1975-2004

Succession; acceptance, repudiation, collation Succession; barrier between illegitimate and

1977 No. XIII-a legitimate relatives 1993 No. 2;
Distinguish acceptance and repudiation of inheritance A is the acknowledged natural child of B who died
from collation. when A was already 22 years old. When B's full blood
brother, C, died he (C) was survived by his widow and four
Answer children of his other brother. D. Claiming that he is
Acceptance is the act of an heir, legatee or devisee in entitled to inherit from his father's brother. C, A brought
manifesting his desire in accordance with the suit to obtain his share in the estate of C. Will his action
formalities prescribed by law to succeed to the prosper?
inheritance, legacy or devise, while repudiation is the
act of an heir, legatee or devisee in manifesting his Answer:
desire in accordance with the formalities prescribed No, the action of A will not prosper. On the premise
by law not to succeed to such inheritance, legacy or that B, C and D are legitimate brothers, as an
devise. illegitimate child of B, A cannot inherit in intestacy from C
who is a legitimate brother of B. Only the wife of C
Collation, on the other hand, refers to the act of in her own right and the legitimate relatives of C (i.e.
restoring to the common mass of the hereditary the children of D as C's legitimate nephews inheriting as
estate, either actually or fictitiously, any property or collateral relatives) can inherit in intestacy. (Arts. 992,
right, which a compulsory heir, who succeeds with 1001, 1OO5 and 975, Civil Code)
other compulsory heirs, may have received by way of
donation or any other gratuitous title from the Alternative Answer:
decedent during the lifetime of the latter, but which is The action of A will not prosper. Being an illegitimate, he
understood for legal purposes as an advance of his is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting
legitime. ab intestato from the legitimate relatives of his father.
(NOTE: The above answer may be stated substantially).
Succession; barrier between legitimate and
Succession; barrier between illegitimate and illegitimate relatives 1983 No. 9
legitimate relatives 1984 No. 9 A, a spurious child, died intestate survived by B, the
A had two sons, one legitimate (B) and the other brother of his deceased mother, and C, his mother's
illegitimate (C), who both died in a car accident. At legitimate granddaughter. May B and C inherit from A?
the time of the accident, B was not married but had Reasons.
an illegitimate son, D. C also had an illegitimate son,
E. Upon learning of the death of his sons, A suffered a Answer
heart attack and died. Can D and E inherit from A? Explain B cannot because uncles have no right to inherit from
their illegitimate nephews. C cannot succeed either
Answer: because legitimate relatives have no right to inherit
A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma, from an illegitimate child and vice versa.
D, cannot inherit. The illegitimate child cannot inherit
from the legitimate Succession; capacity to inherit; conditional devise
relatives of his father or mother, {Art. 992). 1980 No. VII
E can inherit. The rights of illegitimate children are (a) In his will, Reverend Father "R' devised a parcel of
transmitted upon their riceland in favor of "his nearest male relative who would
death to their descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. (Art study for the priesthood." The Will was duly probated.
990). No nephew of the testator claimed the devise and the
testate proceeding remained pending. In the interim, the
Succession; barrier between illegitimate and riceland was to be administered by the Parish Priest of the
legitimate relatives 1996 No. 11: locality pursuant to a project of partition approved by the
Probate Court. Twenty-one years after the testator's
Cristina. the illegitimate daughter of Jose and Maria, death, the Parish Priest filed a petition before the Court
died Intestate, without any descendant or ascendant. for delivery of the rice land to the Church as trustee. The
Her valuable estate is being claimed by Ana, the legal heirs of Father "R" objected and prayed instead that
legitimate daughter of Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate the bequest be declared inoperative and that they be
son of Maria. adjudged entitled to the rice land. It also turned out that
Is either, both, or neither of them entitled to inherit? the testator had a grandnephew (a grandson of his first
Explain. cousin) who was taking the holy orders
in a Seminary. Would you construe the testamentary
Answer; provision liberally so as to render the trust operative
Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of ab and to prevent intestacy, or would you declare the
intestato from Cristina. Both are legitimate relatives of bequest inoperative and the legal heirs entitled to the
Cristina's illegitimate parents and therefore they fall riceland?
under the prohibition prescribed by Art. 992, NCC
(Manuel v. Ferrer, 242 SCRA 477; Diaz v. Court of Appeals,
182 SCRA 427).
Answer Yes, because there is a presumed donation in favor
of Joaquina under Art. 1448 of the Civil Code (De los
(a) It depends. If the Seminarian, who is presently Santos v. Reyes, 27 January 1992, 206 SCRA 437).
studying for the priesthood, was born before the death However, the donation should be collated to the
of Father "R", it is submitted that the testamentary hereditary estate and the legitime of the other heirs
provision should be liberally construed so as to prevent should be preserved.
intestacy. The land should be delivered to the
Parish Priest as trustee or administrator. The reason is Alternative Answer;
obvious. There is always the possibility that the Yes, the action against Joaquina Roxas will prosper, but
seminarian might not become a priest. True, Father only to the extent of the aliquot hereditary rights of the
"K" devised the land to his nearest nephew male legitimate children as heirs. Joaquina will be entitled
relative who would study for the priesthood. to retain her own share as an illegitimate child, (Arts.
1440 and 1453. Civil Code; Art. 176, F. C.)
Apparently, the condition has already been fulfilled. It is
however, submitted that the testatorial intention is clear. Succession; collation 1978 No. VII-a
The devisee must not only study for the priesthood; he Are the following subject to collation? Explain fully your
must become a priest. Once he becomes a priest, the land answers.
should then be delivered to him. 1. Gifts bestowed by the deceased father during his
If the seminarian was born after the death of Father "R", lifetime for the debts of a son,
bequest is certainly inoperative and the legal heirs of the 2. Money paid by the deceased parent during his lifetime
testator shall, therefore, be entitled to the rice-land. In for the debts of a son.
other -words, the land shall be merged in the mass of the
hereditary estate, and from there, it shall pass to the Answer
legal heirs in accordance with the rules of intestacy 1. Gifts bestowed by the deceased father during his
(Art. 956, Civil Code). The reason is clear. The lifetime to the spouse of his son should not be subject to
seminarian cannot inherit collation. This means that the law will not consider such
from Father "R", Under our law, in order to be capacitated gifts as advances made by the decedent of the
to inherit, the heir, legatee legitime of his son, and therefore, chargeable against
or devisee must be living at the moment the such legitime during the partition of the hereditary
succession opens, except in case of estate. Instead, the law considers such gifts as ordinary
representation when it is proper. (Art. 1025, Civil Code). donations inter vivos made to a stranger, and therefore,
chargeable against the disposable free portion of the
(NOTE: The above problem is obviously a modification estate. It would be different if the gifts are bestowed to
of the problem resolved in Parish Priest of Victoria vs. the spouses jointly. In such case, one-half (1/2) of the
Rigor, 89 SCRA 493. Because of the fact that only one value of such gifts would then be charged against
out of several conditions imposed by the testator was the legitime of the son and the other one-half (1/2)
retained by the Honorable Bar Examiner in the above against the disposable free portion.
hypothetical problem, the Committee
respectfully prays that either one of the above 2. Money paid by the deceased parent during his lifetime
assumptions should be considered as a correct answer. for the debts of a son should be brought to collation. In
The Committee further prays that if a bar candidate reality, what we have here is a donation inter vivos made
assumes that the seminarian was born before the death to a compulsory heir. From the point of view of the
of Father "R" and then advances the opinion that the law, the money is considered as an advance of the
land should be delivered to him because the condition has legitime. Consequently, in the portion of the
already been fulfilled, such an answer should be hereditary estate, the amount should be charged against
considered as a correct answer.) the legitime of the son.

Succession; collation 1993 No. 17; (NOTE: The above answers are based on Arts. 1066
Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio Cruz a residential lot of and 1069 of the Civil
300 square meters in Quezon City for which Joaquin Code and on the view sustained by practically all
paid Julio the amount of P300,000.00, When the deed commentators on the real meaning
was about to be prepared Joaquin told Julio that it of collation under Arts. 1061, et seq., of the Civil Code.)
be drawn in the name of Joaquina Roxas. his
acknowledged natural child. Thus, the deed was so Succession; disinheritance 1999 No VIII,
prepared and executed by Julio. Joaquina then built a (a.) Mr. Palma, widower, has three daughters D, D-l and D-
house on the lot where she, her husband and children 3. He executes a Will disinheriting D because she
resided. Upon Joaquin's death, his legitimate children married a man he did not like, and instituting
sought to recover possession and ownership of the daughters D-1 and D-2 as his heirs to his entire estate of
lot. claiming that Joaquina Roxas was P 1,000,000.00, Upon Mr, Palma's death, how should his
but a trustee of their father. Will the action against estate be divided? Explain. (5%)
Joaquina Roxas prosper?
ANSWER:
Answer: (a) This is a case of ineffective disinheritance because
marrying a man that the father did not approve of is
not a ground for disinheriting D. Therefore, the isqualified to receive the legacy. Ernie will receive the
institution of D-l and D-2 shall be annulled insofar as it legacy In his favor because it is not inofficious. The
prejudices the legitime of D, and the institution of D-l and institution of Baldo, which applies only to the free portion,
D-2 shall only apply on the free portion in the amount of will be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto shall be
P500,000.00. Therefore, D, D-l and D-2 will get their distributed as follows:
legitimes of P500.000.00
divided into three equal parts and D-l and D-2 will Heir Legitime Legacy Institution
get a reduced testamentary disposition of TOTAL
P250,OOO.OO each. Hence, the shares will be:
(paragraph form!) Baldo 500,000 200.000
D - P166,666.66 700,000
D-l P166,666.66 + P25O.OOO.OO Elvira 250,000 250,000
D-2 P166,666.66 + P250,000.00 Ernie 50,000 50,000
TOTAL 750,000 50,000 200,000 1,000,000
Succession; disinheritance vs preterition
2000 No IV
In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1) disinherits
his daughter Wilma because "she is disrespectful Succession; disinheritance vs preterition
towards me and raises her voice talking to me", 2) 1993 No. 7:
omits entirely his spouse Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of Maria, to spite her husband Jorge, whom she suspected
P100,000.00 to his mistress Rosa and P50,000.00 to his was having an affair with another woman, executed a will,
driver Ernie and 4) institutes his son Baldo as his sole heir. unknown to him, bequeathing all the properties she
How will you distribute his estate of P1,000,000.00? (5%) inherited from her parents, to her sister Miguela. Upon
her death, the will was presented for probate. Jorge
SUGGESTED ANSWER: opposed probate of the will on the ground that the will
The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective because was executed by his wife without his knowledge, much
the ground relied upon by the testator does not less consent, and that it deprived him of his legitime.
constitute maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New After all, he had given her no cause for disinheritance,
Civil Code. Hence, the testamentary provisions In the will added Jorge in his opposition.
shall be annulled but only to the extent that her legitime How will you rule on Jorge's opposition to the
was impaired. The total omission of Elvira does not probate of Maria's will. If you were the Judge?
constitute preterition because she is not a compulsory
heir in the direct line. Only compulsory heirs in the Answer;
direct line may be the subject of preterition. Not having As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's opposition
been preterited, she will be entitled only to her should be sustained in part and denied in part. Jorge's
legitime. The legacy in favor of Rosa is omission as spouse of Maria is not preterition of a
void under Article 1028 for being in consideration of her compulsory heir in the direct line. Hence, Art. 854 of the
adulterous relation with the Civil Code does not apply, and the institution of Miguela
testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the as heir is valid, but only to the extent of the free portion
legacy of 100,000 pesos. The legacy of 50,000 pesos in of one-half. Jorge is still entitled to one-half of the estate
favor of Ernie is not inofficious not having exceeded as his legitime. (Art. 1001, Civil Code)
the free portion. Hence, he shall be entitled to receive It.
The institution of Baldo, which applies only to the free Succession; disinheritance, ineffective
portion, shall be respected. In sum, the estate of 1982 No. 13
Lamberto will be distributed as follows: "X’ s only living relatives are his brothers "A" and "B".
"X" executed a will providing as follows: "I institute my
Baldo----------------- 450,000 brother "A" as my sole and universal heir; and I am
Wilma--------------- 250,000 disinheriting my brother "B" because he refused to
Elvira----------------- 250,000 support me when I had nothing." After "X"' s demise,
Ernie----------------- 50,000 is "B" entitled to share in the inheritance on the
ground that the disinheritance was ineffective because
1,000,000 "X" had not proved that he in fact refused to support
the testator? Reason.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
The disinheritance of Wilma was effective because Answer
disrespect of, and raising of voice to, her father constitute "B" is not entitled to share in the inheritance not on
maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New Civil the ground that the
Code. She is, therefore, not entitled to inherit anything. disinheritance was ineffective because "X" had not proved
Her inheritance will go to the other legal heirs. The total that he in fact refused to support the testator. The reason
omission of Elvira Is not preterition because she is not a is evident, "B" is not a compulsory heir. The law on
compulsory heir in the direct line. She will receive disinheritance applied only to compulsory heirs, never
only her legitime. The legacy in favor of Rosa is void to voluntary heirs or to legatees or devisees.
under Article 1028 for being in consideration of her Consequently, even assuming that indeed "X" had not
adulterous relation with the testator. She is, therefore, proved that "B" refused to support him, such fact
would not have only effect whatsoever. The act of "X" Succession; disinheritance; compulsory heirs
in disinheriting "B" is clearly a surplusage. (Note: The 1977 No. XII-c
above answer is based on Arts, 915, et seq. of the Civil Who are compulsory heirs? Give five (5) instances
Code.) which shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance
of children and descendants, legitimate as well as
Succession; disinheritance, ineffective illegitimate.
