NOTE: The above answer is based on Art. 967, Civil
Code, and on Arts. 1004 to 1009, Civil Code. It is
suggested that if a bar candidate should also discuss
the question of whether or not there is a reserva
troncal, this should not prejudice
him, provided that he will arrive at the correct
conclusion that A's estate is not
reservable.)
Succession; intestate succession 1997 No. 11:
"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 P120.00 0.00.
How should this amount be shared in intestacy among
the surviving heirs?
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)
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
Page 126 of 391
Survived by:
M - Mother............................None
W - Widow.............................P 30,000.00
A - Son.................................P 30,000.00
B - Son.................................P3O.OOO.OO
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:
1) 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.
2) 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 W (Widow) P15O.OOO 0
each of the children, -
3) C has no share because his father is still alive P15O.OOO
hence succession by
representation shall not apply (Art. 975). Succession; intestate succession
4) D inherits P30.000 which is the share of his father E 1984 No, 8
who predeceased T Spouses Guillermo and Pacita had three sons, namely, A,
by virtue of Art. 981 on the right of representation. B and C. Beset by quarrels, their marriage broke up.
5) F has no share because his father G repudiated the Guillermo left for and obtained a divorce in the
inheritance. Under United States, where he subsequently married Juana,
Article 977 heirs who repudiate their share may not be by whom he had a son, D. Guillermo later died in
represented. the United States without even knowing that C had
died earlier, leaving a wife, E, and a legitimate son, F,
Succession; intestate succession 1998 No XII State the shares, if any, of the following: in the estate of
Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary estate of P1.2 Guillermo: A, B, D, E,
million. He is survived by his widow, three legitimate F, Pacita and Juana
children, two legitimate grandchildren sired by a .
legitimate child who predeceased him, and two Answers:
recognized illegitimate children. A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma
Distribute the estate in intestacy. [5%] The legitimate sons are entitled to one (1) share
each, together with the surviving spouse, Pacita. Since
Answer: divorce is not recognized, Juana, the second wife, is not
Under the theory of Concurrence, the shares are as an heir and gets nothing. D is a spurious child and will
follows: get 2/5 of the share of a legitimate son, C having
A (legitimate child) = P200.OOO predeceased Guillermo, F, the legitimate son of C,
B (legitimate child) = P2OO.OOO will inherit by right of representation. E the wife of C, has
C (legitimate child) = P2OO,OOO no right of representation and
D (legitimate child) = O (predeceased] will get nothing. Hence, the estate will be divided as
E (legitimate child of D) = P100.0OO - by right of follows:
representation A —5/22
F (legitimate child of D) = P100.OOO - by right of B —5/22
representation F — 5/22
G (illegitimate child) = P1OO.OOO - 1/2 share of ft Pacita — 5/22
legitimate child D — 2/22
H (illegitimate child) = P100.OOO - 1/2 share of a
legitimate child B. Comments and Suggested Answer
W (Widow) = P200.0OO - same share as legitimate child We suggest that the following should be accepted as a
Another Answer: correct answer:
Page 127 of 391 A shall be entitled to the share of a legitimate child. B
Under the theory of Exclusion the free portion shall also be entitled to
(P300.OOO) is distributed only the share of a legitimate child.
among the legitimate children and is given to them D, being a natural child by legal fiction, shall be
in addition to their legitime. All entitled to one-half (1/2) of
other Intestate heirs are entitled only to their respective the share of A or B. It must be observed that Guillermo's
legitimes. The distribution is marriage to Juana id void
as follows: from the point of view of Philippine Law since the
Legitime Free Portion Total decree of absolute divorce obtained by him against
A [legitimate child) P15O.OOO + P 75,OOO Pacita is not recognized as a valid decree (see Arts. 15,
- P225.OOO 71, 80, No. (4).
B {legitimate child) P15O.OOO + F15O.OOO E shall not participate in the inheritance because
- P225.OOO she is not a legal heir of Guillermo.
C (legitimate child) P15O.OOO + P 75.OOO Pacita however, shall be entitled to the same share
- P225.OOO as A or B, being the surviving spouse of Guillermo
D (legitimate child) 0 0 (Art. 999, Civil Code). F, the legitimate son of C, will
0 inherit by right of representation. Juana shall not
E (legitimate child of D) P 75,OOO + P35.5OO participate in the inheritance because she is not a legal
- P112.5OO heir of Guillermo. Hence, the proportionate shares of A,
F (legitimate child of D) P 75.OOO + P 37.5OO B, F, Pacita, and D in the inheritance will be: (2 for A, 2 for
- P112,5OO B; 2 for F, 2 for Pacita, and 1 for F or (2:2:2:2:1).
G (illegitimate child) P 75.OOO 0
-P 75.5OO A's share will be 2/9 of the estate; D's share will be
H (illegitimate child) P 75.OOO O 2/9 of the estate; F's share will be 2/9 of the estate;
- P 75.5OO Pacita's share will be 2/9 of the estate; and D's share will
be 1/9 of the estate.

Succession; intestate succession 1985 No. 9
A) Among the properties in the estate of A,
who died intestate and without issue, were a farm,
which came from his father, B, and a house, which
he acquired from C, B's father. In the partition of
A's inheritance, the house was allotted to B and the
farm to D, A's mother. Upon the death of B and D,
who were simultaneously killed in a car accident, the
farm was claimed by C and X, a child of B And D born
after A's death, while the house was laimed also by C and
X and Y, D's child by a prior marriage. Decide the
conflicting claims over the farm and the house in
controversy with reasons.
B) By a letter written before his death, the
deceased distributed and partitioned among his three
(3) legitimate sons. A, B, and C, his property in
such manner that A received 17/24 thereof, B, 1/6 and C,
1/8. The letter not having been made in accordance with
the formalities required for the execution of wills, B and
C claimed that their father died intestate and his
inheritance should be divided equally
among his children. Decide their claims and distribute
the estate among A, B and C stating the reasons in
support of your disposition.
C) A, a bachelor, named his brother, B as heir if his sister,
S, dies within 10 years after A's death. B died 2 years
after A's death while S died 1 year later, A's estate"
is claimed by B's only child and S's 6 children. Who are
entitled to it and how much will each receive? Discuss.
Answers:
A) 1. As regards the house, this property was
acquired by A from his
grandfather C and was transmitted by A to B, his father.
There is no reserva truncal because there is no change of
line. Hence, X alone is entitled to inherit the house. With
respect to the farm, the farm originally came from B, the
father of A, and
from A it went to his mother D, There is a change
of line from the paternal to the
maternal line. The farm is reservable property and
must be acquired by relatives within the third degree
of the propositus and belonging to the paternal line.
Regarding the sharing, there are two theories. In the
"delayed intestacy doctrine," the preferences in the
rules of intestate succession must be observed. 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 the first theory, the
"delayed intestacy theory," C alone will inherit the
farm because in intestacy, the direct line excludes the
collateral line. Hence, C, the grandfather, should exclude
X, the brother of A. Under the second theory; which
allows no distinction as to direct or collateral line, C and
X will inherit the farm in equal shares since they are both
2nd degree relatives of A, both belonging to the
paternal line. In any case Y does not inherit, since Y
is not a reservatario.
2. With respect to the house, the property was
inherited by B who belongs to the paternal line. There
will be no reason for making the property
reservable because there is no danger of the
property going to another line. Hence, when B died,
C and X belonging to the same line from which the
property came will inherit it equally. With respect to
the house, not being reservable, the heir of B will
be X alone as the descendant excludes the
ascendant. With respect to the farm being
reservable in character, C and X belonging to the same
line from which the property came will inherit equally.
3. With respect to the farm it will go to X and Y. With
respect to the house, it will go to X as the lone child and
legal heir of B.
4. There is no reserva and the properties will go by
intestate succession, the farm going to X and the
house going to C, since there is no showing that
the properties were received by B and D by
operation of law as the question merely says that
they were "allotted" in the partition, and by the
propositus A by gratuitous title as the question merely
says that the farm "came" from his father B and
a house which he "acquired" from C, B's father without
stating whether it "came" or was "acquired" by
gratuitous title.
6. In the event that both farm and house were acquired
by gratuitous title and were inherited by B and D by
operation of law, there is in both cases reserva
because reserva can exist although the properties come
from the same line. Hence, the farm will go to C because
the direct line excludes the collateral line. As regards the
house, there is also reserva although it came from the
same line and will also go to C for the same reason.
8. The farm should be awarded to X, the legitimate
child of B, who is preferred over C, the surviving
parent of B. The farm is not reservable property
having origin-ally come from a line to which B
likewise belongs (B in fact, was the donor of the
property). The house shall be awarded to C as the
preferred reservatario. The requisites of reserva
troncal concurred in the case of the house since the
property was acquired by gratuitous title by B from
C, a paternal
ascendant, and upon the death of A (propositus)
the same property went by
operation of Law to D (reservista), his mother. Both X and
C are reservatarios since they belong to the line
where the property originally came from and related
within three degrees from the propositus but since C
belongs to the direct line of A and X being only a
collateral relative, C would be preferred over X.
B) 1. Under Art, 1080 of the Civil Code, a person may
partition his property by an act inter vivos or by will.
Under our present law, there is no need for the owner of
the property to make a valid will. However, the
partition inter vivos made by him must not prejudice
the legitimes. In this particular case, the partition
prejudices the legitime of C because actually each one
should get 1/6, or 1/3 of 1/2, of his estate or 4/24. The
partition made here is 17/24 which is 1/24 in excess of
what he ought to
get, therefore, the final distribution should be:
A = 16/24 which includes the whole
1/2 plus 1/3 of the other half B = is entitled only to
4/24 and C = 4/24
2. Since the letter was not made in accordance with the
formalities required for the execution of wills, the father
died intestate. Hence, A, B and C will divide the
inheritance equally.
3. Despite the fact that a will is no longer required
for the execution of a partition inter vivos within
the meaning of the law, nevertheless, the different
formalities which are necessary in order to convey
property must still be complied with. Hence, A, B and
C will divide the inheritance equally.
4. B and C are correct. While it is very true that the letter
of the deceased did not comply with the formalities
required for the, execution of the wills, nevertheless,
under the law, a partition inter vivos may be effected
provided, of course, that there will be compliance with
all of the formalities required for ordinary
conveyance of properties such as when real
properties are involved. In other words, the partition
that was effected by means of a letter does not
state that all of the formalities prescribed for ordinary
conveyances of properties are complied with.
5. This is not a partition because partition presupposes a
division/separation of a property. This is merely
assigning an aliquot portion of the property. Therefore, it
is not a real partition contemplated under Article
1080. It should follow the requirements of a will, and
because it does not comply with the requirements of the
will, intestate succession will follow.
6. A shall be entitled to 4/6, B to 1/6 and C to
1/6 of the estate. Under Art, 1080 of the Civil Code,
a person may partition his estate during his lifetime.
Unlike that which obtained during the regime of the old
Civil Code, the present Code would appear to permit a
person to distribute his estate during his lifetime without
having to execute a will. A conflict of views among Civil
Law commentators arises only where the participants in
the partition, or some of them, are voluntary heirs.
Since those who were given entitlement under the
partition were all legitimate children, and there being no
one apparently preterited the partition can take effect
but without prejudice to their respective legitimes. The
share given to C is less than his legitime for which
reason that share must be increased to 1/6 of the estate.
C) 1. The estate of A will be distributed in intestacy
among the 6 children of S
and the child of B. The condition embodied by A
was ineffective because B died
ahead of S. Hence, the condition was not fulfilled
while B was alive. Intestate
succession for B and S will be determined as to the
rights existing on A's death,
hence, one-half will go to the children of S and the other
half to the child of B.
2. Only the 6 children of 3 will get the property because
the heir died before the fulfillment of the condition.
3. From the wording of the facts in the case, it would
appear that S is the heir and that if 3 died within 10 years
after A's death, then B gets it, not the children of S. If S
died after B, the children of S get it.
4. In a conditional institution, such as what has arisen
in the problem, the instituted heir must survive not
only the testator but likewise the fulfillment of the
condition in the will (Art. 1034). Since B did not survive
that condition, the institution in his favor could not be
operative. The estate, therefore, assuming that there are
no
other relatives other than those named in the problem,
would be the child of B and the six children of S, who
would get it in equal shares (per capita), each
receiving 1/7 of the estate (Art. 975).
