Score 4/6

1.         In Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon, the court was called upon to choose between two options
in order to complete the legitime of some of the compulsory heirs to whom the testatrix
gave less than what they were entitled to. The options were: (i) to require Marina to pay in
cash to her co-heirs the  shortfall, or (ii) to split the respective shares of each of the heirs
into two equal parts, and to distribute one of the two parts equally among the heirs to
represent their legitime. Which of the two options did the court adopt and why?
 
The court required Marina to pay in cash the shortfall of the legitime. If the court ruled to divide
the properties, the intent of the testator to give more to favored heirs would not be fulfilled. The
rule is that any ambiguity in a will must be interpreted according to the intent of the testator. 2
points
 
2.         The making of a will is a strictly personal act (Art. 785). Define (do not give an
example) a strictly personal act. How is Article 785 amplified or explained in Articles 786
and 787. Your explanation must not simply be a reproduction of the law.
 
A strictly personal act means that the disposition of the testator’s estate is solely dependent upon
him. He cannot ask a third person to determine what properties to include in the will or who gets
which portion. These matters are dependent on the testator’s own discretion and must not be
influenced by any other person.
 
Article 786 provides for two things that the testator can delegate to a third person. The testator
already finished the making of the will at this point, hence what he delegates is merely the
implementation of the will.  However, Article 787 must be strictly complied with. The validity of
the dispositions shall be determined only by the testator himself, otherwise the principle in
Article 784 would be violated. 2 points
 
3.         Is “capacity to act” (as defined in Article 37 and as restricted, modified, or limited
in Articles 38 and 39) an essential element of testamentary capacity? Explain your answer.
 
No. Capacity to act is not an essential element. The law simply requires that the testator has
sufficient understanding and memory that enables him to know what the will is about, including
which properties are being disposed and to whom these are disposed. What about age?