1984 No, 10
A had two legitimate children, namely, B and C. He made Answer
a will, instituting G and a friend, D, as his heirs and giving In general, compulsory heirs are those for whom the
a P10,000 legacy to E, his former driver. He, however, law has reserved a portion of the testator's estate which
expressly disinherited B without specifying the reason is known as the legitime.
therefore. Assuming that A's net estate is worth P100,000 In particular, the following are compulsory heirs:
upon his death, how will it be (1) Legitimate children and descendants, with
distributed? respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants;

Answer. (2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents

A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children
The disinheritance of B is invalid, because there is no and descendants;
specification of the cause therefore. However, the (3) The widow or widower;
institution of the heirs will only be partially annulled (4) Acknowledged natural children and natural children
insofar as it may prejudice his legitime (Art. 918). The by legal fiction;
legacies and other testamentary dispositions remain (5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Art. 287.
valid insofar as it will not impair his legitime. B
therefore gets his legitime which is 1/4 of the estate, Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are not
or P25,000.00. The legacy of P10,000 to E will be paid. excluded by those in Nos, 1 and 2; neither do they exclude
The balance of the estate of P65,000 will, be divided one another. In all cases of illegitimate children, their
equally between the instituted heirs, C and D. filiation must be duly proved.

B. Comments and Suggested Answer The father or mother of illegitimate children of the
We suggest that the following should be accepted as a classes mentioned shall
correct answer: inherit from them in the manner and to the extent
The disinheritance of B is defective or imperfect established by the Civil Code. (Art.
because there is no 887, Civil Code).
specification of the cause in the will as required by
law. However, the institution of The following shall be sufficient causes for the
heirs will only be partially annulled insofar as it may disinheritance of children and descendants, legitimate as
prejudice his legitime (Art 918, well as illegitimate:
Civil Code). Therefore B will still be entitled to his (1) When a child or descendant has been found guilty of
legitime which is 1/2 of 1/2 of P100,000, or P25,000. an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her
The legacies, however, are valid so long as they are spouse, descendants, or ascendants;
not inofficious (Ibid.) It is obvious that the legacy of (2) When a child or descendant has accused the testator
P10,000 given to E is not inofficious because it can easily of a crime for
be contained in the free portion of P50,000. Therefore, which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or
E will be entitled to such legacy. Since A had instituted as more if the accusation has
heirs his child C and his friend D as heirs without been found groundless;
designation of shares, therefore, applying the view of (3) When a child or descendant has been convicted
Manresa, which has been adopted by commentators in of adultery or
this country, Tolentino among them (6 Manresa 98-99; 3 concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
Tolentino 161; Art. 846, Civil Code), the legitime of C, (4) When a child or descendant by fraud, violence,
which is 1/2 intimidation, or undue
of 1/2 of P100,000 or P25,000, must first be separated and influence causes the testator to make a will or to change
allotted to him because the testator cannot deprive him one already made;
of not. Then, the remainder of P40,000 which is the (5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the
disposable free portion, will be divided equally between C parent or ascendant
and D, the two instituted heirs. who disinherits such child or descendant;
Consequently, the estate of P100,000.00 will be (6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the
distributed as follows: child or descendant;
B — P25,000 as compulsory heir; C—P25,000 as (7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or
compulsory heir; disgraceful life;
P20,000 as voluntary heir; D—P20,000 as voluntary (8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty
heir; E— P10,000 of civil interdiction.
as legatee. {Art. 919, Civil Code).
Succession; disinheritance; grounds Succession; incapacity 1988 No. 7:
1989 No. 11: (b) Suppose that the beneficiary in a will is the wife
(2) Jose and Ana are husband and wife. On January 10, of the minister of the gospel who rendered aid to the
1980, Jose learned that Ana was having illicit relations testator during the letter's last illness, would she be
with Juan, In fact, Jose personally saw his wife and disqualified from inheriting from the testator? Explain.
Juan leaving a motel on one occasion. Despite all the
evidence he had at hand, Jose did not bring any action for Answer:
legal separation against Ana. Instead, Jose simply (b) We believe that the wife of the minister would
prepared a will wherein he disinherited Ana for her not be disqualified from
acts of infidelity. The validity of inheriting from the testator. Under No. 2 of Art. 1027
the disinheritance was questioned by Ana upon Jose's of the Civil Code, the law
death. If you were the judge, how would you resolve this extends the disqualification of priests and ministers of
question? Give your reasons. the gospel to their relatives
within the fourth degree as well as to the church,
Answer: order, chapter, community, organization or institution
The disinheritance is valid. Under the Civil Code, the to which they may belong. The spouse is not included.
legal ground for disinheriting a spouse is that the Consequently, such spouse is not disqualified. Otherwise,
spouse has given cause for legal separation. Therefore, we would be reading into the law what is not found
a final judgment is not needed. there. Besides, capacity to succeed is the general rule,
while incapacity to succeed is the exception. Hence,
Alternative Answer: the rules on incapacity must always be strictly
The disinheritance is not valid. The facts indicate that there construed.
was condonation by Jose of Ana's illicit relationship with Suggested Alternative Answer To: No. 7(b):
Juan since they appear to have continued to live together, (b) If the testamentary disposition was actually intended
to favor the Minister as a disqualified person and was
Succession; donation of a spouse’s share ostensibly made thru an intermediary, namely, the wife,
1982 No. 10 then the Minister is considered disqualified as the real and
"H" and "W" are husband and wife. They have neither intended heir.
descendants or ascendants. "H" died and while the
conjugal partnership was under judicial administration Succession; incapacity; effect of legal separation 1976
and pending liquidation, "W" donated all her share in No. VI-c
her husband's estate to a friend "F". "W" died while In case of a legal separation between A and the
the proceeding for the settlement of the conjugal widow, will the surviving widow inherit? Explain.
partnership was pending. The collateral heirs of "W" and
the administrator Answer
of the estate brought an action against the donee, "F", to It depends. If the widow is the guilty spouse, she cannot
set aside the donation on inherit. If she is the innocent spouse, she may inherit.
the ground that it is void, as it is a donation of future (Article 106, paragraph 4 1002)
property. Decide with reasons.
Succession; intestate heirs 1995 No. 18:
Answer: Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both 18 years of age, were
The contention of the collateral heirs of "W" and the passengers of Flight No. 317 of Oriental Airlines. The
administrator of the estate that the donation made by plane they boarded was of Philippine registry. While
"W" to her friend "F" is void because the donation is a en route from Manila to Greece some passengers hijacked
donation of future property is untenable. The reason is the plane, held the chief pilot hostage at the cockpit and
crystal clear. According to the Civil Code, by future ordered him to fly Instead to Libya. During the hijacking
property is understood anything which the donor cannot Isidro suffered a heart attack and was on the verge
dispose of at the time of the donation. Obviously, of death. Since Irma
"W's" share in her husband's was already eight months pregnant by Isidro, she
estate does not fall within the purview of the definition. pleaded to the hijackers to allow the assistant pilot to
Because of the principle that solemnize her marriage with Isidro. Soon after the
successional rights are transmitted at the very moment of marriage, Isidro expired. As the plane landed in Libya Irma
the death of the decedent, gave birth. However, the baby died a few minutes after
it is evident that "W" had a perfect right to donate her complete delivery. Back in the Philippines Irma
share in her husband's estate Immediately filed a claim for inheritance. The parents
to her friend "F". (Note: The above answer is based on of Isidro opposed her claim contending that the
Arts 777 and 751 of the Civil Code. The Committee marriage between her and Isidro was void ab initio
recommends most respectfully that if the bar on the following grounds: (a) they had not given their
candidate arrives at the same conclusion by invoking consent to the marriage of their son; (b) there was
the provisions of Art. 493 of the Civil Code, he or no marriage license; (c) the solemnizing officer had no
she should be properly credited.) authority to perform the marriage; and, (d) the
solemnizing officer did not file an affidavit of marriage
with the proper civil registrar.
2. Does Irma have any successional rights at all? Discuss and Z. F and A rode together in a car and perished
fully. together at the same time in a vehicular accident, F
and A died, each of them leaving substantial estates
Answer; in intestacy.
2. Irma succeeded to the estate of Isidro as his a) Who are the intestate heirs of F? What are
surviving spouse to the estate of her legitimate child. their respective fractional
When Isidro died, he was succeeded by his surviving wife shares?
Irma, and his legitimate unborn child. They divided the
estate equally between them, the child excluding the b) Who are the intestate heirs of A? What are their
parents of Isidro. An unborn child is considered born respective fractional
for all purposes favorable to it provided it is born shares?
later. The child was considered born because, having
an intra-uterine life of more than seven months, it c) If B and C both predeceased F, who are Fs
lived for a few minutes after its complete delivery. It was intestate heirs? What are
legitimate because it was born within the valid marriage their respective fractional shares? Do they inherit in
of the parents. Succession is favorable to it. When the their own right or by
child died, Irma inherited the share of the child. However, representation? Explain your answer.
the share of the child in the hands of
Irma is subject to reserva troncal for the benefit of the d) If B and C both repudiated their shares in the
relatives of the child within the third degree of estate of Ft who are F's
consanguinity and who belong to the line of Isidro. intestate heirs? What are their respective fractional
shares? Do they inherit in their
Alternative Answer: own right or by representation? Explain your answer,
If the marriage is void. Irma has no successional rights with Answer:
respect to Isidro but she would have successional rights (a) B = 1/2 (c) X = 1/2 by representation of B
with respect to the child. C=l/2 Y
= 1/4 by representation of C
(b) B = 1/2 Z = 1/4 by representation of C C=
Succession; intestate heirs and sharing 1/2
1977 No. XIII-b Article 982 of the Civil Code provides that
Should brothers and sisters of the full blood survive grandchildren inherit by right of
together with brothers and sisters of the half blood, how representation.
much is the former entitled compared to that of the latter? (d) X - 1/3 in his own right Y- 1/3 in his own right 2 - 1/3
in his own right
Answer
The former shall be entitled to a share double that Article 977 of the Civil Code provides that heirs who
of the latter (Art. 1006, Civil Code). repudiate their share cannot be represented.

Succession; intestate heirs; shares Succession; intestate succession

2003 No XII. 1976 No. VI-a
(b) Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two A dies without a will, leaving a modern hotel, a fleet of air-
illegitimate children, conditioned buses and three helicopters. If his widow
his parents, and two brothers. He left an estate of and brothers survive, how will they inherit the estate?
P1 million. Luis died intestate.
Who are his intestate heirs, and how much is the share of Answer
each in his estate? One-half (1/2) to the widow and 1/2 to the brothers and
sisters, regardless of their number. (Article 1001)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The intestate heirs are the two (2) legitimate Succession; intestate succession 1976 No. VI-b
children and the two (2) If the widow and three legitimate children are left,
illegitimate children. In intestacy the estate of the what will be the share of the widow?
decedent is divided among the
legitimate and illegitimate children such that the Answer
share of each illegitimate child is Under Article 996, each shall receive 1/4 as the Civil Code
one - half the share of each legitimate child. provides that the widow shall have the same share as that
Their share are : of each legitimate child.
For each legitimate child – P333,333.33
For each illegitimate child – P166,666.66 Succession; intestate succession
Page 123 of 391 2000 No XI
(Article 983, New Civil Code; Article 176, Family Code) Eugenio died without issue, leaving several parcels of land
in Bataan. He was survived by Antonio, his legitimate
Succession; intestate succession 1992 No 5: brother; Martina, the only daughter of his predeceased
F had three (3) legitimate children: A, B, and C. B has one sister Mercedes; and five legitimate children of
(1) legitimate child X. C has two (2) legitimate children: Y Joaquin, another predeceased brother. Shortly after
Eugenio's death, Antonio also died, leaving three repudiation of G, the predecessor. M is excluded by the
legitimate children. Subsequently, Martina, the children legitimate children of T. The answer may be premised on
of Joaquin and the children of Antonio executed an two theories: the Theory of Exclusion and the Theory of
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Eugenio, Concurrence.
dividing it among themselves. The succeeding year, a Under the Theory of Exclusion the legitimes of the
petition to annul the extrajudicial settlement was filed heirs are accorded them and the free portion will be
by Antero, an illegitimate son of Antonio, who claims given exclusively to the legitimate descendants. Hence
he is entitled to share in the estate of Eugenio. The under the Exclusion Theory:
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that A will get P20.000.00. and P 13.333.33 (1/3 of the free
Antero is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from portion)
inheriting from the legitimate brother of his father. How B will get P 20,000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of the free
will you resolve the motion? (5%) portion)
D will get P20.000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of the free
SUGGESTED ANSWER: portion)
The motion to dismiss should be granted. Article 992 does W, the widow is limited to the legitime of P20.000.00
not apply. Antero is not claiming any inheritance from Under the Theory of Concurrence. In addition to their
Eugenio. He is claiming his share in the inheritance of legitimes. the heirs of A, B, D and W will be given equal
his father consisting of his father's share in the inheritance shares in the free portions:
of Eugenio A: P20.000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1 /4 of the free portion)
(Dela Merced v, Dela Merced, Gr No. 126707, 25 February B: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (l/4 of the free portlon)
1999) C: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1/4 of the free portion)
. W: P20,000.00 plus P10,000.00 (l/4 of the free portion)
Succession; intestate succession 1978 No. VI-b Alternative Answer: Shares in Intestacy
A, deceased, is survived by a half-sister B on his father's T - decedent Estate: P120.000.00
aide and an aunt C his mother's sister. He left as his Page 126 of 391
only property that which was inherited from his Survived by:
mother. He died intestate. Who shall succeed to A's M - Mother............................None
estate? Reasons for your answer. W - Widow.............................P 30,000.00
A - Son.................................P 30,000.00
Answer B - Son.................................P3O.OOO.OO
B shall succeed to A's estate. The law of intestate C - Grandson (son of B).............None
succession is explicit. Since both B and C are collateral D - Grandson (son of E who predeceased T)................P
relatives of the decedent A, therefore, the rule of proximity 30,000.00
is applicable. Relatives nearest in degree exclude the more F - Grandson (son of G who repudiated the
distant ones, B is a second degree relative of A, while Inheritance from"T").......................None
C is a third degree relative. Besides, under the general
order of intestate succession, brothers and sisters, Explanation:
whether of the full or 1) The mother (M) cannot inherit from T because
half blood, are always preferred to uncles or aunts. under Art. 985 the ascendants shall inherit in default
(NOTE: The above answer is based on Art. 967, Civil of legitimate children and descendants of the
Code, and on Arts. 1004 to 1009, Civil Code. It is deceased.
suggested that if a bar candidate should also discuss 2) The widow's share is P30.000.00 because under Art,
the question of whether or not there is a reserva 996 it states that if
troncal, this should not prejudice the widow or widower and legitimate children or
him, provided that he will arrive at the correct descendants are left, the surviving
conclusion that A's estate is not spouse has in the succession the same share as that of
reservable.) each of the children,
3) C has no share because his father is still alive
Succession; intestate succession 1997 No. 11: hence succession by
"T" died intestate on 1 September 1997.He was survived representation shall not apply (Art. 975).
by M (his mother), W (his widow), A and B (his 4) D inherits P30.000 which is the share of his father E
legitimate children), C (his grandson, being the who predeceased T
legitimate son of B), D (his other grandson, being the son by virtue of Art. 981 on the right of representation.
of E who was a legitimate son of, and who predeceased, 5) F has no share because his father G repudiated the
"T"), and F (his grandson, being the son of G, a inheritance. Under
legitimate son who repudiated the inheritance from "T"). Article 977 heirs who repudiate their share may not be
His distributable net estate is P120.00 0.00. represented.