Succession; intestate succession 1998 No XI.
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.
Page 131 of 391
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 property or its
value, if any, may Michelle and
Jorelle claim as their hereditary shares? [5%]
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 P5OO,OOO will go to Mario, Tessie's
surviving spouse. Michelle and
Jorelle are then entitled to P250,000 pesos each as their
hereditary share.
Succession; intestate succession
1977 No. XII-a
X is the adulterous son of A and B and when he died in
1970 without a will,
he was survived only by his father A and his widow
W: How would you divide his
estate valued at P100,000.00?
Answer
A shall be entitled to 1/2 of the estate, while W
shall be entitled also to 1/2.
True, there is no express provision of the New Civil Code
which directly governs this
situation, but this solution is the most equitable.
Besides, in testamentary
succession, the legitime of A is 1/2 of X's estate, while
the legitime of W is also 1/2
(Art. 903, Civil Code); and in intestate succession,
had A been a legitimate parent,
his share would have been only 1/2, while the share
of W would also be 1/2 (Art.
997, Civil code). These rules should be applied by
analogy.
Succession; intestate succession 1977 No. XI-c
State the order of intestate succession. Answer
We must distinguish between the order of intestate
succession if the decedent is a legitimate person
and the order if said decedent is an illegitimate
person,
If the decedent is a legitimate person, the order is:
(1) Legitimate children or descendants.
(2) Legitimate parents or ascendants,
(3) Illegitimate children or descendants.
(4) The surviving spouse subject to the concurrent
right of brothers and
sisters, nephews and nieces.
(5) Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces.
(6) Other collateral relatives within the fifth degree.
(7) The state.
If the decedent is an illegitimate person, the order is:
(1) Legitimate children or descendants.
(2) Illegitimate children or descendants.
(3) Parents by nature,
(4) The surviving spouse subject to the concurrent
right of brothers and
sisters, nephews and nieces.
(5) Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces.
(6) The State.
If the decedent is an adopted person, and his
natural parents are already dead, then the adopter
shall take the place of such parents in the above
orders of succession (Art. 39, No. 4, P.D. No. 603),
Succession; intestate succession 1999 No II.
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 (PI,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%)
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
ab-solute 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.
Succession; intestate succession 1999 No VIII,
(b.) Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten Million (PI
0,000,000.00) 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? (5%)
ANSWER:
(b.) 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.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the child had an intra-uterine life of not less than 7
months, it inherited from the father. In which case, the
estate of 10M will be divided equally between the child
and the widow as legal heirs. Upon the death of the
child, its share of 5M shall go by operation of law to the
mother, which shall be subject to reserva troncal. Under
Art. 891, the reserva is in favor of relatives
belonging to the paternal line and who are within 3
degrees from the child. The parents of Mr, Luna are
entitled to the reserved
portion which is 5M as they are 2 degrees related
from child. The 5M inherited by Mrs. Luna from Mr.
Luna will be inherited from her by her parents.
However, if the child had intra-uterine life of less
than 7 months, half of the estate of Mr. Luna, or 5M,
will be inherited by the widow (Mrs. Luna), while the
other half, or 5M, will be inherited by the parents
of Mr. Luna. Upon the death of Mrs. Luna, her estate
of 5M will be inherited by her own parents.
Succession; intestate succession 1986 No. 12:
Carlos, legitimate son of Jaime and Maria, was
legally adopted by Josefa. Both Jaime and Maria died
soon after the adoption. Carlos, himself died in 1986. His
survivors are Josefa, his legitimate maternal
grandparents Daniel and Rosa, his wife Fe and his
acknowledged natural son, Gerardo. How should the
estate of Carlos worth P800,000.00 be apportioned
among
the above survivors? Explain.
Answer:
The estate of Carlos worth P800,000 should be
apportioned as follows: 1. Josefa - one-half, or
P400.000.00;
2. Fe - one-fourth, or P200.000.00, and
3. Gerardo - one-fourth, or P200.000.00.
As a rule, the adopter cannot inherit from the
adopted child by intestate succession. If the adopted
child dies intestate, leaving no child or descendant,
his parents and relatives by consanguinity and not by
adoption shall be his legal heirs.
There is, however, an exception to has rule
According to the law, if the parents by
nature of the adopted child are both dead, the adopter
takes place of such parents in the line of succession,
whether testate or intestate. Therefore, in the instant
problem, Josefa shall take place of Jaime and Maria. The
grandparents Daniel and Rosa are therefore- excluded.
Consequently, applying the rules of intestacy, Josefa shall
be entitled to one-half (1/2) of the estate by substitution;
Fe shall be entitled to
one-fourth (1/4) as surviving spouse; and Gerardo
shall be entitled to one-fourth
(1/4) as illegitimate child, (Note: The above answer is
based upon Arts, 984 and 100 Civil Code and upon
Art. 39, No. (4), P.D. 603).
Answer - Under P.D. 603, the adopter takes place of the
parents by nature if the latter are dead, both as a
compulsory and a legal heir. Therefore, as the adopted
is survived by his wife, an acknowledged son and
his maternal grandparents, adopter inherits in the
same way as a legitimate parent, and they will
share as follows:
Josefa-----------------------------1/2
Fe(wife)—---------------------- 1/4
Gerardo-------------------------- 1/4
(acknowledged natural child)
Succession; intestate succession 1987 No. 4:
Angel died intestate leaving considerable properties
accumulated during 25 years of marriage. He is
survived by his widow, a legally adopted son, the child of
a deceased legitimate daughter, two illegitimate
children duly recognized by Angel before his death
and his ailing 93-year old mother who has wholly
dependent on him. How would you distribute the estate
indicating by fractions the portions of the following who
claim to be entitled to inherit:
(a) the widow?
(b) the adopted son?
(c) the child of the deceased legitimate daughter?
(d) the two recognized illegitimate children?
(e) the mother? Answer:
a. the widow - 1/4
b. the adopted son - 1/4
c. the child of the deceased legitimate daughter - 1/4
d. the two "recognized illegitimate children" — we must
distinguish:
Assuming that the two recognized illegitimate
children are natural children,
then each of them will get 1/8.
Upon the other hand, if they are recognized
spurious children then each of
them will get 2/5 of 1/4 of the estate. The remaining 1/5
of 1/4 will be distributed as
follows:
Under the theory of concurrence, that 1/5 of 1/4 will be
divided equally among
the widow, the adopted son and the child of the
deceased legitimate daughter.
Under the theory of exclusion that 1/5 of 1/4 will be
divided equally between
the adopted son and the child of the deceased
legitimate daughter.
e. the mother - will get nothing,
Succession; intestate succession 1979 No. II
RD and BG, both Filipinos were married and lived in
Manila. They begot 2 children and after some years of
marriage, RD, being a physician, went to the United
States. After staying there for two years, RD got attached
to a Filipina nurse. He got a quick divorce on the ground
of desertion and then married the Filipina nurse with
whom he also begot 2 children. RD died intestate
in an automobile accident in the
United States leaving valuable properties in the
Philippines both inherited by him
from his parents as well as acquired during his marriage
to BG. How would BG and
her two children and the Filipina nurse and her two
children share in the estate of
RD. Give reasons for your answer.
Answer
Before we can determine the shares of the claimants to
the estate of RD, let
us first determine what is the estate of RD and what is
the status of the claimants in
relation to RD,
Estate of RD: As far as the properties acquired by RD
during his marriage to
BG are concerned, 1/2 thereof should be included in
his estate and 1/2 should be
given to BG since they are conjugal in character. As
far as the properties inherited
by him from his parents are concerned, since they
are exclusive or separate in
character, they must also be included in his estate,
Status of the claimants: BG is the surviving spouse
of RD. The decree of
absolute divorce secured by RD in the United States
is not valid. In the first place,
we adhere to the nationality theory. Philippine laws
shall be binding upon Filipino
citizens wherever they are with respect to family rights
and duties as well as status,
condition and legal capacity. And in the second place,
there is a declaration of public
policy in this country against absolute divorce. Such
a declaration of public policy
cannot be rendered nugatory by the decree of
absolute divorce secured RD in a
foreign country. Therefore, the marriage of RD to the
Filipina nurse is not valid. It is
bigamous under the Philippine law. Hence, the nurse is
not related to RD under our
law of succession. It is different in the case of the two
children. Being born of a void
marriage, they are classified as natural children by
legal fiction, and are, therefore,
entitled to the same rights as acknowledged natural
children,
Division of the estate of RD: It is clear that only BG, as
surviving spouse, the two legitimate children of RD and
BG, and the two natural children by legal fiction of RD
will be able to inherit. The Filipina nurse cannot.
Since RD died intestate, the proportions established
under our law on legitime is applicable. In the instant
case, the proportions will be 10 for BG; 10 for each
of the legitimate children; and 5 for each of the
natural children. Stated in another way, the two
legitimate children shall
be entitled to 1/2, or 1/4, each, of the entire estate of RD;
BG shall be entitled to the same share as each of the
legitimate children, or 1/4 of the entire estate; and
the two natural children by legal fiction shall be entitled
to the balance of 1/4 or 1/8 each of the entire estate.
Succession; intestate succession; order of succession
and sharing 1982 No. 14
"X" died intestate, leaving two sons "A" and "B";
two grandchildren "C" and "D", the children of the
deceased daughter of "B"; and another grandchild
"F", the daughter of "A". Who will succeed to the
estate of "X" and how will they divide the
inheritance?
Answer:
Among the survivors, only the following shall participate
in the division of the
inheritance: "A", in his own right; "B", in his own
right; and "C" and "D", by right of
representation, "F", the daughter of "A", cannot
participate because she is excluded by the latter
applying the rule of proximity. Consequently, the
inheritance shall be
divided as follows:
"A" — one-third (1/3) of the inheritance;
"B" — one-third (1/3) of the inheritance; "C" — one-half
(1/2) of one-third
(1/3) of the inheritance by right of representation;
"D" —one-half (1/2) of one-third (1/3) of the
inheritance by right of
representation.
Succession; joint wills
2000 No III.
a} Manuel, a Filipino, and his American wife Eleanor,
executed a Joint Will in Boston, Massachusetts when
they were residing in said city. The law of
Massachusetts allows the execution of joint wills.
Shortly thereafter, Eleanor died. Can the said Will be
probated in the Philippines for the settlement of her
estate?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER;
Yes, the will may 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
abroad, 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.
Succession; legal separation; effect 1982 No. 5
The husband was granted a decree of legal
separation on the ground of adultery on the part of
the wife. May the wife inherit from the husband —
(a) By intestate succession?
(b) By will? Reasons.
Answer
(a) The wife in the instant case cannot inherit from her
husband by intestate
succession. According to the Civil Code, the
offending spouse shall be disqualified
from inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate
succession.
(b) It depends. If the will was executed prior to the legal
separation, it is clear
that in effect the wife cannot inherit from her husband.
According to the Civil Code,
provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the
will of the innocent one shall
be revoked by operation of law. However, if the will was
executed subsequent to the legal separation,
undoubtedly, the wife will then be able to inherit from
her husband.

The reason is obvious. There is a tacit or implied pardon.
(Note: The above answers are based on No. 4 of
Art. 106 of the Civil. The
last part regarding tacit pardon — is based on Art. 1033
by analogy.)
Succession; legitime 2003 No XII.
(a) 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 legitimate of
each, and how much is the free portion of his estate, if
any?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) 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:
(1) The legitimate 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.
(2) The legitimate of each illegitimate child is one-
half (1/2) the legitimate of each legitimate child or
P125,000.00. Since the total legitimate of the compulsory
heirs is P750,000.00, the balance
of P250,000.00 is the free portion.
Succession; legitime 1997 No. 12:
"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 PI 80.000.00. 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.
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.
Alternative Answer:
INTESTATE SUCCESSION
ESTATE: P180,000.00
W- (widow gets 1/2 share) P90.000.00 (Art. 998)
A- (son who repudiated his inheritance) None
(Art. 977)
B - (Granddaughter) None
C - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45.000.00
(Art.998)
D - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45,000.00
(Art. 998)
The acknowledged illegitimate child gets 1/2 of the
share of each legitimate
child.
