Lyceum Northwestern University

Wills and Succession

Midterm Examination

Prof. Cheryl L. Daytec

Read each question very carefully before answering sequentially, clearly and
concisely. Do not repeat the question. You may neither restate the problem nor modify
the facts. A mere “yes” or “no” answer will not merit any credit. Ratiocinate.

Cheating entails fatal consequences.

-I-

Jake was a citizen of the state of Nevada, USA which does not recognize the system
of legitime. While pursuing his masteral studies in the University of Minnesota, he
had a non-marital child named Ellie with his American classmate. Jake’s American
father was a billionaire who owned a bank in the US. He pursued his doctoral studies
in Lyceum-Northwestern University in the Philippines where he met a Filipina
woman named Andi. They fell in love and got married. They had two children namely
Philmar and Jaclyn. He established residence in Baguio City with his family.

Jake’s father died. In his will, he left half of his wealth - the equivalent of USD500M -
to Jake. The entire estate was in the US and in Europe.

Subsequently, Jake who remained an American, made a holographic will in the

Philippines giving all of the money he inherited from his father to Ellie. After making
the will, he asked his secretary to review it. The secretary noticed that Jake wrote only
the month and the year when the will was written. So she wrote the day before the
month using the same blue pen Jake used. She told Jake about it and asked him to
countersign the insertion, which he did. Jake praised his secretary for being efficient
and asked her to safekeep the will.

A year later, Jake had the will probated in the Regional Trial Court and the Court
approved it.

After another year, Jake had a stroke that was almost fatal. He developed short-term
memory loss.

He asked Atty Pimpy Man to draft another will. But Pimpy told him he could not
make a new will because he already made one that was probated.

Another lawyer, Atty. Raffy Tulfake, told him that he should indeed make a new will
as the first one would be voided because he deprived other compulsory heirs of their
legitimes contrary to the Civil Code of the Philippines.

1|Page
1. Was the RTC correct in probating the holographic will?
2. Was Atty. Pimpy Man correct that Jake could not make a new will because he
already made one which was in fact probated?

3. Was Atty. Raffy Tulfake correct that the first will was void for depriving
compulsory heirs of their legitimes contrary to the Civil Code?

-II-

Still suffering from short-term memory loss, Jake decided to make a new will which,
this time, was a notarial one. The will was written in English and it was witnessed by
Atty. Pimpy Man and three other people. Two of the witnesses did not understand
English.

The will consisted of three sheets. The first sheet was merely a recital of Jake’s hopes
and dreams for his children and words of wisdom that he wanted to be passed on to
his future descendants. It did not contain any disposition of his estate.

The second page contained all of the dispositions of the testator. He willed the entirety
of the estate in the US and Europe inherited from his father to his nonmarital child
Ellie and all his properties in the Philippines worth PhP400M to his wife and children
Jaclyn and Philmart in equal shares. Philmart was given only PhP20M.

The third sheet of the will contained only the attestation clause duly signed at the
bottom by Atty. Pimpy Man and the other witnesses.

The first and second sheets were signed by the testator and the witnesses on the right
hand margin. At the end of the dispositions on the second page, Enrigue affixed his
thumbmark above his name printed in bold letter.

All the three pages were numbered in Arabic numerals.

The will was acknowledged before Atty. Pimpy Man.

Two months later, Jake had a fatal stroke.

Jaclyn who was appointed administrator submitted the will for probate in the
Regional Trial Court. The probate was opposed by her brother Philmart on various
grounds, which will be mentioned below.

If you were the judge, rule on each of Philmart’s oppositions:

1) that the will should not be admitted to probate because he was deprived of his
full legitime;

2|Page
2) that Jake lacked testamentary capacity because he had short-term memory loss
when he made his will;

3) that the will was signed on the right margin and not on the left margin by the
testator and the witnesses as required by the Civil Code;

4) that the will was numbered in Arabic numerals and not in letters as required by the
Civil Code;

5) that one of the witnesses, Atty Pimpy Man, was also the lawyer before whom the
will was acknowledged;

6) that two of the witnesses did not understand English;

7) that Jake did not sign the will but merely affixed his thumbmark.

-III-

Mr A wrote a will naming his spouse and his children as his heirs.

Two years later he made another will naming his brothers as his sole heirs and
expressly disinheriting his spouse and children.

After a year, he made a will stating that he was dropping his brothers as his heirs.

1. Was the first will revived?

2. Would your answer be the same if the 2nd will expressly revoked the first will?

-IV-

Mr A made a holographic will in the US. He left the only copy to his secretary. While
on vacation in the Philippines, he remembered that he forgot to date the holographic
will so he called his secretary to date it which the secretary did. This is allowed by the
law of the state where Mr. A made the will.

In dating the will, the secretary wrote only the month and year when the will was
made.

1. May the will be probated in the Philippines as a holographic will even if the
will is not wholly in the hand of the testator as his secretary was the one who
wrote the date?

3|Page
 2. May a holographic will be probated even if its original copy was lost but there
are existing scanned copies?

-V-

Mr. A made a will. He instituted heirs except one of his children without specifying a
cause. Later, with animus revocandi or intent to revoke he gave the will to X with the
instruction to burn it. When X got home, he burned the will. He called Mr A to report
his action. Mr. A thanked him.

1. Was the will revoked?

2. Regardless of your answer to (1), what legal implications arise from the
preterition of one of Mr. A's children in the will?

4|Page