How should this amount be shared in intestacy among the Succession; intestate succession 1998 No XII
surviving heirs? Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary estate of P1.2
Answer: million. He is survived by his widow, three legitimate
The legal heirs are A, B, D, and W. C is excluded by children, two legitimate grandchildren sired by a
B who is still alive. D Inherits in representation of E legitimate child who predeceased him, and two
who predeceased. F is excluded because of the recognized illegitimate children.
Distribute the estate in intestacy. [5%] is not recognized, Juana, the second wife, is not an heir
and gets nothing. D is a spurious child and will get 2/5 of
Answer: the share of a legitimate son, C having predeceased
Under the theory of Concurrence, the shares are as Guillermo, F, the legitimate son of C, will inherit by
follows: right of representation. E the wife of C, has no right of
A (legitimate child) = P200.OOO representation and
B (legitimate child) = P2OO.OOO will get nothing. Hence, the estate will be divided as
C (legitimate child) = P2OO,OOO follows:
D (legitimate child) = O (predeceased] A —5/22
E (legitimate child of D) = P100.0OO - by right of B —5/22
representation F — 5/22
F (legitimate child of D) = P100.OOO - by right of Pacita — 5/22
representation D — 2/22
G (illegitimate child) = P1OO.OOO - 1/2 share of ft
legitimate child B. Comments and Suggested Answer
H (illegitimate child) = P100.OOO - 1/2 share of a We suggest that the following should be accepted as a
legitimate child correct answer:
W (Widow) = P200.0OO - same share as legitimate child A shall be entitled to the share of a legitimate child. B shall
Another Answer: also be entitled to
Page 127 of 391 the share of a legitimate child.
Under the theory of Exclusion the free portion (P300.OOO) D, being a natural child by legal fiction, shall be
is distributed only entitled to one-half (1/2) of
among the legitimate children and is given to them the share of A or B. It must be observed that Guillermo's
in addition to their legitime. All marriage to Juana id void
other Intestate heirs are entitled only to their respective from the point of view of Philippine Law since the
legitimes. The distribution is decree of absolute divorce obtained by him against
as follows: Pacita is not recognized as a valid decree (see Arts. 15, 71,
Legitime Free Portion Total 80, No. (4).
A [legitimate child) P15O.OOO + P 75,OOO E shall not participate in the inheritance because she
- P225.OOO is not a legal heir of Guillermo.
B {legitimate child) P15O.OOO + F15O.OOO Pacita however, shall be entitled to the same share
- P225.OOO as A or B, being the surviving spouse of Guillermo (Art.
C (legitimate child) P15O.OOO + P 75.OOO 999, Civil Code). F, the legitimate son of C, will inherit by
- P225.OOO right of representation. Juana shall not participate in
D (legitimate child) 0 0 the inheritance because she is not a legal heir of
0 Guillermo. Hence, the proportionate shares of A,
E (legitimate child of D) P 75,OOO + P35.5OO B, F, Pacita, and D in the inheritance will be: (2 for A, 2 for
- P112.5OO B; 2 for F, 2 for Pacita, and 1 for F or (2:2:2:2:1).
F (legitimate child of D) P 75.OOO + P 37.5OO
- P112,5OO A's share will be 2/9 of the estate; D's share will be
G (illegitimate child) P 75.OOO 0 - 2/9 of the estate; F's share will be 2/9 of the estate;
P 75.5OO Pacita's share will be 2/9 of the estate; and D's share will
H (illegitimate child) P 75.OOO O - be 1/9 of the estate.
P 75.5OO
W (Widow) P15O.OOO 0 - Succession; intestate succession 1985 No. 9
P15O.OOO A) Among the properties in the estate of A,
who died intestate and without issue, were a farm,
Succession; intestate succession which came from his father, B, and a house, which
1984 No, 8 he acquired from C, B's father. In the partition of
Spouses Guillermo and Pacita had three sons, namely, A, A's inheritance, the house was allotted to B and the
B and C. Beset by quarrels, their marriage broke up. farm to D, A's mother. Upon the death of B and D, who
Guillermo left for and obtained a divorce in the United were simultaneously killed in a car accident, the farm was
States, where he subsequently married Juana, by claimed by C and X, a child of B And D born after A's death,
whom he had a son, D. Guillermo later died in the while the house was laimed also by C and X and Y, D's
United States without even knowing that C had died child by a prior marriage. Decide the conflicting claims
earlier, leaving a wife, E, and a legitimate son, F, State the over the farm and the house in controversy with reasons.
shares, if any, of the following: in the estate of Guillermo:
A, B, D, E, B) By a letter written before his death, the deceased
F, Pacita and Juana distributed and partitioned among his three (3)
. legitimate sons. A, B, and C, his property in such
Answers: manner that A received 17/24 thereof, B, 1/6 and C, 1/8.
A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma The letter not having been made in accordance with the
The legitimate sons are entitled to one (1) share each, formalities required for the execution of wills, B and C
together with the surviving spouse, Pacita. Since divorce
claimed that their father died intestate and his inheritance gratuitous title as the question merely says that the
should be divided equally farm "came" from his father B and a house which
among his children. Decide their claims and distribute he "acquired" from C, B's father without stating whether
the estate among A, B and C stating the reasons in it "came" or was "acquired" by gratuitous title.
support of your disposition.
6. In the event that both farm and house were acquired by
C) A, a bachelor, named his brother, B as heir if his sister, gratuitous title and were inherited by B and D by
S, dies within 10 years after A's death. B died 2 years operation of law, there is in both cases reserva
after A's death while S died 1 year later, A's estate" because reserva can exist although the properties come
is claimed by B's only child and S's 6 children. Who are from the same line. Hence, the farm will go to C because
entitled to it and how much will each receive? Discuss. the direct line excludes the collateral line. As regards the
house, there is also reserva although it came from the
Answers: same line and will also go to C for the same reason.
A) 1. As regards the house, this property was acquired
by A from his 8. The farm should be awarded to X, the legitimate
grandfather C and was transmitted by A to B, his father. child of B, who is preferred over C, the surviving
There is no reserva truncal because there is no change of parent of B. The farm is not reservable property having
line. Hence, X alone is entitled to inherit the house. With origin-ally come from a line to which B likewise
respect to the farm, the farm originally came from B, the belongs (B in fact, was the donor of the property).
father of A, and The house shall be awarded to C as the preferred
from A it went to his mother D, There is a change reservatario. The requisites of reserva troncal
of line from the paternal to the concurred in the case of the house since the property
maternal line. The farm is reservable property and was acquired by gratuitous title by B from C, a
must be acquired by relatives within the third degree of paternal
the propositus and belonging to the paternal line. ascendant, and upon the death of A (propositus) the
same property went by
Regarding the sharing, there are two theories. In the operation of Law to D (reservista), his mother. Both X and
"delayed intestacy doctrine," the preferences in the C are reservatarios since they belong to the line where
rules of intestate succession must be observed. The the property originally came from and related within
second theory is to the effect that relatives in the same three degrees from the propositus but since C belongs to
degree inherit in equal shares without distinction as to the the direct line of A and X being only a collateral relative, C
direct or collateral line. Under the first theory, the "delayed would be preferred over X.
intestacy theory," C alone will inherit the farm because
in intestacy, the direct line excludes the collateral line. B) 1. Under Art, 1080 of the Civil Code, a person may
Hence, C, the grandfather, should exclude X, the brother partition his property by an act inter vivos or by will. Under
of A. Under the second theory; which allows no distinction our present law, there is no need for the owner of the
as to direct or collateral line, C and X will inherit the farm property to make a valid will. However, the partition
in equal shares since they are both 2nd degree relatives inter vivos made by him must not prejudice the
of A, both belonging to the paternal line. In any case legitimes. In this particular case, the partition
Y does not inherit, since Y is not a reservatario. prejudices the legitime of C because actually each one
should get 1/6, or 1/3 of 1/2, of his estate or 4/24. The
2. With respect to the house, the property was inherited partition made here is 17/24 which is 1/24 in excess of
by B who belongs to the paternal line. There will be what he ought to
no reason for making the property reservable because get, therefore, the final distribution should be:
there is no danger of the property going to another A = 16/24 which includes the whole
line. Hence, when B died, C and X belonging to the same 1/2 plus 1/3 of the other half B = is entitled only to
line from which the property came will inherit it 4/24 and C = 4/24
equally. With respect to the house, not being
reservable, the heir of B will be X alone as the 2. Since the letter was not made in accordance with the
descendant excludes the ascendant. With respect to formalities required for the execution of wills, the father
the farm being reservable in character, C and X died intestate. Hence, A, B and C will divide the inheritance
belonging to the same line from which the property came equally.
will inherit equally.
3. Despite the fact that a will is no longer required
3. With respect to the farm it will go to X and Y. With for the execution of a partition inter vivos within
respect to the house, it will go to X as the lone child and the meaning of the law, nevertheless, the different
legal heir of B. formalities which are necessary in order to convey
property must still be complied with. Hence, A, B and C
4. There is no reserva and the properties will go by will divide the inheritance equally.
intestate succession, the farm going to X and the
house going to C, since there is no showing that the 4. B and C are correct. While it is very true that the letter
properties were received by B and D by operation of the deceased did not comply with the formalities
of law as the question merely says that they were required for the, execution of the wills, nevertheless,
"allotted" in the partition, and by the propositus A by under the law, a partition inter vivos may be effected
provided, of course, that there will be compliance with Tessie died survived by her husband Mario, and two
all of the formalities required for ordinary conveyance nieces, Michelle and
of properties such as when real properties are Jorelle, who are the legitimate children of an elder sister
involved. In other words, the partition who had predeceased her.
that was effected by means of a letter does not state Page 131 of 391
that all of the formalities prescribed for ordinary The only property she left behind was a house and
conveyances of properties are complied with. lot worth two million pesos,
which Tessie and her husband had acquired with the use
5. This is not a partition because partition presupposes a of Mario's savings from his
division/separation of a property. This is merely assigning income as a doctor. How much of the property or its value,
an aliquot portion of the property. Therefore, it is not a if any, may Michelle and
real partition contemplated under Article 1080. It Jorelle claim as their hereditary shares? [5%]
should follow the requirements of a will, and because it Answer:
does not comply with the requirements of the Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides, "Should brothers
will, intestate succession will follow. and sisters or their children survive with the widow or
widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the
6. A shall be entitled to 4/6, B to 1/6 and C to 1/6 inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children
of the estate. Under Art, 1080 of the Civil Code, a to the other half." Tessie's gross estate consists of a
person may partition his estate during his lifetime. house and lot acquired during her marriage, making
Unlike that which obtained during the regime of the old it part of the community property. Thus, one-half of
Civil Code, the present Code would appear to permit a the said property would have to be set aside as Mario's
person to distribute his estate during his lifetime without conjugal share from the community
having to execute a will. A conflict of views among Civil property. The other half, amounting to one million pesos,
Law commentators arises only where the participants in is her conjugal share (net
the partition, or some of them, are voluntary heirs. estate), and should be distributed to her intestate
Since those who were given entitlement under the heirs. Applying the above
partition were all legitimate children, and there being no provision of law, Michelle and Jorelle, Tessie's nieces, are
one apparently preterited the partition can take effect but entitled to one-half of her
without prejudice to their respective legitimes. The share conjugal share worth one million pesos, or 500,000 pesos,
given to C is less than his legitime for which while the other one-half
reason that share must be increased to 1/6 of the estate. amounting to P5OO,OOO will go to Mario, Tessie's
surviving spouse. Michelle and
C) 1. The estate of A will be distributed in intestacy among Jorelle are then entitled to P250,000 pesos each as their
the 6 children of S hereditary share.
and the child of B. The condition embodied by A Succession; intestate succession
was ineffective because B died 1977 No. XII-a
ahead of S. Hence, the condition was not fulfilled X is the adulterous son of A and B and when he died in
while B was alive. Intestate 1970 without a will,
succession for B and S will be determined as to the he was survived only by his father A and his widow
rights existing on A's death, W: How would you divide his
hence, one-half will go to the children of S and the other estate valued at P100,000.00?
half to the child of B. Answer
2. Only the 6 children of 3 will get the property because A shall be entitled to 1/2 of the estate, while W shall
the heir died before the fulfillment of the condition. be entitled also to 1/2.