Succession; legitime 1982 No. 12
The testator has three children "A", "B", and "C"; a wife
"W"; a father "F"; an acknowledged natural child "N";
and an adulterous child "T". "A" is a handicapped
child, and the testator wants to leave to him as much of
his estate as he can legally do under the law. State the
specific aliquot parts of the estate that the testator can
leave "A", "B", and "C", as well as to his other
aforementioned relatives. State how
you arrive at the result. (Assume a net estate of
P1,200,000.00 and that all of the
above named relatives survived the testator.)
Answer
Under the law on legitime, the survivors shall be
entitled to the following legitime:
1. "A", "B" and "C"-one-half of the estate which they
shall divide in equal
shares. Since the net value of the estate is
Pl,200,000.00 each of them shall,
therefore, be entitled to P200,000.00.
2. "W" — the same as each of the legitimate children, or
P200,000.
3. "F" — none.- "F" cannot participate in the
succession because he is
excluded by the legitimate children of the testator.
4. "N" — one-half of the legitime of each of the
legitimate children, or
P100,000.00.
5. "T" _ four-fifths of the legitimate of "N" or two-fifths
of the legitime of either
"A" or "B" or "C", or P80,000.00
Thus, the disposable free portion is P220,000. If the
testator so desires, he
can leave this disposable portion to his son "A".
(Note: The above answer is based on Art. 888, 892, 895,
897 and 898 of the
Civil Code,)
Succession; order of succession and sharing; right of
representation, institution, accretion
1985 No. 8
In a will executed in 1970, A instituted his two (2)
legitimate brothers, B and C, as sole heirs to all the
properties he then owned. B died in 1975, survived by his
legitimate daughter, D, while A died last year,
leaving an estate, 1/2 of which was acquired after the
execution of his will.
Who will succeed A, how much and by what right will the
heir or each of the heirs, if more than one, inherit?
Reason out your answer.
Answer:
1. Regarding 1/2 acquired after the execution of the will
it will be inherited by
both D and C( C in his own right and D by right of
representation because this 1/2 is inherited by intestate
succession. With regard to the 1/2 already owned at the
time of the execution of the will, C alone will get
the property by right of institution and accretion.
2. The half of the property existing at the time of
the execution of the will should go to C, the
portion pertaining to him in his own right and the
portion pertaining to B by right of accretion.
The other half acquired after the execution of the
will passes by intestacy, equally to C in his own right
and to D in representation of B.
3. The whole estate will go to the second brother C by
right of accretion and B gets nothing.
4. With respect to the will as made by the testator B is a
voluntary heir. He transmits no right to his heir D,
therefore his share in the will 'goes to the other heir by
right of accretion. As to the properties which are not
covered by the will, intestate succession will follow and
herefore the legal heirs will be the brother and the niece
to inherit equally.
5. The 1970 will appears to have only covered the
property which the testator had at the time of its
execution. Accordingly, the half which wag acquired
by him after the execution of the will would be
governed by the law on intestacy. As regards the other
half, disposed under the will, the property should
go to C by right of
accretion considering that the institution in favor of
B and C was pro-indiviso (Art. 1015). The other half,
acquired after the execution of the will, will be
distributed in intestacy and assuming that the only
legal heirs are those named in the problem, such
portion shall be equally divided between C (legitimate
brother of the deceased) and D (niece of the deceased)
by right of representation (Art. 1005).
Succession; partition 1977 No. XI-b
Discuss briefly the right of a testator to partition his
estate among his heirs in the last will.
Answer
(NOTE: Either of the following should constitute a
sufficient answer.)
First Answer
If the testator has no compulsory heirs, he may partition
his estate in favor of any person having capacity to
succeed. If he has compulsory heirs, he may partition his
estate provided that he does not contravene the
provisions of the Civil Code with regard to the legitime
of said heirs. (See Art. 842, Civil Code,)
Second Answer
Under the Civil Code, the testator may partition his
estate either by an act
inter vivos or by a will. In either case, such partition shall
be respected, insofar as it
does not prejudice the legitime of his compulsory
heirs (Art. 1080). He may even
entrust the mere power to make the partition to a third
person (Art. 1081); and if he
so desires, he may even prohibit the partition, in which
case the period of indivision
shall not exceed -twenty years (Art. 1083).
Succession; preterition 1999 No VII.
(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,QOO,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. (3%)
(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, (2%)
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.
Succession; preterition 2001 No VI
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. (5%)
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.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Assuming that the donation is valid as to form and
substance, Juan cannot invoke preterition because he
actually had received a donation inter vivos from
the testatrix (III Tolentino 188,1992 ed.). He would only
have a right to a completion of his legitime under Art.
906 of the Civil Code. The estate should be divided
equally among the five children who will each
receive P225,000.00 because the total hereditary
estate, after collating the donation to Juan (Art.
1061, CC), would be P1 million. In the actual
distribution of the net estate, Juan gets nothing
while his
siblings will get P225,000.00 each.
Succession; preterition; substitutions; compulsory
heirs 1988 No. 6:
(a) What is preterition? What are its requisites? What is
its effect?
(b) What are the different limitations imposed by
law upon fideicommissary
substitutions?
(c) Who are compulsory heirs?
Answer:
Preterition or pretermission, as it is sometimes called
may be defined as the omission in the testator's will
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 of the
testator (Art. 854, CC). Stated in another way, it
consists in the omission in the testator's will of the
compulsory heirs in the direct line, or of anyone of them,
either because they are not mentioned therein, or,
though mentioned, they
are neither instituted as heir nor expressly disinherited
(Neri vs. Akutin, 74 Phil 185; Nuguid vs. Nuguid, 17
SCRA449). Its requisites are:
(1) The heir omitted must be a compulsory heir in the
direct line;
(2) The omission must be total and complete; and
(3) The omitted heir must survive the testator.
The effect is to annul entirely the institution of heirs but
legacies and devises
shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious, (Art, 854,
CC.)
(b) There are four limitations. They are:
(1) The substitution must not go beyond one degree
from the heir originally instituted (Art. 863, CC).
(2) The fiduciary and the fideicommissary must be
living at the time of the death of the testator (Ibid).
(3) The substitution must not burden the legitime
of compulsory heirs (Art. 864, CC).
(4) The substitution must be made expressly (Art. 865,
par. l. CC.)
(c) In general, compulsory heirs are those for whom the
law has reserved a portion of the testator's estate which
is known as the legitime.
In particular, the following are compulsory heirs:
{1} Legitimate children and descendants, with respect
to their legitimate parents and ascendants;
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents
and ascendants, with respects to their legitimate
children and descendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children and natural children
by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in numbers 3, 4, and 5
are not excluded by those in numbers 1 and 2; neither
do they exclude one another. Compulsory heirs
mentioned in numbers 3, 4, and 5 are not excluded
by those in numbers 1 and 2; neither do they exclude
one another. In all cases of illegitimate children, their
filiation must be duly proved.
The father or mother of illegitimate children of the
classes mentioned shall inherit from them in the
manner and to the extent established by the Civil Code.
(Art. 887, CC.)
Succession; probate 1988 No. 5:
(a) In probate proceedings, what are the only
questions which a probate court can determine?
(b) A presented for probate a will purporting to be the
last will and testament of his deceased wife. The will
was admitted to probate without any opposition.
Sixteen months later, the brothers and sisters of the
deceased discovered that the will was a forgery. Can
A now be prosecuted for the criminal offense of
forgery? Give your reasons.
Answer:
(a) Under our law, there are only three possible
questions which can be
determined by the probate court. They are;
(1) Whether or not the instrument which is
offered for probate is the last will and testament
of the decedent; in other words, the question is
one of identity.
(2) Whether or not the will has been
executed in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by law; in other words, the question is
one of due execution.
(3) Whether or not the testator had the
necessary testamentary capacity at the time of
the execution of the will; in other words, the
question is one of capacity. Consequently, the
probate court cannot inquire into the
intrinsic validity of testamentary dispositions.
(b) A can no longer be prosecuted for the criminal
offense of forgery. This is so because, according to the
last paragraph of Art. 838 of the Civil Code, subject to
the right of appeal the allowance of the will, either
during the lifetime of the testator or after his death, shall
be conclusive as to its due execution. Since sixteen
months
have already elapsed from the allowance of the will to
the time when the forgery was discovered, there is now
no possible remedy of impugning the validity of the
will.
Even a petition to set aside a judgment or order of a
Court of First Instance on the ground of fraud in
accordance with Secs. 2 and 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of
Court is no longer possible because more than six
months from the time of the promulgation of the
judgment or order have already elapsed. (Mercado vs.
Santos, 66 Phil 215.)
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.
Succession; probate of wills of aliens
1989 No. 10:
(2) "X", a Spanish citizen and a resident of Los
Angeles, California, executed a will in Tokyo, Japan. May
such will be probated in the Philippines? May his estate
located in the Philippines be distributed in
conformity with the provisions of the said will? Give
your reasons.
Answer:
A. Yes, it may be made according to the
formalities of Spanish law,
California law, Japanese law, or Philippine law.
B. Yes, provided that the provisions conform to the
order of succession and the amount of successional
rights as regulated by Spanish law.
Succession; probate; intrinsic validity 1990 No 9:
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?
(c) Was it proper for the trial court to consider
the intrinsic validity of the
provisions of said will? Explain your answers,
Answer:
(a) Yes. the will may be probated if executed
according to the formalities
prescribed by law.
(b) The institution giving X the free portion is not
valid, because the prohibitions under Art. 739 of the
Civil Code on donations also apply to testamentary
dispositions (Article 1028, Civil Code), Among donations
which are considered void are those made between
persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at
the time of the donation.
(c) As a general rule, the will should be admitted
in probate proceedings if
all the necessary requirements for its extrinsic validity
have been met. and the court
should not consider the intrinsic validity of the
provisions of said will. However, the
exception arises when the will in effect contains
only one testamentary disposition.
In effect, the only testamentary disposition under
the will is the giving of the free
portion to X, since legitimes are provided by law. Hence,
the trial court may consider
the intrinsic validity of the provisions of said will.
(Nuguid v. Nuguid, etal.. No. L-
23445, June 23, 1966, 17 SCRA; Nepomuceno v. CA,
L-62952, 9 October 1985.
139 SCRA 206).
Succession; renunciation; compromise
1979 No. XIII
MN, a wealthy haciendero died leaving to his four
legitimate children and his widow an estate worth about
P2 million. When the proceedings for the settlement of
his estate were pending, Rosie, a child he begot with his
lavandera, filed a claim for a share in the estate. The
widow and four children contested the claim on the
ground that in a previous action for support filed by the
lavandera when Rosie was still a minor, the lavandera
agreed to dismiss the case and signed an
agreement acknowledging that the sum of P50,000.00
paid thereunder included payment for whatever
inheritance Rosie was to have. Should Rosie's claim be
granted? Why?
Answer
Rosie's claim should be granted but subject to the
condition that the portion
of the P50,000 paid to her mother as her inheritance
shall be brought to collation. It
must be observed that the agreement is actually a
renunciation or compromise as
regards a future legitimate or inheritance between
the person owing it and a
compulsory heir. According to the Civil Code, such a
renunciation or compromise is
void, and the latter may claim the same upon the
death of the former, but he must
bring to collation whatever he may have received by
virtue of the renunciation or
compromise. (Art. 905, Civil Code).
(NOTE: If the bar candidate invokes either Art. 1347, par.
2, or Art. 2035, No. 6 of the Civil Code, instead of
Art. 905, his answer should be considered correct
because the result would be the same).
Succession; representation 1988 No. 7:
(a) When does the right of representation take place?
Answer:
The right of representation shall take place in the
following cases:
(1) In testamentary succession:
(a) In case a compulsory heir in the direct
descending line dies before the
testator survived by his children or descendants
(Art. 856, CC).
(b) In case a compulsory heir in the direct
descending line is incapacitated to
succeed from the testator and he has children or
descendants. (Arts. 856,1035, CC).
(c) In case a compulsory heir in the direct
descending line is disinherited
and he has children or descendants. (Art. 923,
CC).
(2) In intestate succession:
(a) In case a legal heir in the direct
descending line dies before the decedent
survived by his children or descendant (Arts.
981, 982, CC), or in the absence of other
heirs who can exclude them from the
succession, a brother or sister dies before the
decedent survived by his or her own children.
