Succession

Revocation to Disinheritance1
[Follow the Outline]

Part One
Modified True or False. Consider the statement true only when it is absolutely true.
Explain ALL your answers.

1. A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before his death.

2. Subsequent wills which do not revoke the previous ones in an express manner, annul only
such dispositions in the prior wills as are inconsistent with or contrary to those contained
in the later wills.

3. A revocation made in a subsequent will shall take effect, even if the new will should
become inoperative by reason of the incapacity of the heirs, devisees or legatees
designated therein, or by their renunciation.

4. If after making a will, the testator makes a second will revoking the first, the revocation
of the second will does not revive the first will, which can be revived only by another will
or codicil.

5. 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.

6. The creditors of the reservista may be able to claim the property subject of reservation upon the
death of the reservista.

7. There may be a reservation of property which went to an heir who is from the same line where
the property came from.

8. If the ascendant acquired the property through a will, there is no reservation.

9. As to the reservees, reserva integral is followed.

10. The child of the brother of the praepositus may inherit by right of representation.
Part Two
Choose the best answer.

11. Which of the following is absolutely true? (a) Revocation is an act of the testator
(b) Revocation is by operation of law (c) Revocation presupposes a valid act
(d) Revocation takes place only during the lifetime of the testator (e) none of the above.

12. In the will of X, he gave to A a credit in the amount of P1Million. This legacy is deemed
revoked (a) if X sent a demand letter to the debtor (b) if X filed an action against the
debtor for the collection of the said amount (c) if the court ordered the debtor to pay X
before the death of X (d) if the debtor paid X before the death of the latter

13. There can be preterition if:

a. the deceased died intestate
b. not all the properties were disposed of in the will
c. the will is void
d. the heir was disinherited
e. none of the above

14. For a property to be a reservable property, it must come from:

a. ascendant of the praepositus
b. descendant of the praepositus
c. brother of the reservista
d. sister of the reservatarios
e. any of the above

15. In reserva troncal, the reservista:

a. acquires the rights of a usufructuary
b. becomes an administrator of the property
c. acquires absolute ownership over the property
d. acquires a conditional ownership over the property
e. becomes a trustee

16. There will be an imperfect disinheritance if:

a. The will is void.
b. The disinherited heir is not in the direct line.
c. The deceased died intestate.
d. The disinheritance was without a specification of the cause.
e. The heir was not mentioned in the will.

17. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of children, except:
a. Conviction of a crime
b. When a child leads a disgraceful life
c. Refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent
d. When a child by fraud causes the testator to make a will
e. None of the above

18. This is a sufficient cause for the disinheritance of parents:

a. When the parent has been convicted of adultery;
b. The loss of parental authority;
 c. The refusal to support the children;
d. All of the above
e. None of the above.

19. A disposition in favor of an heir is revoked by implication of law if:

(a) he was convicted of a crime
(b) he is guilty of adultery or concubinage
(c) he accused the testator of a crime
(d) he prevented thru fraud the decedent from revoking the will

20. X executed a will in 1990. In 1995, X executed another will resulting in the revocation of
the 1990 will. In 1999, X executed another will expressly revoking the 1995 will. The
dispositions in the 1990 will can be given effect if:
(a) the 1999 will is denied probate because it is void as to form
(b) the 1999 will is denied probate by reason of the age of the testator
(c) the 1999 will is probated and the 1995 will expressly revoked the 1990 will
(d) the 1999 will is probated and the 1995 will impliedly revoked the 1990 will.

Part Three

X died on August 15, 1988 leaving an estate valued at P600, 000.00.

Compute the legitimes of the following heirs who survived X.

1. A, B & C (legitimate children – LC); D (Surviving Spouse - SS) and E (Father)

2. A, B & C (Illegitimate Children - IC); D (SS); E (Grandfather)

3. 1LC; 3 IC; SS

4. A (Illegitimate Parent - IP); B(IC)

5. A & B(IPs); C (SS)

6. A (SS); B & C ( Brother & Sister)

7. A (SS); B & C (IC)

8. A (Acknowledged Natural Child); B(Natural Child by Legal Fiction); C(SpuriousC)

9. A(Full Blood Brother); B& C (Half Blood Sisters)

10. (PaternalGrandMother); B (PGF); C (MaternalGF)

Part FOUR
Give direct and concise but complete answers.
Cite authorities, if any.

1. 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.

2. Mr. Reyes executed a will completely valid as to form. A week later, however, he executed
another will which expressly revoked his first will, following which he tore his 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?

3. In probate proceedings, what are the only questions which a probate court can determine?

4. 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?

5. 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?

6. Don died after executing a Last Will and Testament leaving his estate valued at P12 Million to his
common-law wife Roshelle. He is survived by his brother Ronie and his half-sister Michelle.

Was Don’s testamentary disposition of his estate in accordance with the law on succession?
Whether you agree or not, explain your answer.

7. 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
legitime of each, and how much is the free portion of his estate, if any?

8. 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 P1,2000,000.00, 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?

9. What do you understand by “presumptive legitime”, in what case or cases must the parent deliver
such legitime to the children, and what are the legal effects in each case if the parent fails to do
so?
10. John and Paula, 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. Paula bore John three children, Peter, Paula 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 survivor between them the entire estate would go to
Peter and Paula only but the two could not dispose of nor divide the London estate as
long as they live. John and Paula died tragically in the London Subway terrorist attack in
2005. Peter and Paula filed a petition for probate of their parent’s will before a Makati
Regional Trial Court.
b) Are the testamentary dispositions valid?
c) Is the testamentary prohibition against the division of the London estate valid?

11. 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 as follows:

“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?

12. X died intestate in 1985 leaving 3 legitimate children (A, B & C) and 2 ANC (D & E).
He donated P30T to F, a friend, in 1970; to A, P40T in 1975, and to D, P50T in 1980. He
left an estate amounting to P100,000.00 with debts in the amount of P40T.

Who will inherit from the estate? Give their respective shares.

13. What is preterition? What are its requisites? What is its effect?

14. Because her eldest son Juan had been pestering her for capital to start a business, Josefa gave him
P100,000.00. 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
property 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.
15. 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.

16. Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten Million (P10, 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 entitle to Mr. Luna’s estate and why?

17. Mr. Palma, widower, has three daughters D, D-1 and D-2. 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 P1,000,000.00. Upon Mr. Palma’s death, how should his estate be divided?
Explain.

18. 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 question by Ana upon Jose’s death. If
you were the judge, how would you resolve this question? Give your reasons.