LMT – Succession Final Exam 13Dec2021

1. Pedro and Jose are brothers of Maria. Albert is the child of Pedro. Bernard is the child of Jose.
Crisostomo is the son of Bernard and therefore the grandchild of Jose. Pedro, Jose and Bernard are
all dead. Crisostomo claims a share by right of representation. Albert said that Crisostomo cannot
have a share in the estate of Maria. Whose contention is correct? Decide (10 points).

The contention of Albert is correct.

Under the law, the right of representation in the collateral line takes place only in favor of the
children of brothers or sisters.

In the instant case, Crisostomo is the grandson of the deceased Jose and the grandnephew of Maria.
Hence, he is not called by law to represent his ancestors to succeed Maria. Moreover, to apply the
proximity rule, Albert excludes Crisostomo in succeeding the inheritance of Maria because the
former is the nearest relative of the decedent. Therefore, the contention of Albert must be correct.

2. Maria is the illegitimate child of Juan. She filed an action for the declaration of absence of her father
and for her appointment as the administratrix of the estate of her father. Jose and Pedro, the
brothers of Juan, contested the petition of Maria on the ground that under the Iron Bar Rule, she is
prohibited from inheriting from the relatives of her father. Decide the petition of Maria. (10 points).

The petition of Maria is meritorious.

Under the law, an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children
and relatives of his father or mother.

In the given problem, the legal action sought by Maria was merely to declare the absence of her
father and to administer his estate. She did not seek her legal heirship or legitime to the subject
estate. Hence, the Iron Bar Rule set up by Article 992 of the New Civil Code is inapplicable.
Moreover, it was the estate of Juan, her father, and not his legitimate relatives, that was the subject
of the proceedings. Although illegitimate, Maria has the right to succeed and administer the estate
of her deceased father in accordance with the hereditary rights granted to her under Article 990 of
the same Code. Thus, her petition has merit.

3. Pedro died intestate leaving as heirs his siblings Juan, Jose and Maria. In a petition for judicial
settlement of estate of intestate estate and issuance of letters of administration, filed by Maria, she
alleged that a parcel of land which was, by Deed of Donation, transferred by Pedro to Juan, is
considered as an advance legitime of Juan, hence, subject to collation. The probate court found the
Deed of Donation valid and thus went on to hold that it is subject to collation. Is the probate court
correct? Decide. (10 points)

No, the probate court is incorrect.

Under the law, the compulsory heirs are obliged to collate the donated property to protect their
legitime.
 In the case presented, there were no compulsory heirs, whose legitimes would be affected by the
said donation. The law sees the siblings of Pedro as only legal heirs. In fine, the donated property
should not be a subject to collation. Thus, the probate court committed error when it collated the
property in question.

4. Pedro Cruz asserts entitlement to a share to the estate of the late Juan dela Cruz and assails the
finality of the order of the trial court awarding the entire estate to Jose Reyes. Juan dela Cruz is
without any direct descendants or ascendants. Jose Reyes is the maternal uncle of the decedent, or
a third-degree relative of the decedent. While Pedro Cruz is the son of a first cousin of the deceased,
or a fifth degree relative of the deceased. May Pedro Cruz inherit alongside Jose Reyes? (10 points)

No, Pedro Cruz cannot inherit alongside Jose Reyes.

Under the law, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate in the absence of any sibling
of the decedent or of any children of his siblings, subject to the Rule of Proximity.

In the instant problem, both Pedro Cruz and Jose Reyes were collateral relatives of the decedent.
Since the latter had no direct descendants or ascendants, they were called by law to inherit the
disputed estate. However, they were not of the same degree. Pedro Cruz was five degrees removed
from the decedent, which fact clearly established that he was more distant in relation as compared
with Jose Reyes, who was a third degree relative. Applying the Rule of Proximity, Jose Reyes
excludes Pedro Cruz. Therefore, the latter cannot inherit alongside the former.

5. Pedro died testate and was survived by Juan and Jose, his children from his first wife; Maria and
Ruby, his children from his second wife; and Albert, Beatrice, and Chase, 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 Juan at Maria 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? (10 points).

No, the provision is not valid.

Under the law, the testator may expressly forbid the partition of his property, but which shall not
exceed twenty years.

In the given case, Pedro made an express prohibition of partitioning his house and lot in Manila for
eternity. While the law allows him to set such condition, the indivisibility of his properties is subject
to a statutory limitation. His properties can only be preserved from being partitioned within the
period of twenty (20) years. After its lapse, any heir has a right to demand the division of the estate.
Thus, the said provision of the Will of Pedro is invalid.

6. Pedro filed an ejectment case against Juan. The MTC denied in favor of Juan and ordered Pedro to
vacate the premises. In retaliation, Pedro filed a civil case in the RTC for specific performance
 alleging that their contract of lease also contained an option to buy through which Juan gave Pedro
the preferential right to purchase the subject property in the event the same was put on sale.
Meanwhile, without notice to Juan, Pedro acquired a 3/9 portion of the subject property from one
of the co-owners. The RTC held that Pedro has the preferential right to acquire the property in
question and declared Pedro to be co-owner of the house and lot in question for having acquired by
purchase at least 3/9 portion of the questioned property. The CA modified the decision of the RTC
and gave Juan 30 days from finality of judgment to redeem the 3/9 portion of the disputed property
acquired by Pedro from Juan’s co-owner. Is the CA correct? Decide. (10 points)

No, the CA is not correct.