(Arts. 972,975, CC).
(b) In case a legal heir in the direct
descending line is incapacitated to
succeed from the decedent and he has children
or descendants (Art. 1035, CC), or in the absence
of other heirs who can exclude them from the
succession, a brother or sister is incapacitated to
succeed from the decedent and he or she has
children, (Arts, 972, 975,1035, CC),
Succession; reserva troncal 1987 No. 13:
Lilia and Nelia are relatives, Ulia being the grand niece of
Nelia. They had a common ancestor, Bonong, father
of Nelia and great-grandfather of Lilia. Bonong had
a sister, Rosa, who donated gratuitously a parcel of
land to her niece Mely, sister of Nelia and
grandmother of Lilia. Mely died intestate, leaving
aforementioned parcel of land, survived by her husband
Jose and their two children, Rico and Nina. Bonong died
intestate survived by his legitimate grandchildren, Rico
and Nina. In the
adjudication of his estate, the portion pertaining to Mely,
who had predeceased her father, went to her two
legitimate children, Rico and Nina. Rico died intestate,
single, and without any issue, leaving his share in
the inheritance to his father, Jose, subject to a
reserva troncal duly annotated on the tide.
Thereafter Nina died intestate and her rights and
interests were inherited by her only legitimate child, Lilia.
Thereafter, Jose died intestate survived by his only
descendant, Lilia. Nelia, aunt of Rico, would like to lay
claim as reservatario to a portion of the one-half pro
indiviso share of the property inherited by Jose from his
son Rico, How should the estate of Jose, including
the property subject to reserva troncal be
adjudicated? Explain.

Answer:
This is a proper case of reserva troncal. The propositus is
Rico, the reservista is Jose and the reservatarios are-
Lilia (a niece) and Nelia (an aunt), both of them
being relatives within the 3rd degree of Rico (the
propositus)and belonging to the maternal line
represented by Mely. Accordingly, Nelia as
reservatario cannot claim any portion of the pro-
indiviso share of the property inherited by Jose from
Rico. Lilia alone should inherit because in reserva
troncal, the successional rights of relatives who are
reservatarios are determined by the rules of
intestate succession. In
intestacy, nephews and nieces exclude uncles and
aunts. Hence, Lilia the niece,
excludes Nelia, the aunt, from the reservable
property (De Papa vs. Camacho 144
SCRA 281), The rest of Jose's estate, not subject to
reserva, will be inherited by his
granddaughter Lilia as sole intestate heir.
Answer;
This is. a proper case of reserva troncal. The
propositus is Rico, the reservista and the
reservatarios are Lilia and Nelia, both of them being
relatives within the 3rd degree computed from Rico
and belonging to the maternal line represented by
Mely. Under the doctrine of "reserva integral'" all the
reservatarios in the nearest degree will inherit in
equal shares the reservable portion of the pro-
indiviso share of the property inherited by Jose
from Rico. The properties transmitted to Jose by Rico
are-the following:
Firstly, the property which Rico obtained from Mely
consisted of his share in Mely's interest as donee of
Rosa's land. The interest acquired by Rico was 1/3,
because 1/3 thereof was inherited by Jose and 1/3 by
Nina. So the property that was obtained by Jose from
Rico is the latter's 1/3 interest of the land. In the case of
Bonong's estate, the share of Mely was 1/2 and Nelia's
was the other half. Out of Mely's share, 1/2 belonged to
Rico and the other half belonged to Nina, both Inheriting
by right of representation. Summarizing, the reservable
estate is the 1/3 share of Rico in Rosa's land which
was donated to Mely, and the 1/2 interest of Rico in
Mely's share of the estate
of Bonong. These reservable properties should be
divided equally between Nelia
and Lilia (Article 891).
Succession; reserva troncal 1979 No. XIV
A married B in 1950 bringing into the marriage a
10-hectare piece of unregistered land in Antipolo which
he inherited from his father. Of the marriage two
daughters were born. On February 10, 1956 A and
his two daughters went to Baguio. On the way they
met an accident and A died instantly on the spot while
the two daughters died two days later in the hospital
where they were brought. In 1960
B sold the land .to C. In 1977 B died so D, the
only brother of A, asked C to reconvey the land to
him. Upon C's refusal, D filed a complaint for
recovery of the land. C raised the defense of
prescription. Should the defense be sustained? Why?
Answer
The defense should be sustained but only with
respect to one-third of the subject property;
however, with respect to the other two-thirds, it
should not be sustained.
It must be observed that when A died the subject
property passed by intestate succession to his wife B
and his two daughters in the proportion of one-
third for each. When the two daughters died two
hours later, their one-third shares passed by intestate
succession to their mother B. These shares which B
acquired by operation of law from her two daughters
became reservable. In other words, by mandate of
the law, upon acquiring the two-thirds share of her
daughters she was obliged to reserve such share for
the benefit of relatives of her two deceased
daughters who are within the third degree and who
belong to the live from whence
the reservable property came. All of the requisites of
reserva troncal are, therefore,
present. In the first place, the property was acquired
by a descendant from an
ascendant or from a brother or sister by gratuitous
title; in the second place, said
descendant died without any legitimate issue in the
direct descending line who can inherit from him; in the
third place, the property is inherited by another
ascendant by operation of law; and in the fourth place,
there are relatives of the descendant who are within the
third degree and who belong to the line from
which said property came. Consequently, when C
bought the subject property from B in I960, he
acquired only that which B had and nothing more.
In other words, when B, the ascendant reservista sold
the property to C in 1960, the latter acquired the one-
third share which B had inherited from A without any
condition whatsoever. However, with respect to the
other two-thirds share which is reservable, C
acquired a limited and revocable title only. Therefore,
when B, the ascendant-reservista vendor finally died in
1977, automatically, by operation of law, the two-thirds
share which is reservable passed to D, who is the
reservee or reservatario. Premises considered, the
defense of prescription can only be sustained with
respect to the one-third share of B which she had
inherited from A in 1955. The computation of the 10-
year period of prescription must commence from 1960.
In the case of the two-thirds share which is
reservable, the computation must commence from
1977 when B, the ascendant-reservista, died. When
D, the reservatario, therefore, filed his action after
the death of B, he was very much in time to do
so. (Chua vs. CFI, 78 SCRA 412).
Succession; reserva troncal 1982 No. 4
(A) What is the reason or rationale for reserva
troncal?
(B) May the reservor/reservista dispose of the
reservable property —
(1) By acts inter vivos?
(2) By acts mortis causa.? Reasons.
Answer
(A) The reason or rationale for reserva troncal is
evident: it is to reserve
certain property in favor of certain relatives. Hence,
its name reserva lineal or troncal. It seeks to prevent
persons outside a family from securing, by some special
accident of life, property that would otherwise remained
therein. Its principal aim is to maintain as absolutely as is
possible, with respect to the property to which it refers, a
separation between the paternal and maternal lines,
so that property of one line
may not pass to the other, or through them to strangers.
(B) (1) The reservista may dispose of the reservable
property by acts inter vivos. This is logical because he
acquires the ownership of the reservable property upon
the death of the descendant-propositus subject to the
resolutory condition that there must exist at the time of
his death relatives of the descendant who are within
the third degree and who belong to the line from which
the property came. He can, therefore, alienate or
encumber the property if he so desires, but he will
only
alienate or encumber what he has and nothing
more. As a consequence, the
acquirer will only receive a limited and revocable
title. Therefore, after the death of
the reservista, the reservatarios may then rescind the
alienation or encumbrance,
because the resolutory condition to which the
reserva is subject has already been
fulfilled.
(2) The reservista cannot dispose of the reservable
property by acts mortis causa. The reason is crystal
clear. Upon the death of said ascendant-reservist,
reservable property does not belong to his or her
estate. Because the resolutory condition to which the
reserva is subject has already been fulfilled,
therefore, the reservatarios or reservees nearest the
descendant- propositus have already become
automatically and by operation of law owners of the
reservable property.
Succession;right of representation 1977 No. XIII-c
What is meant by the right of representation in
succession? In what line does it take place?
Representation is a right created by fiction of law,
by virtue of which the representative is raised to the
place and the degree of the person represented, and
acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were
living or if he could have inherited (Art. 970, Civil Code).
The right of representation takes place in the direct
descending line, but never in the ascending.
In the collateral line, it takes place only in favor of the
children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full
or half blood. (Art. 972, Civil Code).
When children of one or more brothers or sisters of
the deceased survive, they shall inherit from the latter
by representation, if they survive with their uncles or
aunts. But if they alone survive, they shall inherit in
equal portions. (Art, 975, Civil Code).
Succession; testate succession; institution of heirs;
substitution of heirs 2002 No VIII.
By virtue of a Codicil appended to his will, Theodore
devised to Divino a tract of sugar land, with the
obligation on the part of Divino or his heirs to deliver to
Betina a specified volume of sugar per harvest
during Betina’s lifetime. It is also stated in the Codicil
that in the event the obligation is not fulfilled, Betina
should immediately seize the property from Divino or
latter’s heirs and turn it over to Theodore’s
compulsory heirs. Divino failed to fulfill the obligation
under the Codicil. Betina brings suit against Divino for
the reversion of the tract of land.
A. Distinguish between modal institution and substation
of heirs. (3%)
B. Distinguish between simple and fideicommissary
substitution of heirs.
(2%)
C. Does Betina have a cause of action against Divino?
Explain (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. A modal institution is the institution of an heir
made for a certain purpose or cause (Arts. 871 and
882, NCC). Substitution is the appointment of
another heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in
default of the heir originality instituted. (Art. 857, NCC).
B. In a simple substitution of heirs, the testator
designates one or more persons to substitute the heirs
instituted in case such heir or heirs should die before
him, or should not wish or should be incapacitated
to accept the inheritance. In a fideicommissary
substitution, the testator institutes a first heir and
charges him to preserve and transmit the whole or
part of the inheritance to a second heir. In a simple
substitution, only one heir inherits. In a fideicommissary
substitution, both the first and second heirs inherit. (Art.
859 and 869, NCC)
C. Betina has a cause of action against Divino. This
is a case of a testamentary disposition subject to a
mode and the will itself provides for the
consequence if the mode is not complied with. To
enforce the mode, the will itself gives Betina the right
to compel the return of the property to the heirs of
Theodore. (Rabadilla v. Conscoluella, 334 SCRA 522
[2000] GR 113725, 29 June 2000).
Succession; testate succession; order of succession
and sharing 1983 No. 7
The deceased, A left a gross estate worth P360,000 and
debts amounting to P60,000. He was survived by his
widow, three legitimate children, an acknowledged
natural child and an adulterous child. In his will, he
bequeathed P6,000 to a friend, leaving the remainder of
his estate to his widow and children, legitimate as
well as illegitimate.
Divide A's estate among the persons entitled
thereto. Give reasons for your division.
Answer
The net estate is worth P300,000.00 [P360.000.00
(gross estate) --
P60,000.00 (debts)]
Each of the legitimate children will receive P50,000 as
legitime.
The widow will receive the same amount as legitime.
The legitime of the acknowledged natural child is
1/2 of that of each
legitimate child or P25.000.00
The share of the spurious child is 4/5 of that of
the acknowledged natural
child or P20,000.00,
In addition, the legitimate children, the widow, the
acknowledged natural
child, and the adulterous child will each receive
P8,166.66 2/3 as their share of the
remainder of the free portion, after deducting therefrom
the legitimes of the surviving
spouse, the illegitimate children and the legacy.
The legatee, will get P6,000.00-Explanation:
Since the legitime of the legitimate children, which is 1/2
of the estate, cannot
be impaired, only the free portion, the other half of A's
property, is available for the
satisfaction of the shares of the other distributees. From
that part must first be taken
the legitimes of the surviving spouse and of the
illegitimate children which total P95,-
000,00. To the remainder of the free portion, or P55,000
is likewise chargeable the legacy. The remainder of the
free portion will then be P49,000.00 which shall be
divided equally among the children, legitimate as well as
illegitimate and the widow, it having been left to them
without any designation of the shares,
Succession; transmission of rights to succession 1983
No. 8
On A's death last year, his nearest of kin were a
legitimate daughter born in 1945 and a spurious son
born and recognized by A in 1949. May the daughter
oppose her brother's claim to their father's estate
on the ground that it would impair her right under the
old Civil Code to succeed him to the exclusion of
spurious children? Why?