True, there is no express provision of the New Civil Code
3. From the wording of the facts in the case, it would which directly governs this
appear that S is the heir and that if 3 died within 10 years situation, but this solution is the most equitable.
after A's death, then B gets it, not the children of S. If S Besides, in testamentary
died after B, the children of S get it. succession, the legitime of A is 1/2 of X's estate, while the
legitime of W is also 1/2
4. In a conditional institution, such as what has arisen in (Art. 903, Civil Code); and in intestate succession, had
the problem, the instituted heir must survive not only A been a legitimate parent,
the testator but likewise the fulfillment of the condition his share would have been only 1/2, while the share
in the will (Art. 1034). Since B did not survive that of W would also be 1/2 (Art.
condition, the institution in his favor could not be 997, Civil code). These rules should be applied by analogy.
operative. The estate, therefore, assuming that there are
no Succession; intestate succession 1977 No. XI-c
other relatives other than those named in the problem, State the order of intestate succession. Answer
would be the child of B and the six children of S, who We must distinguish between the order of intestate
would get it in equal shares (per capita), each succession if the decedent is a legitimate person and
receiving 1/7 of the estate (Art. 975). the order if said decedent is an illegitimate person,
If the decedent is a legitimate person, the order is:
Succession; intestate succession 1998 No XI. (1) Legitimate children or descendants.
(2) Legitimate parents or ascendants,
(3) Illegitimate children or descendants. now being claimed by his parents, and the parents
(4) The surviving spouse subject to the concurrent of his widow. Who is entitled to Mr.
right of brothers and Luna'a estate and why? (5%)
sisters, nephews and nieces.
(5) Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces. ANSWER:
(6) Other collateral relatives within the fifth degree. (b.) Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go to the parents of
(7) The state. Mrs. Luna as their inheritance from Mrs. Luna, while
the other half will be inherited by the parents of Mr.
If the decedent is an illegitimate person, the order is: Luna as the reservatarios of the reserved property
(1) Legitimate children or descendants. inherited by Mrs. Luna from her child.
(2) Illegitimate children or descendants. When Mr. Luna died, his heirs were his wife and the
(3) Parents by nature, unborn child. The unborn child inherited because the
(4) The surviving spouse subject to the concurrent inheritance was favorable to it and it was born alive later
right of brothers and though it lived only for five hours. Mrs. Luna inherited
sisters, nephews and nieces. half of the 10 Million estate while the unborn child
(5) Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces. inherited the other half. When the child died, it was
(6) The State. survived by its mother, Mrs. Luna. As the only heir, Mrs.
Luna inherited, by operation of law,
If the decedent is an adopted person, and his natural the estate of the child consisting of its 5 Million
parents are already dead, then the adopter shall take inheritance from Mr. Luna. In the hands of Mrs. Luna,
the place of such parents in the above orders of what she inherited from her child was subject to reserva
succession (Art. 39, No. 4, P.D. No. 603), troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the child
within the third degree of consanguinity and who
Succession; intestate succession 1999 No II. belong to the family of Mr. Luna, the line where the
Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are childless, met with a property came from.
serious motor vehicle When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived by her parents as
accident with Mr. Cruz at the wheel and Mrs. Cruz her only heirs. Her parents will inherit her estate consisting
seated beside him, resulting in of the 5 Million she inherited from Mr. Luna. The other 5
the instant death of Mr. Cruz. Mrs. Cruz was still alive when Million she inherited from her child will be delivered to the
help came but she also died on the way to the hospital. parents of Mr. Luna as beneficiaries of the reserved
The couple acquired properties worth One Million property. In sum, 5 Million Pesos of Mr. Luna's estate
(PI,000,000.00) Pesos during their marriage, which are will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna, while the other
being claimed by the parents of both spouses in equal 5 Million Pesos will go to the parents of Mr. Luna
shares. Is the claim of both sets of parents valid and as
why? (3%) Reservatarios.

ANSWER: ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

(a) No, the claim of both parents is not valid. When If the child had an intra-uterine life of not less than 7
Mr. Cruz died, he was months, it inherited from the father. In which case, the
succeeded by his wife and his parents as his intestate heirs estate of 10M will be divided equally between the child
who will share his estate and the widow as legal heirs. Upon the death of the child,
equally. His estate was 0.5 Million pesos which is its share of 5M shall go by operation of law to the mother,
his half share in the absolute which shall be subject to reserva troncal. Under Art. 891,
community amounting to 1 Million Pesos. His wife, the reserva is in favor of relatives belonging to the
will, therefore, inherit O.25 paternal line and who are within 3 degrees from the
Million Pesos and his parents will inherit 0.25 Million child. The parents of Mr, Luna are entitled to the reserved
Pesos. When Mrs. Cruz died, she was succeeded by portion which is 5M as they are 2 degrees related
her parents as her intestate from child. The 5M inherited by Mrs. Luna from Mr.
heirs. They will inherit all of her estate consisting of her 0.5 Luna will be inherited from her by her parents.
Million half share in the
ab-solute community and her 0.25 Million inheritance However, if the child had intra-uterine life of less than
from her husband, or a total of 7 months, half of the estate of Mr. Luna, or 5M, will be
0.750 Million Pesos. In sum, the parents of Mr. Cruz will inherited by the widow (Mrs. Luna), while the other half,
inherit 250,000 Pesos while the parents of Mrs. Cruz will or 5M, will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna.
inherit 750,000 Pesos. Upon the death of Mrs. Luna, her estate of 5M will be
inherited by her own parents.
Succession; intestate succession 1999 No VIII,
(b.) Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten Million (PI Succession; intestate succession 1986 No. 12:
0,000,000.00) Pesos, His widow gave birth to a child four Carlos, legitimate son of Jaime and Maria, was legally
months after Mr, Luna's death, but the child died five adopted by Josefa. Both Jaime and Maria died soon after
hours after birth. Two days after the child's death, the adoption. Carlos, himself died in 1986. His survivors
the widow of Mr. Luna also died because she had are Josefa, his legitimate maternal grandparents Daniel
suffered from difficult childbirth. The estate of Mr. Luna is and Rosa, his wife Fe and his acknowledged natural son,
Gerardo. How should the estate of Carlos worth d. the two "recognized illegitimate children" — we must
P800,000.00 be apportioned among distinguish:
the above survivors? Explain.
Assuming that the two recognized illegitimate children
Answer: are natural children,
The estate of Carlos worth P800,000 should be then each of them will get 1/8.
apportioned as follows: 1. Josefa - one-half, or Upon the other hand, if they are recognized spurious
P400.000.00; children then each of
2. Fe - one-fourth, or P200.000.00, and them will get 2/5 of 1/4 of the estate. The remaining 1/5
3. Gerardo - one-fourth, or P200.000.00. of 1/4 will be distributed as
As a rule, the adopter cannot inherit from the adopted follows:
child by intestate succession. If the adopted child dies Under the theory of concurrence, that 1/5 of 1/4 will be
intestate, leaving no child or descendant, his parents divided equally among
and relatives by consanguinity and not by adoption shall the widow, the adopted son and the child of the deceased
be his legal heirs. legitimate daughter.
Under the theory of exclusion that 1/5 of 1/4 will be
There is, however, an exception to has rule According divided equally between
to the law, if the parents by the adopted son and the child of the deceased legitimate
nature of the adopted child are both dead, the adopter daughter.
takes place of such parents in the line of succession,
whether testate or intestate. Therefore, in the instant e. the mother - will get nothing,
problem, Josefa shall take place of Jaime and Maria. The
grandparents Daniel and Rosa are therefore- excluded. Succession; intestate succession 1979 No. II
Consequently, applying the rules of intestacy, Josefa shall RD and BG, both Filipinos were married and lived in
be entitled to one-half (1/2) of the estate by substitution; Manila. They begot 2 children and after some years of
Fe shall be entitled to marriage, RD, being a physician, went to the United
one-fourth (1/4) as surviving spouse; and Gerardo shall States. After staying there for two years, RD got attached
be entitled to one-fourth to a Filipina nurse. He got a quick divorce on the ground
(1/4) as illegitimate child, (Note: The above answer is of desertion and then married the Filipina nurse with
based upon Arts, 984 and 100 Civil Code and upon whom he also begot 2 children. RD died intestate in
Art. 39, No. (4), P.D. 603). an automobile accident in the
United States leaving valuable properties in the
Answer - Under P.D. 603, the adopter takes place of the Philippines both inherited by him
parents by nature if the latter are dead, both as a from his parents as well as acquired during his marriage
compulsory and a legal heir. Therefore, as the adopted is to BG. How would BG and
survived by his wife, an acknowledged son and his her two children and the Filipina nurse and her two
maternal grandparents, adopter inherits in the same children share in the estate of
way as a legitimate parent, and they will share as RD. Give reasons for your answer.
follows: Answer
Josefa-----------------------------1/2 Before we can determine the shares of the claimants to
Fe(wife)—---------------------- 1/4 the estate of RD, let
Gerardo-------------------------- 1/4 us first determine what is the estate of RD and what is the
(acknowledged natural child) status of the claimants in
relation to RD,
Succession; intestate succession 1987 No. 4: Estate of RD: As far as the properties acquired by RD
Angel died intestate leaving considerable properties during his marriage to
accumulated during 25 years of marriage. He is survived BG are concerned, 1/2 thereof should be included in
by his widow, a legally adopted son, the child of a his estate and 1/2 should be
deceased legitimate daughter, two illegitimate children given to BG since they are conjugal in character. As
duly recognized by Angel before his death and his far as the properties inherited
ailing 93-year old mother who has wholly dependent by him from his parents are concerned, since they
on him. How would you distribute the estate indicating by are exclusive or separate in
fractions the portions of the following who claim to be character, they must also be included in his estate,
entitled to inherit: Status of the claimants: BG is the surviving spouse of
RD. The decree of
(a) the widow? absolute divorce secured by RD in the United States
(b) the adopted son? is not valid. In the first place,
(c) the child of the deceased legitimate daughter? we adhere to the nationality theory. Philippine laws
(d) the two recognized illegitimate children? shall be binding upon Filipino
(e) the mother? Answer: citizens wherever they are with respect to family rights
a. the widow - 1/4 and duties as well as status,
b. the adopted son - 1/4 condition and legal capacity. And in the second place,
c. the child of the deceased legitimate daughter - 1/4 there is a declaration of public
policy in this country against absolute divorce. Such (3%)
a declaration of public policy
cannot be rendered nugatory by the decree of SUGGESTED ANSWER;
absolute divorce secured RD in a Yes, the will may be probated in the Philippines
foreign country. Therefore, the marriage of RD to the insofar as the estate of Eleanor is concerned. While the
Filipina nurse is not valid. It is Civil Code prohibits the execution of Joint wills here and
bigamous under the Philippine law. Hence, the nurse is abroad, such prohibition applies only to Filipinos.
not related to RD under our Hence, the joint will which is valid where executed is
law of succession. It is different in the case of the two valid in the Philippines but only with respect to
children. Being born of a void Eleanor.
marriage, they are classified as natural children by
legal fiction, and are, therefore, Under Article 819, it is void with respect to Manuel
entitled to the same rights as acknowledged natural whose joint will remains void in
children, the Philippines despite being valid where executed.
Division of the estate of RD: It is clear that only BG, as
surviving spouse, the two legitimate children of RD and Succession; legal separation; effect 1982 No. 5
BG, and the two natural children by legal fiction of RD will The husband was granted a decree of legal separation
be able to inherit. The Filipina nurse cannot. Since on the ground of adultery on the part of the wife. May
RD died intestate, the proportions established under the wife inherit from the husband —
our law on legitime is applicable. In the instant case, the (a) By intestate succession?
proportions will be 10 for BG; 10 for each of the (b) By will? Reasons.
legitimate children; and 5 for each of the natural Answer
children. Stated in another way, the two legitimate (a) The wife in the instant case cannot inherit from her
children shall husband by intestate
be entitled to 1/2, or 1/4, each, of the entire estate of RD; succession. According to the Civil Code, the offending
BG shall be entitled to the same share as each of the spouse shall be disqualified
legitimate children, or 1/4 of the entire estate; and from inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate
the two natural children by legal fiction shall be entitled succession.
to the balance of 1/4 or 1/8 each of the entire estate. (b) It depends. If the will was executed prior to the legal
separation, it is clear
Succession; intestate succession; order of succession that in effect the wife cannot inherit from her husband.
and sharing 1982 No. 14 According to the Civil Code,
"X" died intestate, leaving two sons "A" and "B"; two provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the
grandchildren "C" and "D", the children of the will of the innocent one shall
deceased daughter of "B"; and another grandchild "F", be revoked by operation of law. However, if the will was
the daughter of "A". Who will succeed to the estate executed subsequent to the legal separation,
of "X" and how will they divide the inheritance? undoubtedly, the wife will then be able to inherit from her
husband.
Answer:
Among the survivors, only the following shall participate The reason is obvious. There is a tacit or implied pardon.
in the division of the (Note: The above answers are based on No. 4 of Art.
inheritance: "A", in his own right; "B", in his own right; 106 of the Civil. The
and "C" and "D", by right of last part regarding tacit pardon — is based on Art. 1033
representation, "F", the daughter of "A", cannot by analogy.)
participate because she is excluded by the latter
applying the rule of proximity. Consequently, the Succession; legitime 2003 No XII.
inheritance shall be (a) Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two
divided as follows: illegitimate children, his parents, and two brothers. He
left an estate of P1 million. Who are the compulsory
"A" — one-third (1/3) of the inheritance; heirs of Luis, how much is the legitimate of each, and how
"B" — one-third (1/3) of the inheritance; "C" — one-half much is the free portion of his estate, if any?