Under the law, the right of legal redemption may be exercised by a co-owner within the period of
thirty (30) days from the written notice given by the vendor.

In this case, Pedro did not notify in writing Juan about the sale, from which the latter may redeem
the 3/9 portion of the co-owned property within the period of 30 days. This written notice is
indispensable to commence the right of redemption. In its absence, the CA should have issued an
order to Pedro to notify Juan in writing, stating the execution of the sale and its particulars. From
the issuance of written notice, Juan is given 30 days to redeem the sold portion of the property and
not from the finality of judgment. Hence, the CA committed the error.

7. Pedro, Juan, and Jose are the children of Maria. A and B are the children of Pedro. B and C are the
children of Juan. D is the child of Jose. The estate is 1.5 million pesos. If Pedro, Juan and Jose
repudiated the inheritance, how will you divide the estate of Maria?

The estate of Maria shall be divided equally among the children of Pedro, Juan and Jose.

Under the law, when the inheritance is repudiated by all the nearest relatives called by law to
succeed, those of the following degree shall inherit in their own right per capita.

In the instant case, the repudiation made by all children of Maria calls her grandchildren to succeed
her estate because they are the next nearest relative in succession. The children of Pedro, Juan and
Jose will inherit the estate of Maria in their own right. They will divide the inheritance per capita or
in equal shares. Thus, the grandchildren shall receive PhP300,000.00 each.

8. Jose died intestate. His estate is 1.4 Million pesos. Pedro and Juan are the legitimate children. Maria
is the surviving spouse. A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are the illegitimate children. Divide the estate. (10
points)

Pedro and Juan shall each receive PhP350,000.00; while Maria shall also receive PhP350,000.00, and
the remaining PhP350,000.00 shall be shared equally by the illegitimate children.

Under the law, when the illegitimate children survive with the legitimate children, the shares of the
former shall be in the proportions prescribed under testamentary succession. In case a spouse
survives with those same descendants, such widow or widower shall be entitled to the same share
as that of a legitimate child.
 In the cited problem, the PhP1.4 Million estate shall be divided into three classes of heirs, taking into
consideration the legitime of the legitimate children as in testamentary succession. Since there were
two legitimate children namely Pedro and Juan, each of them shall receive PhP350,000.00, which
constitute half of the entire estate. Maria, who was the surviving spouse, is entitled to a share of
other PhP350,000.00 equivalent to the value received by a legitimate child. Once the share of the
first two classes of heirs are satisfied, the remainder of PhP350,000.00 shall be divided in equal
share among the eight illegitimate children.

9. In 2000, Pedro accused his father, Juan, of a crime of which the law prescribes a death penalty and
Juan knowing of the accusation, made a will in 2005 expressly disinheriting Pedro because of the
accusation. What should Juan do if he wants to revoke the disinheritance of Pedro? (10points).

In order to revoke the disinheritance of Pedro, Juan may execute a subsequent will to invalidate the
first will, which excluded Pedro from the inheritance. In the alternative, he may forgive Pedro and
both parties shall reconcile to restore their relations. In the latter case, the reconciliation must be
mutual to erase the effect of disinheritance.

Under the law, a subsequent reconciliation between the offended testator and the disinherited heir
shall render the disinheritance without any effect.

10. Pedro sold his land to Juan, his son. But it was alleged that the sale was in fact a donation. Two years
after the donation, Pedro filed a complaint for annulment of the said Deed of Sale on the ground
that he was deceived into signing the said document. But said dispute was resolved through a
compromise agreement, under which terms: 1. Pedro recognized the legality and validity of the
rights of Juan to the land donated; and 2. Pedro agreed to sell a designated 1,000sqm portion of the
donated land, and to deposit the proceeds thereof in the bank, for the convenient disposal of Pedro.
Pending execution of said judgment, Pedro died, leaving only 2 heirs, his natural son Juan and
adopted son, Victor. Victor was substituted in place of Pedro in the said case and it was he who
moved for execution of judgment. Thereafter, Victor died single and without an issue, survived only
by his natural father, Cesar. Thereafter, Cesar died, leaving as his only heirs, Ricardo and Teresa.
Ricardo and Teresa filed a complaint seeking to nullify the Deed of Sale between Pedro and their
natural brother, Victor, alleging that the conveyance of said property impaired the legitime of Victor.
In this case, when Pedro died, it was only Victor who was entitled to question the donation. But
instead of filing an action to contest the donation, Victor asked to be substituted as plaintiff and
even moved for the execution of the judgment. Was there renunciation of inheritance on the part of
Victor when he asked to be substituted as plaintiff and even moved for the execution of the
judgment, instead of filing an action to contest the donation. (10 points).

No, there was no renunciation of inheritance on the part of Victor when he asked to be substituted
as plaintiff and even moved for the execution of the judgment.

Under the law, the repudiation of an inheritance shall be made expressly either in a public
instrument or by a petition to the court.
In the given case, the act of Victor cannot be considered an act of repudiation of his share in the
inheritance as contemplated by the Law on Succession, which does not allow implied repudiation.
The law requires an express act on the part of Victor to renounce his legitime, either by executing a
public document notarized by an attorney at law or by filing a petition in court to that effect. Clearly,
the act of Victor did not fall in any ways of express repudiation.