Answer
No. The rights to the succession are transmitted only
from the moment of the death of the decedent. Since A
died last year when the old Civil Code was no longer in
force, she did not acquire the right granted by it to
exclude her brother from A's inheritance. Her right
thereto is governed by the new Civil Code, the statute in
force at the time of the opening of the succession
of A, under which spurious children inherit together
with legitimate descendants.
Succession; when death takes place; pesumptive
legitime 1991 No 6:
(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?
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,
Alternative Answer:
B. In the case of Coronado vs.CA(l91 SCRA81), it was
ruled that no property passes under a will without its
being probated, but may under Article 1O58 of the
Civil Code of 1898, be sustained as a partition by an act
inter vivos [Many-Oy vs. CA 144SCRA33).
And in the case of Chavez vs, IAC 1191 SCRA211),
it was ruled that while
the law prohibits contracts upon future inheritance,
the partition by the parent, as
provided in Art. 1080. is a case expressly authorized
by law. A person has two
options in making a partition of his estate: either by an
act inter vivos or by will. If the
partition is by will, it is imperative that such partition
must be executed in accordance
with the provisions of the law on wills; if by an act
inter vivos, such partition may
even be oral or written, and need not be in the form of a
will, provided the legitime is
not prejudiced, "Where several sisters execute deeds of
sale over their 1 /6 undivided share
of the paraphernal property of their mother, in favor
of another sister, with their
mother not only giving her authority thereto but even
signing said deeds, there is a
valid partition inter vivos between the mother and
her children which cannot be
revoked by the mother. Said deeds of sale are not
contracts entered into with
respect to future inheritance. "It would be unjust for the
mother to revoke the sales to a son and to execute a
simulated sale in favor of a daughter who already
benefited by the partition."
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.
Succession; wills 1989 No. 10:
(1) What are the characteristics of a will?
Answer:
A will is —
1. Personal
2. Unilateral
3. Formal or Solemn
4. Ambulatory or revocable
5. Individual, not joint 6. Free and voluntary 7. Mortis
causa
Succession; wills; codicil 1977 No. XII-b
What is a codicil and how shall it be executed in
order that it may be effective?
A codicil is a supplement or addition to a will,
made after the execution of a
will and annexed to be taken as a part thereof, by which
any disposition made in the
original will is explained, added to, or altered (Art. 825,
Civil Code). The formalities
which are required in the execution of a codicil are the
same as those required in the
execution of a will (Art. 826, Civil Code).
Succession; wills; formalities 1975 No. XII
The attestation clause of the will omits to state that
testator signed in the presence of the witnesses and
that the latter signed in the presence of the testator and
of one another.
May evidence aliunde be admitted to prove these facts
to allow the probate of the will? Explain.
Answer
No, evidence aliunde may not be admitted to prove that
the testator and the witnesses signed in one another's
presence because such fact cannot be determined
from an examination of the will itself. The reason
for this is that oral evidence does not possess the
reliability of an express statement in the attestation
clause. It is for this reason that Article 805 of the Civil
Code requires the attestation clause to state these facts
Succession; wills; formalities 1986 No. 14:
Busalsal executed a will in his handwriting, signed by him
at the end of each page on the left marginal space of
every page except the last page. The document bore no
date. However, below Busalsal's every signature, were
the signatures of two witnesses, who later testified that
the will was executed in their presence on January 1,
1985, New Year's Day, and that Busalsal was in full
possession of his faculties at
that time and even explained to them details of the will
he was writing down. Is the will formally valid? Explain.
Answer:
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 3 attesting witnesses. Neither
is it a valid holographic will because the will must
be entirely written, dated and signed in the
handwriting of the testator. The fact that the
witnesses testified as the date of execution did not
cure the defect.
Answer - The will is not formally valid. Whether we
consider the will in the instant problem as a notarial
will or as a holographic will, it cannot be considered as a
valid will. If we consider it as a notarial will, it is not be
valid because there are only two instrumental
witnesses. Under the law on notarial or ordinary
wills, the will should have been subscribed to and
attested by three or more credible witnesses.
Therefore, it is void. If we consider it as a
holographic will, it is not also valid because it is not
dated. Under the law on holographic wills, the will
should have been entirely written, dated and signed
by the hand of the testator himself. Therefore, it is
void.
(Note: The above answer is based upon Arts. 805 and
810 of the Civil Code and upon decided cases.)
Answer - The C.C. provides that a holographic will
must be entirely in the
handwriting of the testator, signed and dated by
him. It need not be witnessed.
Hence lacking the date, it cannot be allowed to
probate. The law does not allow
extrinsic evidence to supply the omission.
Succession; wills; formalities 1990 No 11;
(1) If a will is executed by a testator who is a Filipino
citizen, what law will govern if the will is executed in
the Philippines? What law will govern if the will is
executed in another country? Explain your answers.
(2) If a will is executed by a foreigner, for instance,
a Japanese, residing In the Philippines, what law will
govern if the will is executed in the Philippines?
And what law will govern if the will is executed in
Japan, or some other country, for instance, the U.S.A.?
Explain your answers.
Answer:
(1) a. If the testator who is a Filipino citizen
executes his will in the Philippines, Philippine law will
govern the formalities.
b. If said Filipino testator executes his will in
another country, the law of the country where he
maybe or Philippine law will govern the formalities.
(Article 815,
Civil Code}
(2) a. If the testator is a foreigner residing in the
Philippines and he executes his will in the Philippines, the
law of the country of which he is a citizen or Philippine
law will govern the formalities. b. If the testator is a
foreigner and executes his will in a foreign country, the
law of his place of residence or the law of the country of
which he is a citizen or the
law of the place of execution, or Philippine law will
govern the formalities (Articles
17. 816. 817. Civil Code).
Possible Additional Answers:
a. In the case of a Filipino citizen, Philippine law
shall govern substantive
validity whether he executes his will in the Philippines or
in a foreign country.
b. In the case of a foreigner, his national law shall govern
substantive validity
whether he executes his will in the Philippines or in a
foreign country.
Succession; wills; formalities 1975 No. XI
Through negligence, one of the three witnesses to a will
forgot to sign on the third page of the original of a five-
page will, but was able to sign on all the pages of the
duplicate. All other requisites were complied with.
Can the will be admitted to probate? Explain.
Answer
The will may be admitted to probate. Although the
requirements of Article 805 of the Civil Code were not
strictly complied with, the purposes of the law have been
satisfied. Impossibility of substitution is assured by the
fact that the testator and the two other witnesses
signed the defective page. The law should not be
strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the
testator on account of the inadvertence of a single
witness over whose conduct he had no control, where
the purpose of the law
to guarantee the identity of the testament and its
component pages is sufficiently
attained and no intentional or deliberate deviation
exists. (Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11
SCRA 422) Besides, the signed duplicate copy has the
same effect as the original.
Succession; wills; formalities; Holographic wills;
effect of unauthenticated insertions and
cancellations 1996 No. 10:
1) Vanessa died on April 14. 1980. leaving behind a
holographic will which is entirely written, dated and
signed in her own handwriting. However, it contains
Insertions and cancellations which are not
authenticated by her signature. For this reason, the
probate of Vanessa's will was opposed by her
relatives who stood to inherit by her intestacy.
May Vanessa's holographic will be probated? Explain.
Answer;
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
Vanessa, under Art. 814, NCC. The original will, however,
remains valid because a holographic will is not
invalidated by the unauthenticated insertions or
alterations (Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 468].
Alternative Answer:
It depends. As a rule, a holographic will is not
adversely affected by Insertions or cancellations which
were not authenticated by the full signature of the
testator (Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 468). However, when the
insertion or cancellation amounts to revocation of the
will, Art.814 of the NCC does not apply but Art.
830. NCC. Art. 830 of the NCC does not require the
testator to authenticate his
cancellation for the effectivity of a revocation
effected through such cancellation (Kalaw v. Relova,
132 SCRA 237). In the Kalaw case, the original
holographic will designated only one heir as the only
substantial provision which was altered by
substituting the original heir with another heir.
Hence, if the unauthenticated cancellation amounted
to a revocation of the will, the will may not be
probated because it had already been revoked.
Succession; wills; formalities; revocation of wills
2003 No XI.
Mr. Reyes executed a will completely valid as to form. A
week later, however, he executed another will which
expressly revoked his first will, 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 probate 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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the first will may be admitted to probate and
given effect. When the testator tore first will, he was
under the mistaken belief that the second will was
perfectly valid and he would not have destroyed the first
will had he known that the second will is not valid. The
revocation by destruction therefore is dependent on the
validity of the second will. Since it turned out that
the second will was invalid, the tearing of the first will
did not produce the effect of revocation. This is known
as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation (Molo v.
Molo, 90 Phil 37.)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
No, the first will cannot be admitted to probate. While it
is true that the first will was successfully revoked by
the second will because the second will was later
denied probate, the first will was, nevertheless,
revoked when the testator destroyed it after
executing the second invalid will. (Diaz v. De Leon,
43 Phil 413 [1922]).
Succession; wills; revocation 1981 No. 7
A testator, a bachelor of 60, executed a Will
bequeathing a ricefield to the Church worth
P100,000.00. The Will further provided that "all other
assets owned by me after death shall be equally
divided among my two brothers "A" and "B". The
testator subsequently married a young woman,
begot a son, and left another Will designating his
wife and son as his heirs in equal shares. The
second Will did not
expressly revoke the first Will. He left an estate
worth P300,000.00 (including the
ricefield).
a) Who is entitled to the ricefield? Reasons. b| Who
acquires the rest of the
assets? Explain. Answer
(a) It must be observed that the testator left two
wills. In his first will, he
bequeathed the ricefield to the Church and instituted as
heirs in equal shares his two
brothers "A" and "B" with respect to the rest of his
estate. In his second will, he
instituted his wife and his son as heirs in equal shares.
Under our law on revocation
of wills, a will may be revoked by another will- The
revocation may be effected either
expressly or impliedly. Since there is no express
revocation, is there an implied
revocation in the instant case? It is undeniable that there
is an implied revocation if
the testamentary dispositions found in the first will are
totally or partially incompatible
with those found in the second will. It is also undeniable
that the incompatibility must
be absolute in character in the sense that the
testamentary dispositions cannot stand together. The
real issue, therefore, is whether the two
testamentary dispositions found in the first will can
stand together with the single testamentary
disposition found in the second will. There are two views.
According to one view, reading the two wills
together it is clear that the testatorial intention is
that only the testator's wife and son shall inherit.
They are instituted as universal heirs with respect to
the hereditary estate in its totality.
Therefore, the second will in its totality cannot stand
together with the first will in its totality. Consequently,
the incompatibility between the testamentary
dispositions found in the, first will and those found in the
second will is both total and absolute in character.
Hence, the first will is impliedly revoked by the second
will. The testator's widow and his son are, therefore,
entitled to the ricefield According to a second view, only
the institution of "A" and " B'' in the firs t will as heirs
and that portion or part of the bequest given to the
Church which will impair
the legitime of the testator's son and widow are
revoked by the second will. The
reason is that it is only to that extent that there is
absolute incompatibility between
the testamentary dispositions found in the first will
and those found in the second
will. Consequently, the Church shall be entitled to the
ricefield but only to the extent
that it does not encroach upon the legitime of the
testator's son and widow.
(Nme: The above answers are based on the law on
revocation of wills, such
as Arts. 830. et. seq.. Civil Code and on well settled
principles in American
jurisprudence. The Committee respectfully
recommends that whether the bar
candidate will solve the problem either in
accordance with the first view or in
accordance with the second view, it should be
considered as a correct answer.)
(b) Suggested answer for those who adhere to the first
view stated above:
There are two views with regard to the distribution
of the entire estate,
including the ricefield.
According to one view, one-half (1/2) shall be given
to the testator's widow
and the other one-half (1/2) shall be given to the
testator's son. This division would
be more in conformity with the testatorial intention.
According to another view, first satisfy the legitime
of the two heirs. The testator's widow shall be entitled
to one-fourth (1/4) of P300,000, or P75,000, while the
testator's son shall be entitled to one-half, or
P150,000. The disposable free portion shall then be
divided equally between the two. This would be
more in conformity with the testatorial intention.