(1/2) of one-third
(1/3) of the inheritance by right of representation; SUGGESTED ANSWER:
"D" —one-half (1/2) of one-third (1/3) of the (a) The compulsory heirs are the two legitimate
inheritance by right of children and the two illegitimate children. The parents
representation. are excluded by the legitimate children, while the
Succession; joint wills brothers are not compulsory heirs at all. Their respective
2000 No III. legitimate are:
a} Manuel, a Filipino, and his American wife Eleanor, (1) The legitimate of the two (2) legitimate children is one
executed a Joint Will in Boston, Massachusetts when they half (1/2) of the estate (P500,000.00) to be divided
were residing in said city. The law of Massachusetts between them equally, or P250,000.00 each.
allows the execution of joint wills. Shortly thereafter,
Eleanor died. Can the said Will be probated in the (2) The legitimate of each illegitimate child is one-
Philippines for the settlement of her estate? half (1/2) the legitimate of each legitimate child or
P125,000.00. Since the total legitimate of the compulsory shares. Since the net value of the estate is
heirs is P750,000.00, the balance Pl,200,000.00 each of them shall,
of P250,000.00 is the free portion. therefore, be entitled to P200,000.00.
2. "W" — the same as each of the legitimate children, or
Succession; legitime 1997 No. 12: P200,000.
"X", the decedent, was survived by W (his widow). A 3. "F" — none.- "F" cannot participate in the
(his son), B (a granddaughter, being the daughter of succession because he is
A) and C and D (the two acknowledged illegitimate excluded by the legitimate children of the testator.
children of the decedent). "X" died this year (1997) leaving 4. "N" — one-half of the legitime of each of the
a net estate of PI 80.000.00. All were willing to succeed, legitimate children, or
except A who repudiated the inheritance from his P100,000.00.
father, and they seek your legal advice on how much 5. "T" _ four-fifths of the legitimate of "N" or two-fifths
each can expect to receive as their respective shares in of the legitime of either
the distribution of the estate. "A" or "B" or "C", or P80,000.00
Give your answer. Thus, the disposable free portion is P220,000. If the
testator so desires, he
Answer: can leave this disposable portion to his son "A".
The heirs are B, W, C and D. A inherits nothing because of (Note: The above answer is based on Art. 888, 892, 895,
his renunciation. 897 and 898 of the
B inherits a legitime of P90.000.00 as the nearest and Civil Code,)
only legitimate descendant,
inheriting in his own right not by representation because Succession; order of succession and sharing; right of
of A's renunciation. W gets representation, institution, accretion
a legitime equivalent to one-half (1 / 2) that of B 1985 No. 8
amounting to P45.000. C and D In a will executed in 1970, A instituted his two (2)
each gets a legitime equivalent to one-half (1/2) that of B legitimate brothers, B and C, as sole heirs to all the
amounting to P45.000.00 each. But since the total exceeds properties he then owned. B died in 1975, survived by his
the entire estate, their legitimes would have to be reduced legitimate daughter, D, while A died last year, leaving
corresponding to P22.500.00 each (Art. 895. CC). an estate, 1/2 of which was acquired after the execution
of his will.
The total of all of these amounts to P180.000.00.
Alternative Answer: Who will succeed A, how much and by what right will the
INTESTATE SUCCESSION heir or each of the heirs, if more than one, inherit? Reason
ESTATE: P180,000.00 out your answer.
W- (widow gets 1/2 share) P90.000.00 (Art. 998)
A- (son who repudiated his inheritance) None Answer:
(Art. 977) 1. Regarding 1/2 acquired after the execution of the will
B - (Granddaughter) None it will be inherited by
C - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45.000.00 both D and C( C in his own right and D by right of
(Art.998) representation because this 1/2 is inherited by intestate
D - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45,000.00 (Art. succession. With regard to the 1/2 already owned at the
998) time of the execution of the will, C alone will get the
The acknowledged illegitimate child gets 1/2 of the property by right of institution and accretion.
share of each legitimate 2. The half of the property existing at the time of
child. the execution of the will should go to C, the portion
pertaining to him in his own right and the portion
Succession; legitime 1982 No. 12 pertaining to B by right of accretion.
The testator has three children "A", "B", and "C"; a wife
"W"; a father "F"; an acknowledged natural child "N"; The other half acquired after the execution of the will
and an adulterous child "T". "A" is a handicapped passes by intestacy, equally to C in his own right and to
child, and the testator wants to leave to him as much of D in representation of B.
his estate as he can legally do under the law. State the
specific aliquot parts of the estate that the testator can 3. The whole estate will go to the second brother C by
leave "A", "B", and "C", as well as to his other right of accretion and B gets nothing.
aforementioned relatives. State how
you arrive at the result. (Assume a net estate of 4. With respect to the will as made by the testator B is a
P1,200,000.00 and that all of the voluntary heir. He transmits no right to his heir D,
above named relatives survived the testator.) therefore his share in the will 'goes to the other heir by
right of accretion. As to the properties which are not
Answer covered by the will, intestate succession will follow and
Under the law on legitime, the survivors shall be herefore the legal heirs will be the brother and the niece
entitled to the following legitime: to inherit equally.
1. "A", "B" and "C"-one-half of the estate which they
shall divide in equal
5. The 1970 will appears to have only covered the property among A, B and C as follows: A • P333,333.33; B -
which the testator had at the time of its execution. P333.333.33; and C -
Accordingly, the half which wag acquired by him after P333,333.33.
the execution of the will would be governed by the law on
intestacy. As regards the other half, disposed under the (b| On the same assumption as letter (a), there was
will, the property should go to C by right of preterition of C. Therefore, the institution of A and B is
accretion considering that the institution in favor of annulled but the legacy of P100.000.00 to F shall be
B and C was pro-indiviso (Art. 1015). The other half, respected for not being inofficious. Therefore, the
acquired after the execution of the will, will be remainder of P900.000.00 will be divided equally among
distributed in intestacy and assuming that the only A, B and C.
legal heirs are those named in the problem, such
portion shall be equally divided between C (legitimate Succession; preterition 2001 No VI
brother of the deceased) and D (niece of the deceased) by Because her eldest son Juan had been pestering her
right of representation (Art. 1005). for capital to start a business, Josefa gave him
P100,000. Five years later, Josefa died, leaving a last
Succession; partition 1977 No. XI-b will and testament In which she instituted only her four
Discuss briefly the right of a testator to partition his estate younger children as her sole heirs. At the time of her
among his heirs in the last will. death, her only properly left was P900,000.00 in a
Answer bank. Juan opposed the will on the ground of
(NOTE: Either of the following should constitute a preterition. How should Josefa's estate be divided
sufficient answer.) among her heirs? State briefly the reason(s) for your
First Answer answer. (5%)
If the testator has no compulsory heirs, he may partition
his estate in favor of any person having capacity to SUGGESTED ANSWER
succeed. If he has compulsory heirs, he may partition his There was no preterition of the oldest son because
estate provided that he does not contravene the the testatrix donated 100,000 pesos to him. This
provisions of the Civil Code with regard to the legitime of donation is considered an advance on the son's
said heirs. (See Art. 842, Civil Code,) inheritance. There being no preterition, the institutions in
the will shall be respected but the legitime of the oldest
Second Answer son has to be completed if he received less.
Under the Civil Code, the testator may partition his After collating the donation of P100.000 to the
estate either by an act remaining property of P900,000, the estate of the
inter vivos or by a will. In either case, such partition shall testatrix is P1,000,000. Of this amount, one-half or
be respected, insofar as it P500,000, is the legitime of the legitimate children and it
does not prejudice the legitime of his compulsory follows that the legitime of one legitimate child is
heirs (Art. 1080). He may even P100,000. The legitime, therefore, of the oldest son is
entrust the mere power to make the partition to a third P100,000. However, since the donation given him was
person (Art. 1081); and if he P100,000, he has already
so desires, he may even prohibit the partition, in which received in full his legitime and he will not receive
case the period of indivision anything anymore from the
shall not exceed -twenty years (Art. 1083). decedent. The remaining P900,000, therefore, shall go to
the four younger children
Succession; preterition 1999 No VII. by institution in the will, to be divided equally among
(a) Mr. Cruz, widower, has three legitimate children, A, them. Each will receive
B and C. He executed a Will instituting as his heirs to his P225,000.
estate of One Million (P1,QOO,000.00) Pesos his two
children A and B, and his friend F. Upon his death, ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
how should Mr. Cruz's estate be divided? Explain. (3%) Assuming that the donation is valid as to form and
substance, Juan cannot invoke preterition because he
(b) In the preceding question, suppose Mr. Cruz actually had received a donation inter vivos from the
instituted his two children A and B as his heirs in his testatrix (III Tolentino 188,1992 ed.). He would only have a
Will, but gave a legacy of P 100,000.00 to his friend right to a completion of his legitime under Art. 906 of
F. How should the estate of Mr, Cruz be divided upon his the Civil Code. The estate should be divided equally
death? Explain, (2%) among the five children who will each receive
P225,000.00 because the total hereditary estate, after
ANSWER: collating the donation to Juan (Art. 1061, CC), would
(a) Assuming that the institution of A, B and F were to the be P1 million. In the actual distribution of the net
entire estate, there was preterition of C since C is a estate, Juan gets nothing while his
compulsory heir in the direct line. The preterition will siblings will get P225,000.00 each.
result in the total annulment of the institution of heirs.
Therefore, the institution of A, Succession; preterition; substitutions; compulsory
B and F will be set aside and Mr. Cuz's estate will be heirs 1988 No. 6:
divided, as in intestacy, equally (a) What is preterition? What are its requisites? What is its
effect?
(b) What are the different limitations imposed by Succession; probate 1988 No. 5:
law upon fideicommissary (a) In probate proceedings, what are the only
substitutions? questions which a probate court can determine?
(c) Who are compulsory heirs? (b) A presented for probate a will purporting to be the
last will and testament of his deceased wife. The will
Answer: was admitted to probate without any opposition.
Preterition or pretermission, as it is sometimes called may Sixteen months later, the brothers and sisters of the
be defined as the omission in the testator's will of one, deceased discovered that the will was a forgery. Can
some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct A now be prosecuted for the criminal offense of
line, whether living at the time of the execution of forgery? Give your reasons.
the will or born after the death of the testator (Art.
854, CC). Stated in another way, it consists in the Answer:
omission in the testator's will of the compulsory heirs in (a) Under our law, there are only three possible
the direct line, or of anyone of them, either because they questions which can be
are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they determined by the probate court. They are;
are neither instituted as heir nor expressly disinherited (1) Whether or not the instrument which is
(Neri vs. Akutin, 74 Phil 185; Nuguid vs. Nuguid, 17 offered for probate is the last will and testament
SCRA449). Its requisites are: of the decedent; in other words, the question is
(1) The heir omitted must be a compulsory heir in the one of identity.
direct line; (2) Whether or not the will has been executed
(2) The omission must be total and complete; and in accordance with the formalities prescribed by
(3) The omitted heir must survive the testator. law; in other words, the question is one of due
The effect is to annul entirely the institution of heirs but execution.
legacies and devises (3) Whether or not the testator had the
shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious, (Art, 854, necessary testamentary capacity at the time of
CC.) the execution of the will; in other words, the
question is one of capacity. Consequently, the
(b) There are four limitations. They are: probate court cannot inquire into the intrinsic
(1) The substitution must not go beyond one degree from validity of testamentary dispositions.
the heir originally instituted (Art. 863, CC).
(2) The fiduciary and the fideicommissary must be (b) A can no longer be prosecuted for the criminal offense
living at the time of the death of the testator (Ibid). of forgery. This is so because, according to the last
(3) The substitution must not burden the legitime of paragraph of Art. 838 of the Civil Code, subject to the right
compulsory heirs (Art. 864, CC). of appeal the allowance of the will, either during the
(4) The substitution must be made expressly (Art. 865, par. lifetime of the testator or after his death, shall be
l. CC.) conclusive as to its due execution. Since sixteen months
(c) In general, compulsory heirs are those for whom the have already elapsed from the allowance of the will to the
law has reserved a portion of the testator's estate which is time when the forgery was discovered, there is now no
known as the legitime. possible remedy of impugning the validity of the will.
In particular, the following are compulsory heirs:
{1} Legitimate children and descendants, with respect Even a petition to set aside a judgment or order of a Court
to their legitimate parents and ascendants; of First Instance on the ground of fraud in accordance with
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents Secs. 2 and 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is no longer
and ascendants, with respects to their legitimate children possible because more than six months from the time of
and descendants; the promulgation of the judgment or order have already
(3) The widow or widower; elapsed. (Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil 215.)
(4) Acknowledged natural children and natural children
by legal fiction; Succession; probate of notarial and holographic wills
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287. 1997 No. 10:
Johnny, with no known living relatives, executed a
Compulsory heirs mentioned in numbers 3, 4, and 5 notarial will giving all his estate to his sweetheart. One
are not excluded by those in numbers 1 and 2; neither day, he had a serious altercation with his sweetheart. A
do they exclude one another. Compulsory heirs few days later, he was introduced to a charming lady
mentioned in numbers 3, 4, and 5 are not excluded who later became a dear friend. Soon after, he executed
by those in numbers 1 and 2; neither do they exclude one a holographic will expressly revoking the notarial will and
another. In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation so designating his new friend as sole heir. One day when
must be duly proved. he was clearing up his desk, Johnny mistakenly burned,
along with other papers, the only copy of his
The father or mother of illegitimate children of the holographic will. His business associate, Eduardo. knew
classes mentioned shall inherit from them in the manner well the contents of the will which was shown to him
and to the extent established by the Civil Code. (Art. 887, by Johnny the day it was executed. A few days after
CC.) the burning Incident, Johnny died. Both wills were sought
to be probated in two separate
petitions. Will either or both petitions prosper?
