22-10031

Basic Succession

1. No. There is no compliance to the formalities required under Article 805

of the New Civil Code, which provides that the will’s attestation clause
must state the number of pages of the will, however this defect can be
cured through intrinsic evidence.

Yes, lawyers are qualified to be a witness to a will. There’s no provision

in the New Civil Code that prohibits lawyers to be a witness to a will.
However, in the case at bar, all the subscribing witnesses are working
in the same law office where the will was notarized, which make the
will null and void.

2. Manuel contention is with merit, all the acquired properties of Alfonso

at the time of his death must be treated that it was as if, all existing at
the time he wrote the will. Therefore, Manuel is entitled to be the sole
heir of all the properties of his brother, Alfonso.

3. Yes, the joint will, executed by Alden and Stella who were both former
Filipinos were valid. The New Civil Code prohibits joint will of Filipinos.
However, Alden and Stela, were naturalized as American Netizens. In
United States, joint wills are allowed therefore the executed joint will of
the couple were construed and approved under the law of the country
where they are residing during the execution of the joint will.

Yes, the joint will produce legal effect in the Philippines with respect to
the properties of Alden and Stela found here, while it ‘s true that joint
will are prohibited in the Philippines, but under the principle of Lex Loci
celebrationis, joint will that was executed outside of the country, will be
treated under existing laws of the place where the execution of joint
will was made even with the properties that are located here in the
Philippines.

3.-A No, the provision was not valid, the phrase “habang panahon” make it
invalid because it exceeds to the twenty years that was allowed by the New
Civil Code for the provision that is about managing and administering of a
property. A provision must be straight forward and must mention a specific
timeline.
4. No, Josie cannot initiate the probate proceedings of their joint will here
in the Philippines. Yes, it is true that in European country the execution
of joint will is allowed but Ric and Josie executed their joint will in a
European country while still holding their nationality as Filipino. Thus,
possessing their nationality as Filipino at the time of the execution of
their joint will, limits Josie to initiate the probate of the said joint will.

5. Yes, the said Joint will can be probated in the Philippines, with regards
to Eleanor’s settlement of her state. As Eleanor being an American
Citizen, her joint will with Manuel under the Law of Massachusetts can
be probated here in the Philippines. With regards to Manuel, being a
Filipino citizen, he will not be allowed to probate the said joint will here
in Philippines, because the New civil Code prohibits joint will to the
Filipino Citizens.

6. Yes, Stevie can make a will provided that it must adhere with the
condition of two times proof reading of the will, it must be done with
one of the subscribing witnesses, he must read the content of the will
in Stevie’s presence and second reading must be done by the notary
public who will notarized the said will.

No, Stevie cannot act as a witness to a will, the law provides for
qualifications of a witness, which are the following, a witness must
know how to read and write, not deaf, blind or dumb. Being blind,
Stevie does not meet the qualification of a witness to a will.

Yes, the Civil Code required that the will must be read to Stevie, two
times before he will sign the will.

7. No, the fact that only the testator Miguel can understand the Ilocano
dialect does not invalidate the will, as the civil code only requires that
the will must be construed and written to the dialect or language that
the testator can understand and speak. The civil code does not require
that the witnesses must understand the language or dialect that was
used in making the will. The absence of the marginal signatures of the
testator and the witnesses does not invalidate the will, mere absence
of the marginal signatures defect can be cured through the presence
of their signatures on the last part of the testamentary disposition and
at the bottom of the attestation clause.
No, the will cannot be admitted for probate because a major defect was
incurred and does not meet the compliance to the formalities required
under Article 805 of the New Civil Code. The witnesses were able to
signed in the presence of the testator at the end of the will and at the
bottom of the attestation clause, however it was not mentioned that they
were saw that the testator signed, the end of the will and the bottom part
of the attestation clause, the law provides that the testator and all the
witnesses must be present and saw that the testator was able to affix his
signature to the end of the will and on the bottom of the attestation clause.

8. The other defects of the will that might cause the denial of probate are
the following: a.) In the attestation clause the number of pages where
not mention. b.) There are no marginal signatures or pagination
appearing in all three pages. Marginal signatures should be affix on the
left margin of each page, and there must be an indication of pages in
word on the upper part of the pages. c.) One of the instrumental
witnesses is Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared the will. Atty.
Zorba being the lawyer who prepared the will disqualifies him to be one
of the instrumental witnesses, therefore the will is invalid because it
does not meet the requirements that there must be three or more
credible instrumental witnesses that will attest and fix their signatures
to the will. d.) Disinheriting a legitimate child is also not allowed as
legitimate children are part of the testator legitime. Disinheritance is
only allowed when a child filed a criminal case against a testator, mere
running off with a married man, does not rise to a legal reason for
disinheriting a child.

9. It depends. If the alteration was made with the consent of Natividad,

the altered form must be given effect, but if there’s no consent from
Natividad regarding the alteration then the unaltered from of the will
should be given effect. The law provides that in Holographic will, when
there are some alterations, it must be notarized by a notary public with
the testator’s signature, while if there’s an alteration in a notarized will
the law does not require the notary public to notarize the alterations.

10. The will of Clara cannot be admitted to probate because it does

not meet the formalities required by the New Civil Code Under Article
805. Though, signing a will using a thumbmark does not invalidate a
will, however Clara’s mentioning that she can sign her full name later,
signifies that she didn’t treat her thumbmark as her official signature
 for that will. Secondly, Roberta, was not able to witness the other
witnesses affixing their signatures because she was not present for
long periods of time, the civil code provides that all the witnesses must
saw and witness the affixing of the signatures of other witnesses and
the affixing of the testator signature to the will. Same with Hannah, as
she is reading, she cannot see directly with her own eyes the direction
where the witnesses and testator affixing their signatures. For
Benjamin, he is disqualified to be a witness because he also the one
who notarize the will.

11. No, the 2013 will does not codicil the 2019 will, the civil code
requires that for extraordinary absence, the Ten years timeline must
be met and another four years before we can presume the death of
an heir. In the case at bar, it was only five years that Karl did not
return to Philippines, thus making the codicil invalid. Codicil cannot be
made basing on untrue facts and must pass the contestability period
before we can presume the death of an heir.

In distributing the estate of Agaton, assuming that there are no other

ascendant and descendant heir. The estate of Agaton must be given
to Karl. As Agaton mentioned in his Codicil, “Because of the death of
Karl, I revoke my 2013 will” and the fact that Karl is not dead, the
codicil is void.

12. Yes, the acknowledgment and the donation mortis causa are
valid, the unborn conceived child, even though he is still unborn
already have the right to be acknowledged. For the event of donation
mortis cause, an unborn child already has the capacity to receive
donation due to unexpected event like death.