Suggested answer for those who adhere the second view
stated above:
The testator's son shall be entitled to a legitime of one-
half |l/2) of the entire
estate, or P150.000; the widow shall be entitled to a
legitime of one-fourth on the
entire estate, or P75,000. That means that the
bequest in favor of the Church is
inofficious to the extent of P25.000, considering that
the value of the ricefield is
P100,000. Consequently, said bequest or devise
should be reduced by one-fourth
(1/4). Therefore, the Church shall be entitled only to
an undivided share of three-
fourth (3/4) of the ricefield.
Succession; wills; testamentary intent 1996 No. 10:
2) 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.
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.
Succession; wills; witnesses to holographic wills 1989
No. 11:
(1) The probate of the will of Nicandro is
contested on the ground that the notary public
before whom the will, was acknowledged was also one
of the three instrumental witnesses. If you were the
probate judge, how would you decide the contest?
Give your reasons.
Answer:
The will is void. The acknowledging officer cannot serve
as attesting witness at the same time. In effect there
are only two witnesses since the notary cannot
swear before himself.
Succession; wills; witnesses to holographic wills 1994
No. 10:
On his deathbed, Vicente was executing a will. In
the room were Carissa, Carmela, Comelio and Atty.
Cimpo, a notary public. Suddenly, there was a street
brawl which caught Comelio's attention, prompting
him to look out the window. Cornelio did not see
Vicente sign a will. Is the will valid?
Alternative Answers:
a) Yes, The will is valid. The law does not require a
witness to actually see the testator sign the will. It
is sufficient if the witness could have seen the act
of signing had he chosen to do so by casting his eyes to
the proper direction.
b) Yes, the will is valid. Applying the "test of position",
although Comelio did not actually see Vicente sign
the will, Cornelio was in the proper position to see
Vicente sign if Cornelio so wished.
Succession 2015
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.
2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS
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
asfollows:
"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? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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. (Article 870)
V.
What is the effect of preterition ? (1%)
(A) It annuls the devise and legacy
(B) It annuls the institution of heir
(C) It reduces the devise and legacy
(D) It partially annuls the institution of
heir
Answer is letter B (preterition annuls the
institution of heirs)
XIII.
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?
(4%)
SUGGESTED 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.
vs.Policarpio, et. al. 1 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, Article 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.
XVII.
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?
(4%)
1 G.R. NO. 176422 -March 20, 2013
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention of Carlito is not tenable. In
the case of Patricio v. Dario,2 with similar facts
to the case at bar, the court ruled that to qualify
as beneficiary of the family home the person
must be among those mentioned in Article 154,
he/she must be actually living in the family
home and must be dependent for legal support
upon the head of the family. 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.
XXV.
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? (4%)
SUGGESTED 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. Article 834 also provides
that the recognition of an illegitimate child does
not lose its legal effect even though the will
wherein it was made should be revoked. 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 Article 41.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
SUGGESTED ANSWERS
2015 CIVIL LAW BAR EXAMINATIONS
By: Assoc. Dean Viviana M. Paguirigan
2 G.R. No. 170829 November 20, 2006
I.
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.
IV.
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.
xxxx
b) What are the successional rights of the
boy Bert Joe and raised as their son? (2%)
xxxxx
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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)
IX.
Jose, single, donated a house and lot to his only
niece, Maria, who was of legal age and who
accepted the donation. The donation and
Maria’s acceptance thereof were evidenced by
a Deed of Donation. Maria then lived in the
house and lot donated to her, religiously
paying real estate taxes thereon. Twelve years
later, when Jose had already passed away, a
woman claiming to be an illegitimate daughter
of Jose filed a complaint against Maria.
Claiming rights as an heir, the woman prayed
that Maria be ordered to reconvey the house
and lot to Jose’s estate. In her complaint she
alleged that the notary public who notarized
the Deed of Donation had an expired notarial
commission when the Deed of Donation was
executed by Jose. Can Maria be made to
reconvey the property? What can she put up as
a defense? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Maria cannot be compelled to reconvey the
property. The Deed of Donation was void
because it was not considered a public
document. However, a void donation can
trigger acquisitive prescription. (Solis v. CA 176
SCRA 678; Doliendo v. Biarnesa 7 Phil. 232) The
void donation has a quality of titulo colorado
enough for acquisitive prescription especially
since 12 years had lapsed from the deed of
donation.
3
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Maria can be made
to reconvey the property. The law provides
that no person may give or receive by way of
donation more than what he may give or
receive by will. On the assumption that the
property donated to Maria is the only property
of Jose, the legitime of his illegitimate child
would be impaired if Maria would be allowed to
keep the entire property. After taking into
account the value of the property, Maria can be
made to reconvey the property to the extent
necessary to satisfy the legitime of Jose.s
illegitimate daughter provided that the woman
claiming to be Jose.s child can prove her
filiation to the deceased. Maria can set up the defense
that the action has prescribed. An action for revocation
of the donation on the ground that it impaired the
legitime of a compulsory heir may only be filed
within ten (10) years from the time the cause
of action accrues which is at the time of the
death of Jose. The facts are not clear as to
when Jose died but on the assumption that he
died ten years prior to the filing of the action,
the same has clearly prescribed.
Heirs; Fideicommissary Substitution
(2008)
No. XIII. 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 preseving 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.
(A). Is the condition imposed upon Ruffa, to
preserve the property and to transmit it
upon her death to Scarlet, valid? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the condition imposed upon Ruffa
to preserve the property and to transmit
it upon her death to Scarlet is valid because it is
tantamount to fideicommissary substitution under Art.
863 of the Civil Code.
(B). If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, who inherits the
property? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ruffa will inherit the property as
Scarlet's heir. Scarlet acquires a right to
the succession from the time of
Raymond's death, even though she
should predecease Ruffa (Art. 866, Civil
Code).
(C). If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, can
Scarlet inherit the property directly from
Raymond? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Ruffa predeceases Raymond,
Raymond's widowed mother will be
entitled to the inheritance. Scarlet, an
illegitimate child, cannot inherit the
property by intestate succession from
Raymond who is a legitimate relative of
Ruffa (Art. 992, Civil Code). Moreover,
Scarlet is not a compulsory heir of
Raymond, hence she can inherit only by
testamentary succession. Since
Raymond executed a will in the case at
bar, Scarlet may inherit from Raymond.
Heirs; Intestate Succession; Legitime;
Computation (2010)
No.XI. 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 P1 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.
(A). Who are Peter’s legal heirs and how will
his estate be divided among them? (5%)
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 of 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 suffer
the reduction.
Computation:
(A) If the ground of nullity is
psychological incapacity:
3 children by first marriage
1/6 of the estate for each
2 children by second marriage
1/6 of the estate for each
Surviving second spouse
1/6 of the estate
(B) If the ground of nullity is not
psychological capacity:
2 legitimate children
¼ of the estate for
each of second marriage
Surviving second spouse
¼ of the estate
3 illegitimatechildren
1/12 of estate for
each of first marriage
Note: The legitime of an illegitimate
child is supposed to be ½ the legitime of
a legitimate child or 1/8 of the estate.
But the estate will not be sufficient to
pay the said legitime of the 3 illegitimate children,
because only ¼ of the estate is left after paying the
legitime of the surviving spouse which is
preferred. Hence, the remaining ¼ of the estate
shall be divided among the 3 illegitimate
children.
(B). 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the distribution of Peter’s estate, ½ of
the presumptive received by the 3 children of the first
marriage shall be collated to Peter’s estate and shall be
imputed as an advance of 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.
Heirs; Representation; Iron-Curtain Rule(2012)
No.VIII.
a) Ricky and Arlene are married. They begot Franco
during their marriage. Franco had an illicit relationship
with Audrey and out of which, they begot Arnel. Frnaco
predeceased Ricky, Arlene and Arnel. Before Ricky died,
he executed a will which when submitted to probate was
opposed by Arnel on the ground that he
should be given the share of his father,
Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel correct?
Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, his opposition is not correct. Arnel
cannot inherit from Ricky in the representation of his
father Franco. In representation, the representative must
not only be a legal heir of the person he is representing,
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 under
Art 992 of the NCC, an illegitimate child
has no right to inherit ab intestato from
the legitimate children and relatives of
his father or mother. Arnel is disqualified to inherit from
Ricky because Arnel is an illegitimate child of Franco and
Ricky is a legitimate relative of Franco.
Heirs; Reserva Troncal (2009)
No. I. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false.
Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences.
(B).In reservatroncal, all reservatarios (reser
vees) inherit as a class and in equal shares
regardless of their proximity in degree to
the prepositus. (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FALSE. Not all the relatives within the third degree will
inherit as reservatario, and not all those who are entitled
to inherit will inherit in the 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-blooded relatives.
Intestate Succession (2008)
No. VII. Ramon Mayaman died intestate,
leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00.
Determine how much each heir will receive
from the estate:
(A). If Ramon is survived by his wife, three
full-blood brothers, two half-brothers, and
one nephew (the son of a deceased fullblood
brother)? Explain. (3%)
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 other of the half blood, a half
blood sibling will receive half the share of a full-blood
sibling.
(1). The wife of Ramon will, therefore,
receive one half (½) of the estate or the
amount of P5,000,000.00.
(2). The three (3) 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 (2) 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. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The wife will receive one half (1/2) 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 the 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 nephews in equal shares by
right of presentation.
Therefore, the three (3) nephews will
receive P1,111,111.10 each the half sister
will receive the sum of P1,666,666.60.

Intestate Succession (2008)
No.X. Arthur executed a will which contained only: (i) a
provision disinheriting his daughter Bernica for running
off with a married man, and (ii) a provision disposing of
his share in the family house and lot in favor of his other
children Connie and Dora. He did not make any
provisions in favor of his wife Erica, because as the will
stated, she would anyway get ½ of the house and lot as
her conjugal share. The will was very brief and
straightforward and both the
above provisions were contained in page 1,
which Arthur and his instrumental witness,
signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained the
attestation clause and the signatures, at
the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental
witnesses which included Lambert, the
driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and
Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared
the will. There was a 3rd page, but this only
contained the notarial acknowledgement.
The attestation clause stated the will was
signed on the same occasion by Arthur and
his instrumental witnesses who all signed
in the presence of each other, and the notary public
who notarized the will. There
are no marginal signatures or pagination
appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon his
death, it was discovered that apart from the
house and lot, he had a P 1 million account
deposited with ABC bank.
(D). How should the house and lot, and the
cash be distributed? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the probate of the will cannot be
allowed, the rules on intestate succession apply. Under
Art. 996 of the Civil Code, if a widow or widower and
legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving
spouse has the same
share as of the children. Thus, ownership over the house
and lot will be created among wife Erica and her children
Bernice, Connie and Dora. Similarly, the amount of P 1
million will be equally divided among them.
Intestate Succession; Rights of
Representation: Illegitimate, Adopted
Child; Iron Curtain Rule (2007)
No. X. For purpose of this question, assume
all formalities and procedural requirements
have been complied with.
In 1970, Ramon and Dessa got married.
Prior to their marriage, Ramon had a child,
Anna. In 1971 and 1972, Ramon and Dessa
legally adopted Cherry and Michelle respectively. In
1973, Dessa died while giving birth to Larry Anna had a
child, Lia. Anna never married. Cherry, on the other hand,
legally adopted Shelly. Larry had twins, Hans and Gretel,
with his girlfriend, Fiona. In 2005, Anna, Larry and Cherry
died in a car accident. In 2007, Ramon died. Who may
inherit from Ramon and who may not? Give your reason
briefly.(10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following may inherit from Ramon:
(1). Michelle, as an adopted child of Ramon, will inherit
as a legitimate child of Ramon. As an adopted child,
Michelle has all the rights of a legitimate child (Sec 18,
Domestic Adoption Law).
(2). Lia will inherit in representation of Anna. Although
Lia is an illegitimate child, she is not barred by Articles
992, because her mother Anna is an illegitimate herself.
She will represent Anna as regards Anna's legitime under
Art. 902, NCC and as regards Anna's intestate share
under Art. 990, NCC.
The following may not inherit from Ramon:
(1). Shelly, being an adopted child, she cannot represent
Cherry. This is because adoption creates a personal legal
relation only between the adopter and the adopted. The
law on representation requires the representative to be a
legal heir of the person he is representing and
also of the person from whom the person being
represented was supposed to inherit. While Shelly is a
legal heir of Cherry, Shelly is not a legal heir of Ramon.