 H died leaving a last will and testament wherein it is stated
Answer: that he was legally married to W by whom he had two
The probate of the notarial will will prosper. The legitimate children A and B. H devised to his said forced
holographic will cannot be admitted to probate because heirs the entire estate except the free portion which
a holographic will can only be probated upon evidence of he gave to X who was living with him at the time of his
the will Itself unless there Is a photographic copy. But death.
since the holographic will was lost and there was no
other copy, it cannot be probated and therefore the In said will he explained that he had been estranged from
notarial will will be admitted to probate because there is his wife W for more than 20 years and he has been
no revoking will. living with X as man and wife since his separation
from his legitimate family. In the probate proceedings, X
Additional Answers; asked for the issuance of letters testamentary
1. In the case of Gan vs. Yap (104 Phil 509), the execution in accordance with the will wherein she is named sole
and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic executor. This was opposed by W and her children.
will may not be proved by the bare testimony of
witnesses who have seen or read such will. The will (a) Should the will be admitted in said probate
itself must be presented otherwise it shall produce no proceedings?
effect. The law regards the document itself as material (b) Is the said devise to X valid?
proof of authenticity. Moreover, in order that a will may (c) Was it proper for the trial court to consider the
be revoked by a subsequent will, it is necessary that the intrinsic validity of the
latter will be valid and executed with the formalities provisions of said will? Explain your answers,
required for the making of a will. The latter should
possess all the requisites of a valid will whether it be Answer:
ordinary or a holographic will, and should be probated (a) Yes. the will may be probated if executed
in according to the formalities
order that the revocatory clause thereof may produce prescribed by law.
effect. In the case at bar, since the holographic will itself (b) The institution giving X the free portion is not
cannot be presented, it cannot therefore be probated. valid, because the prohibitions under Art. 739 of the Civil
Code on donations also apply to testamentary
Since it cannot be probated, it cannot revoke the dispositions (Article 1028, Civil Code), Among donations
notarial will previously written by which are considered void are those made between
the decedent. persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the
time of the donation.
2. On the basis of the Rules of Court, Rule 76, Sec. (c) As a general rule, the will should be admitted in
6, provides that no will shall be proved as a lost or probate proceedings if
destroyed will *** unless its provisions are clearly and all the necessary requirements for its extrinsic validity
distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible witnesses. have been met. and the court
Hence, if we abide strictly by the two-witness rule to should not consider the intrinsic validity of the
prove a lost or destroyed will, the holographic will provisions of said will. However, the
which Johnny allegedly mistakenly burned, cannot be exception arises when the will in effect contains only
probated, since there is only one witness, Eduardo, one testamentary disposition.
who can be called to testify as to the existence of In effect, the only testamentary disposition under the
the will. If the holographic will, which purportedly, will is the giving of the free
revoked the earlier notarial will cannot be proved because portion to X, since legitimes are provided by law. Hence,
of the absence of the required witness, then the petition the trial court may consider
for the probate of the notarial will should prosper. the intrinsic validity of the provisions of said will.
(Nuguid v. Nuguid, etal.. No. L-
Succession; probate of wills of aliens 23445, June 23, 1966, 17 SCRA; Nepomuceno v. CA,
1989 No. 10: L-62952, 9 October 1985.
(2) "X", a Spanish citizen and a resident of Los 139 SCRA 206).
Angeles, California, executed a will in Tokyo, Japan. May
such will be probated in the Philippines? May his estate Succession; renunciation; compromise
located in the Philippines be distributed in conformity 1979 No. XIII
with the provisions of the said will? Give your reasons. MN, a wealthy haciendero died leaving to his four
legitimate children and his widow an estate worth about
Answer: P2 million. When the proceedings for the settlement of
A. Yes, it may be made according to the formalities his estate were pending, Rosie, a child he begot with his
of Spanish law, lavandera, filed a claim for a share in the estate. The
California law, Japanese law, or Philippine law. widow and four children contested the claim on the
B. Yes, provided that the provisions conform to the order ground that in a previous action for support filed by the
of succession and the amount of successional rights as lavandera when Rosie was still a minor, the lavandera
regulated by Spanish law. agreed to dismiss the case and signed an agreement
acknowledging that the sum of P50,000.00 paid
Succession; probate; intrinsic validity 1990 No 9:
thereunder included payment for whatever inheritance sister, Rosa, who donated gratuitously a parcel of land
Rosie was to have. Should Rosie's claim be granted? Why? to her niece Mely, sister of Nelia and grandmother of
Lilia. Mely died intestate, leaving aforementioned parcel
Answer of land, survived by her husband Jose and their two
Rosie's claim should be granted but subject to the children, Rico and Nina. Bonong died intestate survived by
condition that the portion his legitimate grandchildren, Rico and Nina. In the
of the P50,000 paid to her mother as her inheritance shall adjudication of his estate, the portion pertaining to Mely,
be brought to collation. It who had predeceased her father, went to her two
must be observed that the agreement is actually a legitimate children, Rico and Nina. Rico died intestate,
renunciation or compromise as single, and without any issue, leaving his share in the
regards a future legitimate or inheritance between the inheritance to his father, Jose, subject to a reserva
person owing it and a troncal duly annotated on the tide. Thereafter Nina
compulsory heir. According to the Civil Code, such a died intestate and her rights and interests were inherited
renunciation or compromise is by her only legitimate child, Lilia.
void, and the latter may claim the same upon the
death of the former, but he must Thereafter, Jose died intestate survived by his only
bring to collation whatever he may have received by descendant, Lilia. Nelia, aunt of Rico, would like to lay
virtue of the renunciation or claim as reservatario to a portion of the one-half pro
compromise. (Art. 905, Civil Code). indiviso share of the property inherited by Jose from his
(NOTE: If the bar candidate invokes either Art. 1347, par. son Rico, How should the estate of Jose, including the
2, or Art. 2035, No. 6 of the Civil Code, instead of Art. property subject to reserva troncal be adjudicated?
905, his answer should be considered correct because Explain.
the result would be the same).
Answer:
Succession; representation 1988 No. 7: This is a proper case of reserva troncal. The propositus is
(a) When does the right of representation take place? Rico, the reservista is Jose and the reservatarios are-
Lilia (a niece) and Nelia (an aunt), both of them being
Answer: relatives within the 3rd degree of Rico (the
The right of representation shall take place in the propositus)and belonging to the maternal line
following cases: represented by Mely. Accordingly, Nelia as reservatario
cannot claim any portion of the pro-indiviso share of the
(1) In testamentary succession: property inherited by Jose from Rico. Lilia alone should
(a) In case a compulsory heir in the direct inherit because in reserva troncal, the successional
descending line dies before the rights of relatives who are reservatarios are determined
testator survived by his children or descendants by the rules of intestate succession. In
(Art. 856, CC). intestacy, nephews and nieces exclude uncles and
(b) In case a compulsory heir in the direct aunts. Hence, Lilia the niece,
descending line is incapacitated to excludes Nelia, the aunt, from the reservable property
succeed from the testator and he has children or (De Papa vs. Camacho 144
descendants. (Arts. 856,1035, CC). SCRA 281), The rest of Jose's estate, not subject to
(c) In case a compulsory heir in the direct reserva, will be inherited by his
descending line is disinherited granddaughter Lilia as sole intestate heir.
and he has children or descendants. (Art. 923, CC).
(2) In intestate succession: Answer;
(a) In case a legal heir in the direct descending This is. a proper case of reserva troncal. The
line dies before the decedent survived by his propositus is Rico, the reservista and the reservatarios
children or descendant (Arts. 981, 982, CC), or are Lilia and Nelia, both of them being relatives within
in the absence of other heirs who can exclude the 3rd degree computed from Rico and belonging
them from the succession, a brother or sister to the maternal line represented by Mely. Under the
dies before the decedent survived by his or her doctrine of "reserva integral'" all the reservatarios in the
own children. (Arts. 972,975, CC). nearest degree will inherit in equal shares the
(b) In case a legal heir in the direct reservable portion of the pro-indiviso share of the
descending line is incapacitated to property inherited by Jose from Rico. The properties
succeed from the decedent and he has children transmitted to Jose by Rico are-the following:
or descendants (Art. 1035, CC), or in the absence
of other heirs who can exclude them from the Firstly, the property which Rico obtained from Mely
succession, a brother or sister is incapacitated to consisted of his share in Mely's interest as donee of
succeed from the decedent and he or she has Rosa's land. The interest acquired by Rico was 1/3,
children, (Arts, 972, 975,1035, CC), because 1/3 thereof was inherited by Jose and 1/3 by
Nina. So the property that was obtained by Jose from Rico
Succession; reserva troncal 1987 No. 13: is the latter's 1/3 interest of the land. In the case of
Lilia and Nelia are relatives, Ulia being the grand niece of Bonong's estate, the share of Mely was 1/2 and Nelia's
Nelia. They had a common ancestor, Bonong, father of was the other half. Out of Mely's share, 1/2 belonged to
Nelia and great-grandfather of Lilia. Bonong had a Rico and the other half belonged to Nina, both Inheriting
by right of representation. Summarizing, the reservable which is reservable passed to D, who is the reservee or
estate is the 1/3 share of Rico in Rosa's land which reservatario. Premises considered, the defense of
was donated to Mely, and the 1/2 interest of Rico in Mely's prescription can only be sustained with respect to the
share of the estate one-third share of B which she had inherited from A
of Bonong. These reservable properties should be in 1955. The computation of the 10-year period of
divided equally between Nelia prescription must commence from 1960. In the case of
and Lilia (Article 891). the two-thirds share which is reservable, the
computation must commence from 1977 when B, the
Succession; reserva troncal 1979 No. XIV ascendant-reservista, died. When D, the reservatario,
A married B in 1950 bringing into the marriage a 10- therefore, filed his action after the death of B, he
hectare piece of unregistered land in Antipolo which he was very much in time to do so. (Chua vs. CFI, 78 SCRA
inherited from his father. Of the marriage two daughters 412).
were born. On February 10, 1956 A and his two
daughters went to Baguio. On the way they met an Succession; reserva troncal 1982 No. 4
accident and A died instantly on the spot while the two (A) What is the reason or rationale for reserva troncal?
daughters died two days later in the hospital where they (B) May the reservor/reservista dispose of the reservable
were brought. In 1960 property —
B sold the land .to C. In 1977 B died so D, the only (1) By acts inter vivos?
brother of A, asked C to reconvey the land to him. (2) By acts mortis causa.? Reasons.
Upon C's refusal, D filed a complaint for recovery of Answer
the land. C raised the defense of prescription. Should the (A) The reason or rationale for reserva troncal is
defense be sustained? Why? evident: it is to reserve
certain property in favor of certain relatives. Hence,
Answer its name reserva lineal or troncal. It seeks to prevent
The defense should be sustained but only with respect persons outside a family from securing, by some special
to one-third of the subject property; however, with accident of life, property that would otherwise remained
respect to the other two-thirds, it should not be therein. Its principal aim is to maintain as absolutely as is
sustained. possible, with respect to the property to which it refers, a
It must be observed that when A died the subject separation between the paternal and maternal lines,
property passed by intestate succession to his wife B so that property of one line
and his two daughters in the proportion of one-third may not pass to the other, or through them to strangers.
for each. When the two daughters died two hours (B) (1) The reservista may dispose of the reservable
later, their one-third shares passed by intestate property by acts inter vivos. This is logical because he
succession to their mother B. These shares which B acquires the ownership of the reservable property upon
acquired by operation of law from her two daughters the death of the descendant-propositus subject to the
became reservable. In other words, by mandate of the resolutory condition that there must exist at the time of
law, upon acquiring the two-thirds share of her his death relatives of the descendant who are within
daughters she was obliged to reserve such share for the third degree and who belong to the line from which
the benefit of relatives of her two deceased daughters the property came. He can, therefore, alienate or
who are within the third degree and who belong to the encumber the property if he so desires, but he will
live from whence only
the reservable property came. All of the requisites of alienate or encumber what he has and nothing more.
reserva troncal are, therefore, As a consequence, the
present. In the first place, the property was acquired acquirer will only receive a limited and revocable title.
by a descendant from an Therefore, after the death of
ascendant or from a brother or sister by gratuitous the reservista, the reservatarios may then rescind the
title; in the second place, said alienation or encumbrance,
descendant died without any legitimate issue in the direct because the resolutory condition to which the reserva
descending line who can inherit from him; in the third is subject has already been
place, the property is inherited by another ascendant by fulfilled.
operation of law; and in the fourth place, there are
relatives of the descendant who are within the third (2) The reservista cannot dispose of the reservable
degree and who belong to the line from which said property by acts mortis causa. The reason is crystal
property came. Consequently, when C bought the clear. Upon the death of said ascendant-reservist,
subject property from B in I960, he reservable property does not belong to his or her
acquired only that which B had and nothing more. In estate. Because the resolutory condition to which the
other words, when B, the ascendant reservista sold the reserva is subject has already been fulfilled, therefore,
property to C in 1960, the latter acquired the one-third the reservatarios or reservees nearest the descendant-
share which B had inherited from A without any condition propositus have already become automatically and by
whatsoever. However, with respect to the other two- operation of law owners of the reservable property.
thirds share which is reservable, C acquired a limited
and revocable title only. Therefore, when B, the Succession;right of representation 1977 No. XIII-c
ascendant-reservista vendor finally died in 1977, What is meant by the right of representation in
automatically, by operation of law, the two-thirds share succession? In what line does it take place?
Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by Succession; testate succession; order of succession
virtue of which the representative is raised to the place and sharing 1983 No. 7
and the degree of the person represented, and acquires The deceased, A left a gross estate worth P360,000 and
the rights which the latter would have if he were living or debts amounting to P60,000. He was survived by his
if he could have inherited (Art. 970, Civil Code). widow, three legitimate children, an acknowledged
The right of representation takes place in the direct natural child and an adulterous child. In his will, he
descending line, but never in the ascending. bequeathed P6,000 to a friend, leaving the remainder of
his estate to his widow and children, legitimate as
In the collateral line, it takes place only in favor of the well as illegitimate.
children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full Divide A's estate among the persons entitled thereto.
or half blood. (Art. 972, Civil Code). Give reasons for your division.
When children of one or more brothers or sisters of
the deceased survive, they shall inherit from the latter by Answer
representation, if they survive with their uncles or aunts. The net estate is worth P300,000.00 [P360.000.00
But if they alone survive, they shall inherit in equal (gross estate) --
portions. (Art, 975, Civil Code). P60,000.00 (debts)]
Each of the legitimate children will receive P50,000 as
Succession; testate succession; institution of heirs; legitime.
substitution of heirs 2002 No VIII. The widow will receive the same amount as legitime.
By virtue of a Codicil appended to his will, Theodore The legitime of the acknowledged natural child is 1/2
devised to Divino a tract of sugar land, with the obligation of that of each
on the part of Divino or his heirs to deliver to Betina a legitimate child or P25.000.00
specified volume of sugar per harvest during Betina’s The share of the spurious child is 4/5 of that of the
lifetime. It is also stated in the Codicil that in the event acknowledged natural
the obligation is not fulfilled, Betina should immediately child or P20,000.00,
seize the property from Divino or latter’s heirs and In addition, the legitimate children, the widow, the
turn it over to Theodore’s compulsory heirs. Divino acknowledged natural
failed to fulfill the obligation under the Codicil. Betina child, and the adulterous child will each receive P8,166.66
brings suit against Divino for the reversion of the tract of 2/3 as their share of the
land. remainder of the free portion, after deducting therefrom
the legitimes of the surviving
A. Distinguish between modal institution and substation spouse, the illegitimate children and the legacy.
of heirs. (3%) The legatee, will get P6,000.00-Explanation:
B. Distinguish between simple and fideicommissary Since the legitime of the legitimate children, which is 1/2
substitution of heirs. of the estate, cannot
(2%) be impaired, only the free portion, the other half of A's
C. Does Betina have a cause of action against Divino? property, is available for the
Explain (5%) satisfaction of the shares of the other distributees. From
SUGGESTED ANSWER: that part must first be taken
A. A modal institution is the institution of an heir the legitimes of the surviving spouse and of the
made for a certain purpose or cause (Arts. 871 and illegitimate children which total P95,-
882, NCC). Substitution is the appointment of another 000,00. To the remainder of the free portion, or P55,000 is
heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of likewise chargeable the legacy. The remainder of the
the heir originality instituted. (Art. 857, NCC). free portion will then be P49,000.00 which shall be
B. In a simple substitution of heirs, the testator divided equally among the children, legitimate as well as
designates one or more persons to substitute the heirs illegitimate and the widow, it having been left to them
instituted in case such heir or heirs should die before him, without any designation of the shares,
or should not wish or should be incapacitated to
accept the inheritance. In a fideicommissary Succession; transmission of rights to succession 1983
substitution, the testator institutes a first heir and No. 8
charges him to preserve and transmit the whole or On A's death last year, his nearest of kin were a legitimate
part of the inheritance to a second heir. In a simple daughter born in 1945 and a spurious son born and
substitution, only one heir inherits. In a fideicommissary recognized by A in 1949. May the daughter oppose her
substitution, both the first and second heirs inherit. (Art. brother's claim to their father's estate on the ground
859 and 869, NCC) that it would impair her right under the old Civil Code to
C. Betina has a cause of action against Divino. This succeed him to the exclusion of spurious children? Why?
is a case of a testamentary disposition subject to a
mode and the will itself provides for the consequence Answer
if the mode is not complied with. To enforce the No. The rights to the succession are transmitted only from
mode, the will itself gives Betina the right to compel the the moment of the death of the decedent. Since A died
return of the property to the heirs of Theodore. (Rabadilla last year when the old Civil Code was no longer in force,
v. Conscoluella, 334 SCRA 522 [2000] GR 113725, 29 June she did not acquire the right granted by it to exclude
2000). her brother from A's inheritance. Her right thereto is
governed by the new Civil Code, the statute in force at the simulated sale in favor of a daughter who already
time of the opening of the succession of A, under benefited by the partition."
which spurious children inherit together with legitimate
descendants. Answer:
C. Yes, under Arts. 51 and 52 of the New Family
Succession; when death takes place; pesumptive Code. In case of legal
legitime 1991 No 6: separation, annulment of marriage, declaration of
(a) For purposes of succession, when is death nullity of marriage and the
deemed to occur or take place? automatic termination of a subsequent marriage by the
(b) May succession be conferred by contracts or acts inter reappearance of the absent
vivos? Illustrate. spouse, the common or community property of the
(c) Is there any law which allows the delivery to spouses shall be dissolved and
compulsory heirs of their liquidated.
presumptive legitimes during the lifetime of their parents? Art, 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive
If so, in what instances? legitimes of all common
children, computed as of the date of the final
Answer: judgment of the trial court, shall be
A. Death as a fact is deemed to occur when it actually delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless
takes place. Death is presumed to take place in the the parties, by mutual
circumstances under Arts. 390-391 of the Civil Code. The agreement, judicially approved, had already provided for
time of death is presumed to be at the expiration of such matters.
the 10-year period as prescribed by Article 390 and at
the moment of disappearance under Article 391 The children of their guardian, or the trustee of their
property, may ask for the enforcement of the judgment.
B. Under Art. 84 of the Family Code amending Art The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein
130 of the Civil Code, prescribed shall In no way
contractual succession is no longer possible since the prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children
law now requires that accruing upon the death of either or both of the parents;
donations of future property be governed by the but the value of the properties already received under the
provisions on the testamentary decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be
succession and formalities of wills, considered as advances on their legitime.

Alternative Answer: Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity

B. In the case of Coronado vs.CA(l91 SCRA81), it was ruled of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the
that no property passes under a will without its being properties of the spouses, and the delivery of the
probated, but may under Article 1O58 of the Civil children's presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in
Code of 1898, be sustained as a partition by an act inter the appropriate civil registry and registries of property;
vivos [Many-Oy vs. CA 144SCRA33). otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons.
And in the case of Chavez vs, IAC 1191 SCRA211), it Succession; wills 1989 No. 10:
was ruled that while (1) What are the characteristics of a will?
the law prohibits contracts upon future inheritance, Answer:
the partition by the parent, as A will is —
provided in Art. 1080. is a case expressly authorized 1. Personal
by law. A person has two 2. Unilateral
options in making a partition of his estate: either by an act 3. Formal or Solemn
inter vivos or by will. If the 4. Ambulatory or revocable
partition is by will, it is imperative that such partition must 5. Individual, not joint 6. Free and voluntary 7. Mortis
be executed in accordance causa
with the provisions of the law on wills; if by an act
inter vivos, such partition may Succession; wills; codicil 1977 No. XII-b
even be oral or written, and need not be in the form of a What is a codicil and how shall it be executed in
will, provided the legitime is order that it may be effective?
not prejudiced, "Where several sisters execute deeds of
sale over their 1 /6 undivided share A codicil is a supplement or addition to a will, made
of the paraphernal property of their mother, in favor after the execution of a
of another sister, with their will and annexed to be taken as a part thereof, by which
mother not only giving her authority thereto but even any disposition made in the
signing said deeds, there is a original will is explained, added to, or altered (Art. 825,
valid partition inter vivos between the mother and Civil Code). The formalities
her children which cannot be which are required in the execution of a codicil are the
revoked by the mother. Said deeds of sale are not same as those required in the
contracts entered into with execution of a will (Art. 826, Civil Code).
respect to future inheritance. "It would be unjust for the Succession; wills; formalities 1975 No. XII
mother to revoke the sales to a son and to execute a
The attestation clause of the will omits to state that Succession; wills; formalities 1990 No 11;
testator signed in the presence of the witnesses and that (1) If a will is executed by a testator who is a Filipino
the latter signed in the presence of the testator and of one citizen, what law will govern if the will is executed in
another. the Philippines? What law will govern if the will is
executed in another country? Explain your answers.
May evidence aliunde be admitted to prove these facts to
allow the probate of the will? Explain. (2) If a will is executed by a foreigner, for instance,
a Japanese, residing In the Philippines, what law will
Answer govern if the will is executed in the Philippines? And
No, evidence aliunde may not be admitted to prove that what law will govern if the will is executed in Japan,
the testator and the witnesses signed in one another's or some other country, for instance, the U.S.A.? Explain
presence because such fact cannot be determined from your answers.
an examination of the will itself. The reason for this
is that oral evidence does not possess the reliability of Answer:
an express statement in the attestation clause. It is for this (1) a. If the testator who is a Filipino citizen executes
reason that Article 805 of the Civil Code requires the his will in the Philippines, Philippine law will govern the
attestation clause to state these facts formalities.
b. If said Filipino testator executes his will in another
country, the law of the country where he maybe or
Succession; wills; formalities 1986 No. 14: Philippine law will govern the formalities. (Article 815,
Busalsal executed a will in his handwriting, signed by him Civil Code}
at the end of each page on the left marginal space of every
page except the last page. The document bore no date. (2) a. If the testator is a foreigner residing in the
However, below Busalsal's every signature, were the Philippines and he executes his will in the Philippines, the
signatures of two witnesses, who later testified that the law of the country of which he is a citizen or Philippine law
will was executed in their presence on January 1, 1985, will govern the formalities. b. If the testator is a foreigner
New Year's Day, and that Busalsal was in full possession and executes his will in a foreign country, the
of his faculties at law of his place of residence or the law of the country of
that time and even explained to them details of the will he which he is a citizen or the
was writing down. Is the will formally valid? Explain. law of the place of execution, or Philippine law will
govern the formalities (Articles
Answer: 17. 816. 817. Civil Code).
The will is not valid either as a notarial will or a
holographic will. It is not valid as a notarial will because Possible Additional Answers:
this requires 3 attesting witnesses. Neither is it a valid a. In the case of a Filipino citizen, Philippine law
holographic will because the will must be entirely shall govern substantive
written, dated and signed in the handwriting of the validity whether he executes his will in the Philippines or
testator. The fact that the witnesses testified as the in a foreign country.
date of execution did not cure the defect. b. In the case of a foreigner, his national law shall govern
substantive validity
Answer - The will is not formally valid. Whether we whether he executes his will in the Philippines or in a
consider the will in the instant problem as a notarial will foreign country.
or as a holographic will, it cannot be considered as a valid
will. If we consider it as a notarial will, it is not be valid Succession; wills; formalities 1975 No. XI
because there are only two instrumental witnesses. Through negligence, one of the three witnesses to a will
Under the law on notarial or ordinary wills, the will forgot to sign on the third page of the original of a five-
should have been subscribed to and attested by three page will, but was able to sign on all the pages of the
or more credible witnesses. Therefore, it is void. If we duplicate. All other requisites were complied with. Can
consider it as a holographic will, it is not also valid the will be admitted to probate? Explain.
because it is not dated. Under the law on holographic
wills, the will should have been entirely written, dated Answer
and signed by the hand of the testator himself. The will may be admitted to probate. Although the
Therefore, it is void. requirements of Article 805 of the Civil Code were not
(Note: The above answer is based upon Arts. 805 and 810 strictly complied with, the purposes of the law have been
of the Civil Code and upon decided cases.) satisfied. Impossibility of substitution is assured by the
fact that the testator and the two other witnesses signed
Answer - The C.C. provides that a holographic will the defective page. The law should not be strictly and
must be entirely in the literally interpreted as to penalize the testator on
handwriting of the testator, signed and dated by him. account of the inadvertence of a single witness over
It need not be witnessed. whose conduct he had no control, where the purpose of
Hence lacking the date, it cannot be allowed to the law
probate. The law does not allow to guarantee the identity of the testament and its
extrinsic evidence to supply the omission. component pages is sufficiently
attained and no intentional or deliberate deviation validity of the second will. Since it turned out that
exists. (Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11 the second will was invalid, the tearing of the first will
SCRA 422) Besides, the signed duplicate copy has the did not produce the effect of revocation. This is known as
same effect as the original. the doctrine of dependent relative revocation (Molo v.
Molo, 90 Phil 37.)
Succession; wills; formalities; Holographic wills; effect
of unauthenticated insertions and cancellations 1996 ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
No. 10: No, the first will cannot be admitted to probate. While it
1) Vanessa died on April 14. 1980. leaving behind a is true that the first will was successfully revoked by the
holographic will which is entirely written, dated and second will because the second will was later denied
signed in her own handwriting. However, it contains probate, the first will was, nevertheless, revoked when
Insertions and cancellations which are not the testator destroyed it after executing the second
authenticated by her signature. For this reason, the invalid will. (Diaz v. De Leon, 43 Phil 413 [1922]).
probate of Vanessa's will was opposed by her relatives
who stood to inherit by her intestacy. Succession; wills; revocation 1981 No. 7
May Vanessa's holographic will be probated? Explain. A testator, a bachelor of 60, executed a Will
bequeathing a ricefield to the Church worth
Answer; P100,000.00. The Will further provided that "all other
Yes, the will as originally written may be probated. assets owned by me after death shall be equally divided
The insertions and alterations were void since they among my two brothers "A" and "B". The testator
were not authenticated by the full signature of subsequently married a young woman, begot a son,
Vanessa, under Art. 814, NCC. The original will, however, and left another Will designating his wife and son as
remains valid because a holographic will is not his heirs in equal shares. The second Will did not
invalidated by the unauthenticated insertions or expressly revoke the first Will. He left an estate worth
alterations (Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 468]. P300,000.00 (including the
ricefield).
