BASIC SUCCESSION

ACTIVITY
Directions: Explain your answers with authority.

A. On January 8, 2012, Willie Revilla executed a holographic will, wherein he

gave nothing to his non-marital son, Bato. Willie thereafter left for Canada and
became a naturalized Canadian citizen. He died in Canada in 2017. The laws of
Canada do not recognize holographic wills or compulsory heirs.
1. Can the holographic will of Willie be admitted to probate in the Philippines?
Explain.

Answer: Yes, the holographic will of Willie may be admitted to probate in

the Philippines. Under Article 17 of the New Civil Code, an alien testator
may observe the law of the place where he resides, or according to the
formalities of the law of his own country, or in accordance with Philippine
law of the Civil Code. Since Willie Revilla executed his will in accordance
with Philippine law, the Philippine court shall apply the New Civil Code in
determining the formal validity of the holographic will. Furthermore, under
the New Civil Code, the law in force at the time of execution of the will
shall govern the formal validity of the will.

2. Assuming that his holographic will is probated in the Philippines, can Bato
validly insist that he be given his legitime? Explain.

Answer: No. Bato cannot insist because Canadian law does not recognize
compulsory heir. Article 16 of the new civil code provides that intestate and
testamentary successions both with respect to the order of succession and to
the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration. Since, Willie Revilla was a Canadian
citizen, the laws in Canada determines who his heirs are. And since
Canadian law does not recognize the concept of compulsory heirs, Bato is
not a compulsory heir of Willie thus, not entitled to a legitime.
B. At age 18, Bea Bunda 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 Dominic Rock, the father of her unborn child,
were attacked by robbers while they were on vacation. It was discovered that Bea
Bunda and Dominic Rock were hacked with bolos. Bea Bunda and the baby
delivered were both found dead, with the baby's umbilical cord already cut.
Dominic Rock survived. Between Bea Bunda and the baby, who is presumed to
have died ahead? Explain.

Answer: If the baby was not alive when completely delivered from the
mother’s womb, it was not born as a person. Since the baby had an intra-uterine
life of more than 7 months, it would be considered born if it was alive, at the time
of its complete delivery from the mother’s womb. We can gather from the facts
that the baby was completely delivered. But whether or not it was alive has to be
proven by evidence. If the baby was alive when completely delivered from the
mother’s womb, then it was born as a person and the question of who survived as
between the baby and the mother shall be resolved by the provisions of the Rules
of Court on survivorship. This is because the question has nothing to do with
succession. As between the baby who was under 15 years old and Bea Bunda who
was 18 years old, the baby is presumed to have ahead.

C. Dr. Bayani, a 70-year-old widower, and his son Dagul both died in a fire that
gutted their home while they were sleeping in their air-conditioned rooms. Dagul’s
wife, Kakay, and their two children were spared because they were in the province
at the time. Dr. Bayani left an estate worth P20M and a life insurance policy in the
amount of P1M with his three children, including Dagul, as beneficiaries. Kakay is
now claiming for herself and her children her husband’s share in the estate left by
Dr. Bayani, and her husband’s share in the proceeds of Dr. Bayani’s life insurance
policy. Rule on the validity of Kakay’s claims. Explain.

Answer: Kakay is not entitled to a share in the estate of Dr. Bayani. Dr. Bayani
and his son Dagul are presumed to have died at the same time, and Article 43 of
the New Civil Code provides that when there is doubt, between two or more
persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them who died first,
in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and there
shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other. Hence, Dagul inherited
nothing from his father that Kakay would in turn inherit from Dagul.
As to the share in the proceed of life insurance of Dr. Bayani, when Dagul died
after the Dr. Bayani, his right to received the insurance proceeds became part of his
hereditary estate, which in turn was inherited in equal shares by his legal heirs,
such as his spouse and children. Hence, Dagul’s children and his spouses are
entitled to Daguls one-third share in the insurance proceeds.

D. Balmond executed a will which contained only: (i) a provision disinheriting his
daughter Layla 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 Popol and Kupa.
He did not make any provisions in favor of his wife Vexana, 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 Balmond 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 Lancelot, the driver of Balmond; Baxia, the
family cook, and Attorney Helcurt, 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 Balmond 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 MLBB bank. By
examining Art. 805 and 806, what defects of the will, if any, can cause denial of
probate?

Answer: The defects of the will that can cause its denial are as follows: (a) Atty.
Helcurt the one who prepare the will was one of the three witnesses, violating the
three-witness 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 to be correctively in letter on the upper part of the three pages.

Reiterating the case of Azuela vs. CA, G.R. No. 122880, it says that a will whose
attestation clause does not contain the number of pages on which the will is written
is fatally defective. A will whose attestation clause is not signed by the
instrumental witnesses is fatally defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will
which does not contain an acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally defective.
Any one of these defects is sufficient to deny probate. A notarial will with all three
defects is just aching for judicial rejection.