Adoption created a purely
personal legal relation only between
Cherry and Shelly.
(2). Hans and Gretel are barred from
inheriting from Ramon under Art. 992,
NCC. Being illegitimate children, they
cannot inherit ab intestao from Ramon.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The problem expressly mentioned the dates of the
adoption of Cherry and Michelle as 1971 and 1972.
During that time, adoption was governed by the New
Civil Code. Under the New Civil Code, husband and wife
were allowed to adopt separately or not jointly with the
other spouse. And since the problem does not
specifically and categorically state, it is possible to
construe the use of the word "respectively" in the
problem as
indicative of the situation that Cherry was adopted by
Ramon alone and Michelle was adopted by Dessa alone.
In such case of separate adoption the alternative answer
to the problem will be as follows: Only Lia will inherit
from Ramon in representation of Ramon's
illegitimate daughter Anna. Although Lia
is an illegitimate child, she is not barred
from inheriting from Ramon because her
mother is herself illegitimate. Shelly cannot inherit in
representation of Cherry because Shelly is just an
adopted child of Cherry. In representation, the
representative must not only be a legal heir of the
person he is representing but also of the decedent from
whom the
represented person is supposed to inherit. In the case of
Shelly, while she is a legal heir of Cherry by virtue of
adoption, she is not a legal heir of
Ramon. Adoption creates a personal legal relation only
between the adopting parent and the adopted child
(Teotico v. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406, 1965. Michelle cannot
inherit from Ramon, because she was adopted not by
Ramon but by Dessa. In the eyes of the law, she is not
related
to Ramon at all. Hence, she is not a legal heir of Ramon.
Hans and Gretel are not entitled to inherit from Ramon,
because they are barred by Art. 992 NCC. Being
illegitimate children of Larry, they cannot inherit from the
legitimate
relatives of their father Larry. Ramon is
a legitimate relative of Larry who is the
legitimate father.
Legitimes; Compulsory Heirs (2012)
No.VIII.
b) How can RJP distribute his estate by will, if his heirs
are JCP, his wife; HBR and RVC, his parents; and an
illegitimate child, SGO?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A testator may dispose of by will the free portion of his
estate. Since the legitime of JCP is 1/8 of the estate, SGO
is ¼ of the estate and that of HBR and RVC is ½ of the
hereditary estate under Art 889 of the NCC, the
remaining 1/8 of the estate is the free portion which the
testator may dispose of by will.
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2008)
No. XII. Ernesto, an overseas Filipino worker, was coming
home to the Philippines after working for so many years
in the Middle East. He had saved P100.000 in his saving
account in Manila which intended to use to start a
business in his home country. On his flight home,
Ernesto had a
fatal heart attack. He left behind his widowed mother, his
common-law wife and their twins sons. He left no will, no
debts, no other relatives and no other properties except
the money in his saving account.
Who are the heirs entitled to inherint from
him and how much should each receive?(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The mother and twin sons are entitled to
inherit from Ernesto. Art. 991 of the Civil Code, provides
that if legitimate ascendants are left, the twin sons shall
divide the inheritance with them taking one-half of the
estate. Thus, the widowed mother gets P50,000.00 while
the twin
sons shall receive P25,000.00 each. The common-law
wife cannot inherit from him because when the law
speaks "widow or widower" as a compulsory heir, the law
refers to a legitimate spouse (Art. 887, par 3, Civil Code).
Preterition; Disinheritance (2008)
No.X. Arthur executed a will which
contained only: (i) a provision disinheriting
his daughter Bernica for running off with a
married man, and (ii) a provision disposing
of his share in the family house and lot in
favor of his other children Connie and Dora.
He did not make any provisions in favor of
his wife Erica, because as the will stated,
she would anyway get ½ of the house and
lot as her conjugal share. The will was very
brief and straightforward and both the
above provisions were contained in page 1,
which Arthur and his instrumental witness,
signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained the
attestation clause and the signatures, at
the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental
witnesses which included Lambert, the
driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and
Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared
the will. There was a 3rd page, but this only
contained the notarial acknowledgement.
The attestation clause stated the will was
signed on the same occasion by Arthur and
his instrumental witnesses who all signed
in the presence of each other, and the
notary public who notarized the will. There
are no marginal signatures or pagination
appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon his
death, it was discovered that apart from the
house and lot, he had a P 1 million account
deposited with ABC bank.
(A). Was Erica preterited? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Erica cannot be preterited. Art. 854 of
the Civil Code provides that only
compulsory heirs in the direct line can be preterited.
(B). What other defects of the will, if any,
can cause denial of probate? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The other defects of the will that can
cause its denial are as follows: (a) Atty.
Zorba, the one who prepared the will was
one of the three witnesses, violating the
three-witnesses rule; (b) no marginal
signature at the last page; (c ) the attestation did not
state the number of pages upon which the will is written;
and, (d) no pagination appearing
correlatively in letters on the upper part
of the three pages (Azuela v. C.A., G.R.
No. 122880, 12 Apr 2006 and cited cases
therein, Art 805 and 806, Civil Code).
(C). Was the disinheritance valid? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the disinheritance was valid. Art.
919, par 7, Civil Code provides that "when a child or
descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life, like
running off with a married man, there is sufficient cause
for disinheritance."
Succession; Proof of Death between persons called to
succeed each other (2008)
No. II. At age 18, Marian found out that she
was pregnant. She insured her own life and named her
unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she was
already due to give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro,
the father of her unborn child, were kidnapped in a
resort in Bataan where they were vacationing. The
military gave chase and after one week, they were found
in an
abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were hacked
with bolos. Marian and the baby delivered were both
found dead, with the baby's umbilical cord already cut.
Pietro survived.
(B). Between Marian and the baby, who is
presumed to have died ahead? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The baby is presumed to have died ahead
of Marian. Under Par. 5, rule 131, Sec. 5
(KK) of the Rules of Court, if one is under 15 or above 60
and the age of the other is in between 15 and 60, the
latter is presumed to have survived. In the instant case,
Marian was already 18 when she found out that she was
pregnant. She could be of the same age or maybe 19
years of age when she gave birth.
(C). Will Pietro, as surviving biological
father of the baby, be entitled to claim the
proceeds of the life insurance on the life of
Marian? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pietro, as the biological father of the
baby, shall be entitled to claim the
proceeds of life insurance of the Marian
because he is a compulsory heir of his
child.
Succession; Rule on Survivorship (2009)
No. II. 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
pared 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
As to the Estate of Dr. Lopez: Marilyn is not entitled to a
share in the estate of Dr. Lopez. For purpose 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 Roberto 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 the 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 contract, the
provisions of the Rules of Court (Rule
131, Sec. 3 , [jj] [5] ) on survivorship
shall apply. Under the Rules, Dr. Lopez, who was 70 years
old, is presumed to have died ahead of Roberto who is
presumably between the ages 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. Lopez, his right to receive the
insurance 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.
Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions &
Cancellations (2012)
No.VII.a) 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. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It depends. If the cancellation of Rosa’s
name in the will was done by the testator himself, Rosa’s
claimed 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 effectively of the 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 authentication by the full
signature of the testator to be valid and effective. Not
having an authenticated, the designation of Gregorio as
an heir was ineffective, (Kalaw v. Relova, G.R. No. L-
40207, Sept28, 1984).
Wills; Holographic Wills; Probate (2009)
No.VI.
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%)
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 (Art 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 the 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
enforced at the time of execution of the
will shall govern the formal validity of
the will (Art. 795, NCC).
(B). Assuming that the will is probated in
the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that
he be given his legitime? Why or why not?
(3%)
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 (Art 16, NCC). Since, Dr. Fuentes
was a US citizen, the laws of the New
York determines who his heirs are. And
since the New York law does not
recognize the concept of compulsory
heirs, Jay is not a compulsory heir of Dr.
Fuentes entitled to a legitime.
Wills; Joint Wills (2008)
No. XI. John and Paula, British citizens at
birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by
naturalization after their marriage. During
their marriage the couple acquired substanial
landholdings in London and in Makati. Paula bore John
three children, Peter, Paul and Mary. 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 Peter and Paul only but the two
could not dispose of nor divide the London
estate as long as they live. John and Paul
died tragically in the London Subway
terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul
filed a petition for probate of their parent's
will before a Makati Regional Trial Court.
(A). Should the will be admitted to probate?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The will cannot be admitted to
probate because a joint will is expressly
prohibited under Art. 818 of the Civil
Code. This provision applies John and
Paula became Filipino citizens after their
marriage.
(B). Are the testamentary dispositions
valid? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The testamentary dispositions are
not valid because (a) omission of Mary, a
legitimate child, is tantamount to preterition which shall
annul the institution of Peter and Paul as heirs (Art. 854,
Civil Code); and, (b) the
disposition that Peter and Paul could not
dispose of nor divide the London estate
for more than 20 years is void (Art. 870,
Civil Code).
Wills; Joint Wills; Probate (2012)
No.VII.b) 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 Regional Trial
Court. Joshur vehemently objected because
he was preterited.
(1) Should the will be admitted to probate?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the will should not be admitted to
probate. Since the couples are both
Filipino citizens, Art 818 and 819 of the
NCC shall apply. Said articles prohibits
the execution of joint wills and make
them void, even though authorized of
the country where they were executed.
(2) Are the testamentary dispositions valid?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the joint will is void, all the
testamentary disposition written therein
are also void. However, if the will is
valid, the institutions of the heirs shall
be annulled because Joshur was
preterited. He was preterited because he
will receive nothing from the will, will
receive nothing in testacy, 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.
(3) Is the testamentary prohibition against
the division of the London estate valid?
Explain. (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming the will of John and Maria was
valid, the testamentary prohibition on the
division of the London estate shall be valid
but only for 20 years. Under Arts 1083 and
494 of the NCC, a testamentary disposition
of the testator cannot forbid the partition of
all or part of the estate for a period longer
than twenty (20) years.
Wills; Prohibition to Partition of a Co-
Owned Property (2010)
No.I. True or False.
(B) X, a widower, died leaving a will stating
that the house and lot where he lived
cannot be partitioned for as long as the
youngest of his four children desires to stay
there. As coheirs and co-owners, the other
three may demand partition anytime. (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FALSE, The other three co – heirs may not anytime
demand the partition of the house and lot since it was
expressly provided by the decedent in his will that the
same cannot be partitioned while his youngest child
desires to stay there. Article 1083 of the New Civil Code
allows a decedent to prohibit, by will, the partition of a
property and his estate for a period not longer than 20
years no matter what his reason maybe. Hence, the three
co-heir cannot demand its partition at anytime but only
after 20
years from the death of their father. Even if the deceased
parent did not leave a will, if the house and lot
constituted their family home, Article
159 of the Family Code prohibits its partition for a period
of ten (10) years, or for as long as there is a
minorbeneficiary living in the family home.
Wills; Notarial Wills; Blind Testator;
Requisites (2008) No. XIV.
Stevie was born blind. He went to
school for the blind, and learned to read in
Baille Language. He Speaks English fluently. Can he:
(A). Make a will? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming that he is of legal age (Art. 797, Civil Code)
and of sound mind at the time of execution of the will
(Art. 798, Civil Code), Stevie, a blind person, can make a
notarial will, subject to compliance with the "two-reading
rule"
(Art. 808, Civil Code) and the provisions of Arts. 804, 805
and 806 of the Civil Code.
(B). Act as a witness to a will? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Stevie cannot be a witness to a will. Art.
820 of the Civil Code provides that "any
person of sound mind and of the age of
eighteen years or more, and not blind,
deaf or dumb, and able to read and write,
may be a witness to the execution of a
will.
(C). In either of the above instances, must
the will be read to him? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Stevie makes a will, the will must be
read to him twice, once by one of the
subscribing witnesses, and again, by the
notary public before whom the will is
acknowledged (Art. 808, Civil Code).
