1. Yes, The acknowledgement and donation mortis causa is valid.

Under the New Civil Code, a testator has the right to institute an heir by designating him in his will
that such person is to succeed him in his property and transmissible rights and obligations.

In this case, such acknowledgement of the testator and including such in his will shall validate his
unborn conceived child as an heir and shall be given rights to succeed him in his properties upon his
death.

2. No the opposition is incorrect.

Under the new civil code, if a Filipino executes a will abroad not before the diplomatic or consular
officials of the Philippines then such will shall be subject to the law of the place where such will has
been executed.

In this case, since Mr. X executed his will in New York, and not before any diplomatic or consular
officials then the rule of Lex Loci Celebrationis shall apply, where the law of the land where the
contract is made shall be followed. Since under the New York’s law the attestation’s clause needs not
be signed, Therefore, the opposition is incorrect.

3. No, the tearing shall not amount to revocation.

Under the New Civil Code, a will may be revoked by implication of law, by some will, codicil or other
subsequent instrument, and by means of over act. And there must exist animus revocandi.

In this case, though tearing is an act of revocation by means of an over act. The scenario shows that
the cause of tearing was due to the anger of the testator, and not his intention to revoke the will.
Such emotion does not constitute to an implied intention to revoke. Therefore, the tearing does not
amount to the revocation of the will.

4. If I am the judge of the issue I will apply Article 16 of the New civil code.

Article 16 of the new civil code provides that, in testamentary successions, it shall be regulated by the
national law of the person whose succession is under consideration.

In this case, Since Mr. X was a naturalized citizen of California, USA. Then, the court shall determine
the application of the law of California in testamentary succession, and then apply it to the properties
located here in the Philippines.

5-a. No the Will should not be admitted to probate.

Under the New civil code, 2 or more persons cannot make a will jointly, it is prohibited by our laws
even if such will was made in a foreign country where such joint will is valid.

In this case, the joint will of John & Marsha by virtue of the Philippine law is prohibited. Therefore it
cannot be admitted for probate.

B. No, the testamentary dispositions are invalid.

Under the New Civil Code, compulsory heirs cannot be preterited. They shall be entitled on equal
shares to half of the inheritance of the deceased.

In this case, Joshua a legitimate child of John and Marsha is a compulsory heir. Therefore, he cannot
be preterited.

5. Gemma’s claim should be granted.

The new civil code provides that cancellation, insertion, erasures, and alteration in a holographic will
shall be authenticated by the testator by his full signature.

In this case, since the alteration was not authenticated by the full signature of the testator, Therefore,
Gemma’s claim should be given preference.

6-a. Yes the holographic will of Dr. Sanchez can be admitted to probate in the Philippines.
The law provides that Philippines recognizes holographic wills as long as the formalities of the law are
all followed.
In this case, since Dr. Sanchez was still a Filipino citizen upon the execution of the will, and such will is
executed here in the Philippines, It shall be governed by the Philippine law. Therefore, it can be
admitted to probate in the Philippines.

C. Yes, Fred can validly insist that he be given his legitime.

The new civil code provides that a recognized illegitimate son, may be a compulsory heir and subject
to the testamentary successions of the properties of the deceased.

In this case, although Dr. Sanchez has acquired a foreign citizenship, the will under probate is
governed by the laws of the Philippines, and compulsory heirs under our laws cannot be omitted.
Therefore, Fred as a compulsory heir can validly insist that he be given his legitime.

Yes, the will may be admitted to probate.

The new civil code provides that notarial will’s formal requisites are to be followed in the execution of
the will and one of this is “That the signing by the 3 witnesses must be done in the presence of the
testator and each and every one of them”.

In this case, there are more than 3 witnesses, therefore even though Anna kept going to the restroom
it does not mean that she has not witnessed the execution and the same goes for Lorna, Ben also,
offered to notarized the will does not invalidate it, because there are more than 3 witnesses which is
sufficient as required by law. Therefore, the will may be admitted for probate.

Yes, there is revocation in this case.

Under the new civil code, a will may be revoked by implication of law, by some will, codicil or other
subsequent instruments, or by means of an overt act.

In this case, the burning signifies the overt act, and the testator clearly has the intention of revoking
it. Although he burned not those will, His intentions implicitly revoked the will. Since the execution of
a will is purely a personal act. The revoked will though not destroyed by means of fraud by his
nephew would not be accepted for probate.

Yes, the first will can be admitted to the testator’s last will and testament.

Under the new civil code, a testator may republish his will, if previously, the testator revoked his will
and he would like to give life to this revoked will.

In this case, Although the first will was implicitly revoked by 2 nd will, the act and his intention to
republish the first will can be noted by him executing a codicil expressly revoking the second will. And
since the second will is revoked by the codicil. It is now the first will by virtue of that codicil can be
admitted to the testator’s last will and testament.