Wills; Testamentary Disposition; Period
to Prohibit Partition (2008)
No. XI. John and Paula, British citizens at
birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by
naturalization after their marriage. During
their marriage the couple acquired substanial
landholdings in London and in Makati. Paula bore John
three children, Peter, Paul and Mary. 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 Peter and Paul only but the two
could not dispose of nor divide the London
estate as long as they live. John and Paul
died tragically in the London Subway terrorist attack in
2005. Peter and Paul filed a petition for probate of their
parent's will before a Makati Regional Trial Court. (C). Is
the testamentary prohibition against the division of the
London estate valid? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the testamentary prohibition against
the division of the London estate is void
(Art. 870, Civil Code). A testator, however, may prohibit
partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty (20)
years (Art. 870 in relation to Art. 494, par 3, Civil Code).
Wills; Witnesses to a Will, Presence
required; Thumbmark as Signature
(2007)No.VI.
Clara, thinking of her mortality,
drafted a will and asked Roberta, Hannah,
Luisa and Benjamin to be witnesses. During the day of
signing of her will, Clara fell down the stairs and broke
her arms. Coming from the hospital, Clara insisted on
signing her will by thumb mark and said that she can
sign her full name later. While the will was being signed,
Roberta experienced a stomach ache and kept going to
the restroom for long periods of time.
Hannah, while waiting for her turn to sign the will, was
reading the 7th Harry Potter book on the couch, beside
the table on which everyone was signing. Benjamin,
aside from witnessing the will, also offered to notarize it.
A week after, Clara was run over by a drunk driver while
crossing the street in Greenbelt.
May the will of Clara be admitted to
probate? Give your reasons briefly. (10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Probate should be denied. The requirement that the
testator and at least three (3) witnesses must sign all in
the "presence" of one another was not
complied with. Benjamin who notarized the will is
disqualified as a witness, hence he cannot be counted as
one of the three witnesses (Cruz v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 31,
1973). The testatrix and the
other witnesses signed the will not in the presence of
Roberta because she was in the restroom for extended
periods of time. Inside the restroom, Roberta could not
have possibly seen the testatrix and the other witnesses
sign the will by merely casting her eyes in the proper
direction (Jaboneta v. Gustilo, 5 Phil 541, 1906; Nera v.
Rimando, 18 Phil 451, 1914). Therefore, the testatrix
signed the will in the presence of only two witnesses,
and only two witnesses
signed the will in the presence of the testatrix and of one
another.
It is to be noted, however, that the
thumb mark intended by the testator to
be his signature in executing his last will
and testament is valid (Payad v.Tolentino, 62 Phil 848,
1936; Matias v. Salud, L-104 Phil 1046, 23 June, 1958).
The problem, however, states that Clara
"said that she can sign her full name later;" Hence, she
did not consider her thumb mark as her "complete"
signature, and intended further action on her part. The
testatrix and the other witness signed the will in the
presence of Hannah, because she was aware of her
function and role as witness and was in a position to see
the testatrix and the other witnesses sign by merely
casting her eyes in the proper direction.
Donation
Donations; Formalities; In Writing (2007)
No. VIII.
In 1986, Jennifer and Brad were madly in love. In 1989,
because a certain Picasso painting reminded Brad of her,
Jennifer acquired it and placed it in his bedroom. In
1990, Brad and Jennifer broke up. While Brad was
mending his broken heart, he met Angie and fell in love.
Because the Picasso painting reminded Angie of him,
Brad in his will bequeathed the painting to Angie. Brad
died in 1995. Saddened by Brad's death, Jennifer asked
for the Picasso painting as a remembrance of him. Angie
refused and claimed that Brad, in his will, bequeathed
the painting to her. Is Angie correct? Why or why not?
(10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
NO. Angie is not correct. The Picasso painting is not
given or donated by Jennifer to Brad. She merely "placed
it in his bedroom." Hence, she is still the owner of the
painting. Not being the
owner of the Picasso painting, Brad cannot validly
bequeath the same to Angie (Art. 930, NCC). Even
assuming that the painting was impliedly given or
donated by Jennifer to Brad, the donation is nevertheless
void for not being in writing. The Picasso painting must
be worth more than 5,000 pesos. Under Art. 748, NCC,
the donation and acceptance of a movable worth more
than 5,000 pesos must be in writing,
otherwise the donation is void. The donation being void,
Jennifer remained the owner of the Picasso painting and
Brad could not have validly disposed of said painting in
favor of Angie in his will.
SUCCESSION
Amount of Successional Rights (2004)
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 nheritance? Why? Explain. (5%)
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.
Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate relatives
(1993)
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 How
will you rule on Jorge's opposition to the probate of
legitimate nephews inheriting as collateral relatives) can
inherit in intestacy. (Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975, Civil
Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action of A will not prosper. Being an illegitimate, he
is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting
ab intestato from the legitimate relatives of his father.
Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate relatives
(1996)
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
intestate from Cristina. Both are legitimate relatives of
Cristina's illegitimate parents and therefore they fall
under the prohibition prescribed by Art. 992, NCC (
Collation (1993)
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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because there is a presumed donation in favor of
Joaquina under Art. 1448 of the Civil Code (De los
Santos v. Reyes, 27 January 1992, 206 SCRA 437).
However, the donation should be collated to the
hereditary estate and the legitime of the other heirs
should be preserved.
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.)
Disinheritance; Ineffective; Preterition (2000)
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? (5%)
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
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The disinheritance of Wilma was effective because
disrespect of,
and raising of voice to, her father constitute
maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code.
She is, therefore, not entitled to
inherit anything. Her inheritance will go to the other
legal heirs. The total omission of Elvira is not preterition
because she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line.
She will receive only her legitime. The legacy in favor of
Rosa is void under Article with the testator. She is,
therefore, disqualified to receive the legacy. Ernie will
receive the legacy in his favor because it is not
inofficious. The institution of Baldo, which applies only to
the free portion, will be respected. In sum, the estate of
Lamberto shall be distributed as follows:
Heir Legitime Legacy Institution TOTAL
Baldo 500,000 200.000 700,000 Elvira 250,000 250,000
Ernie
50,000 50,000 TOTAL 750,000 50,000 200,000 1,000,000
Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Shares (2003)
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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
Intestate Succession (1998)
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 property or its value, if
any, may Michelle and Jorelle
claim as their hereditary shares? [5%]
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 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.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
INTESTATE SUCCESSION
ESTATE: P180,000.00
W- (widow gets 1/2 share) P90.000.00 (Art. 998) A- (son
who repudiated his inheritance) None Art. 977) B -
(Granddaughter) None
C - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45.000.00
(Art.998)
D - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45,000.00 (Art.
998) The acknowledged illegitimate child gets 1/2 of the
share of each
legitimate child.
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? (5%)
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.
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. (3%)
(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, (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Assuming that the institution of A, B and F were to
theentire 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. Cruz'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 100.000.00 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.
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 mother, in favor of
another sister, with their mother not
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? (5%)
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.
BAR 2017
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 without a
will and Tristan opposed the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be
declared an heir of the deceased since he is an
illegitimate child. Tomas, Jr.countered that Article 992 of
the Civil Code is unconstitutional for violation of the
equal protection of the laws. He explained that an
illegitimate child of an illegitimate parent is allowed 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 illegitimate descendant of an
illegitimate child can represent, the illegitimate
descendant of a legitimate child cannot. Decide the case
and explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
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 legitimate 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 conferred and responsibilities imposed (Ichong v.
Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957, 101 Phil:
7755). It, however, does not require the universal
application 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.
XX
Princess married:Roberto and bore a son, Onofre.
Roberto died in a plane crash Princess later married Märk
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 tot: 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%)
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 ab
intestato to her father Jojo. Transmission to Jojo is by the
ordinary rules of compulsory and intestate succession,
not by reserva troncal, because the reserva was
extinguished upon the transmission of the property to
Princess, this making Princess the absolute owner subject
to no reserva.
Bar Questions and Answers 2017
Pedro had worked for 15 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pedro’s legal heirs are his legitimate child, Alex, and his
three illegitimate chidlren with Veneranda. Pedro’s
chidlren with Veneranda are illegitimate because they
were conceived and born outside of a valid marriage.
Alex, on the other hand, is a legitimate child because she
was conceived or born inside a valid marriage. Pedro’s
surviving parents are not legal heirs because they are
excluded by Alex. In intestate succession, the legitimate
ascendants do not become legal heirs if there is a
surviving legitimate descendant, such as Alex in the
problem. Veneranda is not a legal heir of Pedro because
she and Pedro were not married.
Ordinarily, the share of an illegitimate child in intestate
succession is one-half of the share of the legitimate
child. Considering, however, that the three illegitimate
chidlren will impair the legitime of Alex if the foregoing
formula is followed, Alex is entitled instead to get his
legitime, which is ½ of the estate, or P2.5 Million, while
the remaining P2.5 Million is to be divided equally
among the three illegitimate children of Pedro. Their
legitimes in this case will likewise be their shares in
intestate succession.
(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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because the testamentary dispositions impair the
legitimes of Pedro’s compulsory heirs.
Following the provisions of the Civil Code, only Alex and
Pedro’s three illegitimate children are Pedro’s
compulsory heirs. Since Alex is Pedro’s legitimate
descendant and a primary compulsory heir, she excludes
Pedro’s parents as compulsory heirs, the latter being
merely secondary compulsory heirs. However, the three
illegitimate chidlren are considered concurring
compulsory heirs who are also entitled to a share of the
legitime.
Under the law, the legitime of Alex, being a legitimate
descendant, is ½ of Pedro’s estate, or
P2.5 Million. The legitime of each of the illegitimate
children is supposed to be ½ of the
share of Alex, or P1.25 Million each. Considering,
however, that the remaining portion of the estate is no
longer sufficient to cover the supposed legitimes of the
three illegitimate children, they will simply share equally
in the remaining P2.5 Million. Consequently, there is no
disposable free portion that Pedro may validly give to
Veneranda or to his parents. Hence, the will is
intrinsically invalid.
BAR Questions 2018
V. Sol Soldivino, widow, passed away, leaving two (2)
legitimate children: a 25- year old son, Santino (whom
she had not spoken to for five [5] years prior to her
death since he attempted to kill her at that time), and a
20-year-old daughter, Sara. She left an estate worth
PhP8 million and a will containing only one provision:
that PhP1 million should be given to "the priest who
officiated at my wedding to my children's late father."
Sara, together with two (2) of her friends, acted as an
attesting witness to the will. On the assumption that the
will is admitted for probate and that there are no debts,
divide the estate and indicate the heirs/legatees entitled
to inherit, the amount that each of them will inherit, and
where (i.e., legitime/free portion/intestate share) their
shares should be charged.
ANSWER:
Santino and Sara shall be entitled to half of the estate as
their legitime. Thus, they are entitled to 4M collectively,
or 2M each. The legitime of legitimate children and
descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate
of the father and of the mother (Art. 888). The priest,
being a legatee, is entitled to his 1M as provided by the
decedent’s last will and testament. This share is
chargable to the Free Portion of the hereditary estate.
The remaining 3M shall be subjected to the rules of
intestate succession. Sara is incapacitated to inherit since
she was an attesting witness.
XX
Sydney, during her lifetime, was a successful lawyer. By
her own choice, she remained unmarried and devoted all
her time to taking care of her nephew and two (2) nieces:
Socrates, Saffinia, and Sophia. She wrote a will giving all
her properties remaining upon her death to the three (3)
of them. The will was admitted to probate during her
lifetime. Later, she decided to make a new will giving all
her remaining properties only to the two (2) girls, Saffinia
and Sophia. She then tore up the previously probated
will. The second will was presented for probate only after
her death. However, the probate court found the second
will to be void for failure to comply with formal
requirements. (a) Will the doctrine of dependent relative
revocation apply? (b) Will your answer be the same if the
second will was found to be valid but both Saffinia and
Sophia renounce their inheritance?
a. Yes, the doctrine of relative revocation will apply.
Under this doctrine, when a first will is revoked to
connect with the making of the new will so as to fairly
raise the inference that the testator meant the revocation
of the old will to depend upon the efficacy of the new
disposition, if for any reason the new will becomes
inoperative, the old will shall remain in force and the
prior revocation is deemed void.
b. No, even if the instituted heirs in the second will
renounced their rights to the inheritance, it does not
have the effect of revocation of the will as would permit
the application of the doctrine of dependent relative
revocation . The effect will just pave the way for intestate
succession and not the revival of the previously revoked
will.