Alternative Answer:
It depends. As a rule, a holographic will is not a) Who is entitled to the ricefield? Reasons. b| Who
adversely affected by Insertions or cancellations which acquires the rest of the
were not authenticated by the full signature of the testator assets? Explain. Answer
(Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 468). However, when the insertion (a) It must be observed that the testator left two
or cancellation amounts to revocation of the will, wills. In his first will, he
Art.814 of the NCC does not apply but Art. 830. NCC. bequeathed the ricefield to the Church and instituted as
Art. 830 of the NCC does not require the testator to heirs in equal shares his two
authenticate his brothers "A" and "B" with respect to the rest of his
cancellation for the effectivity of a revocation effected estate. In his second will, he
through such cancellation (Kalaw v. Relova, 132 SCRA instituted his wife and his son as heirs in equal shares.
237). In the Kalaw case, the original holographic will Under our law on revocation
designated only one heir as the only substantial of wills, a will may be revoked by another will- The
provision which was altered by substituting the original revocation may be effected either
heir with another heir. Hence, if the unauthenticated expressly or impliedly. Since there is no express
cancellation amounted to a revocation of the will, the revocation, is there an implied
will may not be probated because it had already been revocation in the instant case? It is undeniable that there
revoked. is an implied revocation if
the testamentary dispositions found in the first will are
Succession; wills; formalities; revocation of wills 2003 totally or partially incompatible
No XI. with those found in the second will. It is also undeniable
Mr. Reyes executed a will completely valid as to form. A that the incompatibility must
week later, however, he executed another will which be absolute in character in the sense that the
expressly revoked his first will, which he tore his first will testamentary dispositions cannot stand together. The
to pieces. Upon the death of Mr. Reyes, his second real issue, therefore, is whether the two testamentary
will was presented for probate by his heirs, but it was dispositions found in the first will can stand together
denied probate due to formal defects. Assuming that a with the single testamentary disposition found in the
copy of the first will is available, may it now be second will. There are two views.
admitted to probate and given According to one view, reading the two wills together
effect? Why? it is clear that the testatorial intention is that only the
testator's wife and son shall inherit. They are instituted
SUGGESTED ANSWER: as universal heirs with respect to the hereditary estate
Yes, the first will may be admitted to probate and in its totality.
given effect. When the testator tore first will, he was
under the mistaken belief that the second will was Therefore, the second will in its totality cannot stand
perfectly valid and he would not have destroyed the first together with the first will in its totality. Consequently,
will had he known that the second will is not valid. The the incompatibility between the testamentary
revocation by destruction therefore is dependent on the dispositions found in the, first will and those found in the
second will is both total and absolute in character. Hence, 2) Alfonso, a bachelor without any descendant or
the first will is impliedly revoked by the second will. The ascendant, wrote a last
testator's widow and his son are, therefore, entitled to the will and testament in which he devised." all the
ricefield According to a second view, only the institution properties of which I may be possessed at the time
of "A" and " B'' in the firs t will as heirs and that portion of my death" to his favorite brother Manuel. At the
or part of the bequest given to the Church which will time he wrote the will, he owned only one parcel of land.
impair But by the time he died, he owned twenty parcels of land.
the legitime of the testator's son and widow are His other brothers and sisters insist that his will should
revoked by the second will. The pass only the parcel of land he owned at the time it
reason is that it is only to that extent that there is was written, and did not cover his properties acquired,
absolute incompatibility between which should be by intestate succession. Manuel
the testamentary dispositions found in the first will claims
and those found in the second otherwise. Who is correct? Explain.
will. Consequently, the Church shall be entitled to the
ricefield but only to the extent Answer:
that it does not encroach upon the legitime of the Manuel is correct because under Art. 793, NCC,
testator's son and widow. property acquired after the making of a will shall only
(Nme: The above answers are based on the law on pass thereby, as if the testator had possessed it at
revocation of wills, such the time of making the will, should it expressly appear
as Arts. 830. et. seq.. Civil Code and on well settled by the will that such was his intention. Since Alfonso's
principles in American intention to devise all properties he owned at the
jurisprudence. The Committee respectfully recommends time of his death expressly appears on the will, then all
that whether the bar the 20 parcels of land are included in the devise.
candidate will solve the problem either in accordance
with the first view or in Succession; wills; witnesses to holographic wills 1989
accordance with the second view, it should be considered No. 11:
as a correct answer.) (1) The probate of the will of Nicandro is contested
(b) Suggested answer for those who adhere to the first on the ground that the notary public before whom the
view stated above: will, was acknowledged was also one of the three
There are two views with regard to the distribution instrumental witnesses. If you were the probate judge,
of the entire estate, how would you decide the contest? Give your reasons.
including the ricefield.
According to one view, one-half (1/2) shall be given Answer:
to the testator's widow The will is void. The acknowledging officer cannot serve as
and the other one-half (1/2) shall be given to the testator's attesting witness at the same time. In effect there are
son. This division would only two witnesses since the notary cannot swear
be more in conformity with the testatorial intention. before himself.

According to another view, first satisfy the legitime of Succession; wills; witnesses to holographic wills 1994
the two heirs. The testator's widow shall be entitled to No. 10:
one-fourth (1/4) of P300,000, or P75,000, while the On his deathbed, Vicente was executing a will. In the
testator's son shall be entitled to one-half, or room were Carissa, Carmela, Comelio and Atty. Cimpo,
P150,000. The disposable free portion shall then be a notary public. Suddenly, there was a street brawl
divided equally between the two. This would be more which caught Comelio's attention, prompting him to
in conformity with the testatorial intention. look out the window. Cornelio did not see Vicente sign
a will. Is the will valid?
Suggested answer for those who adhere the second view
stated above:
The testator's son shall be entitled to a legitime of one- Alternative Answers:
half |l/2) of the entire a) Yes, The will is valid. The law does not require a witness
estate, or P150.000; the widow shall be entitled to a to actually see the testator sign the will. It is sufficient
legitime of one-fourth on the if the witness could have seen the act of signing had
entire estate, or P75,000. That means that the bequest he chosen to do so by casting his eyes to the proper
in favor of the Church is direction.
inofficious to the extent of P25.000, considering that
the value of the ricefield is b) Yes, the will is valid. Applying the "test of position",
P100,000. Consequently, said bequest or devise should although Comelio did not actually see Vicente sign the
be reduced by one-fourth will, Cornelio was in the proper position to see Vicente
(1/4). Therefore, the Church shall be entitled only to sign if Cornelio so wished.
an undivided share of three-
fourth (3/4) of the ricefield. Succession 2015
Alden and Stela were both former Filipino citizens. They
Succession; wills; testamentary intent 1996 No. 10: were married in the Philippines but they later migrated to
the United States where they were naturalized as
American citizens. In their union they were able to magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o sa kalapit
accumulate several real properties both in the US and in na mga lungsod." Is the provision valid? (4%)
the Philippines. Unfortunately, they were not blessed with
children. In the US, they executed a joint will instituting as SUGGESTED ANSWER:
their common heirs to divide their combined estate in No, the provision is not valid. At first glance, the provision
equal shares, the five siblingsand of Alden the seven may appear valid as it provides for the transfer of title in
siblings of Stela. Alden passed away in 2013 and a year favor of Alex and Rene over the parcel of land. A legacy or
later, Stela also died. The siblings of Alden who were all devise is to be construed as a donation effective mortis
citizens of the US instituted probate proceedings in a US causa, and it is intended to transfer ownership to the
court impleading the siblings of Stela who were all in the legatee or devisee. Since the ownership is legally
Philippines. transferred to the Alex and Rene, they cannot be
a) Was the joint will executed by Alden and Stela who were prohibited by the testator from alienating or partitioning
both former Filipinos valid? Explain with legal basis. (3%) the same perpetually. The dispositions of the testator
declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for more than
b) Can the joint will produce legal effect in the Philippines twenty years are void. (Article 870)
with respect to the propertiesand of Alden Stela found
here? If so, how? (3%) V.
What is the effect of preterition ? (1%)
c) Is the situation presented in Item I an example of (A) It annuls the devise and legacy
depe9age? (2%) (B) It annuls the institution of heir
(C) It reduces the devise and legacy
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (D) It partially annuls the institution of
a) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela is considered valid. heir
Being no longer Filipino citizens at the time they executed
their joint will, the prohibition under our Civil Code on Answer is letter B (preterition annuls the
joint wills will no longer apply to Alden and Stela. For as institution of heirs)
long as their will was executed in accordance with the law
of the place where they reside, or the law of the country XIII.
of which they are citizens or even in accordance with the Esteban and Martha had four (4) children:
Civil Code, a will executed by an alien is considered valid Rolando, Jun, Mark, and Hector. Rolando had a
in the Philippines. (Article 816) daughter, Edith, while Mark had a son, Philip.
After the death of Esteban and Martha, their
b) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela can take effect even three (3) parcels of land were adjudicated to
with respect to the properties located in the Philippines Jun. After the death of Jun, the properties
because what governs the distribution of their estate is no passed to his surviving spouse Anita, and son
longer Philippine law but their national law at the time of Cesar. When Anita died, her share went to her
their demise. Hence, the joint will produces legal effect son Cesar. Ten (10) years after, Cesar died
even with respect to the properties situated in the intestate without any issue. Peachy, Anita.s
Philippines. sister, adjudicated to herself the properties as
the only surviving heir of Anita and Cesar. Edith
c) No, because depecage is a process of applying rules of and Philip would like to recover the properties
different states on the basis of the precise issue involved. claiming that they should have been reserved
It is a conflict of laws where different issues within a case by Peachy in their behalf and must now revert
may be governed by the laws of different states. In the back to them. Is the contention of Edith and Philip valid?
situation in letter (a) no conflict of laws will arise because (4%)
Alden and Stela are no longer Filipino citizens at the time SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the execution of their joint will and the place of No, the contention is not valid. The property
execution is not the Philippines. adjudicated to Jun from the estate of his parents which he
in turn left to Anita and Cesar is not subject to reservation
2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS in favor of Edith and Philip. In Mendoza et. al.
Crispin died testate and was survived by Alex vs.Policarpio, et. al. 1 the court ruled that lineal character
and Josine, his children from his first wife; Rene of the reservable property is reckoned from the ascendant
and Ruby, his children from his second wife; from whom the propositus received the property by
and Allan, Bea, and Cheska, his children from gratuitous title. The ownership should be reckoned only
his third wife. One important provision in his will reads from Jun, as he is the ascendant from where the first
asfollows: transmission occurred or from whom Cesar inherited the
properties. Moreover, Article 891 provides that the person
"Ang lupa at bahay sa Lungsod ng Maynila ay obliged to reserve the property should be an ascendant.
ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan nila Alex at Rene Peachy is not Cesar’s ascendant but a mere collateral
hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang relative. On the assumption that the property is
pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at reservable, Edith and Philip being first cousins of Cesar
nang ang sinuman sa aking mga anak, sampu who is the propositus are disqualified to be
ng aking mga apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa reservatarios as they are not third degree
habang panahon, ay may tutuluyan kung relatives of Cesar.
 2 G.R. No. 170829 November 20, 2006
XVII. I.
On March 30, 2000, Mariano died intestate and Alden and Stela were both former
was survived by his wife, Leonora, and children, Filipino citizens. They were married in the
Danilo and Carlito. One of the properties he left Philippines but they later migrated to the
was a piece of land in Alabang where he built United States where they were naturalized as
his residential house. American citizens. In their union they were
able to accumulate several real properties
After his burial, Leonora and Mariano.s children both in the US and in the Philippines.
extrajudicially settled his estate. Thereafter, Unfortunately, they were not blessed with
Leonora and Danilo advised Carlito of their children. In the US, they executed a joint will
intention to partition the property. Carlito instituting as their common heirs to divide
opposed invoking Article 159 of the Family their combined estate in equal shares, the five
Code. Carlito alleged that since his minor child siblingsand of Alden the seven siblings of
Lucas still resides in the premises, the family Stela. Alden passed away in 2013 and a year
home continues until that minor beneficiary later, Stela also died. The siblings of Alden who
becomes of age. Is the contention of Carlito tenable? (4%) were all citizens of the US instituted probate
1 G.R. NO. 176422 -March 20, 2013 proceedings in a US court impleading the
siblings of Stela who were all in the Philippines.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Was the joint will executed by Alden
No, the contention of Carlito is not tenable. In and Stela who were both former
the case of Patricio v. Dario,2 with similar facts Filipinos valid? Explain with legal basis.
to the case at bar, the court ruled that to qualify (3%)
as beneficiary of the family home the person b) Can the joint will produce legal
must be among those mentioned in Article 154, effect in the Philippines with
he/she must be actually living in the family respect to the propertiesand of
home and must be dependent for legal support Alden Stela found here? If so,
upon the head of the family. While Lucas, the how? (3%)
son of Carlito satisfies the first and second c) Is the situation presented in
requisites, he cannot however, directly claim Item I an example of
legal support from his grandmother, Leonora depe9age? (2%)
because the person primarily obliged to give SUGGESTED ANSWER:
support to Lucas is his father, Carlito. Thus, a) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela is
partition may be successfully claimed by considered valid. Being no longer Filipino
Leonora and Danilo. citizens at the time they executed their joint
XXV. will, the prohibition under our Civil Code on
Mario executed his last will and testament joint wills will no longer apply to Alden and
where he acknowledges the child being Stela. For as long as their will was executed in
conceived by his live-in partner Josie as his own accordance with the law of the place where
child; and that his house and lot in Baguio City they reside, or the law of the country of which
be given to his unborn conceived child. Are the they are citizens or even in accordance with
acknowledgment and the donation mortis causa the Civil Code, a will executed by an alien is
valid? Why? (4%) considered valid in the Philippines. (Article
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 816)
Yes, the acknowledgment is considered valid
because a will (although not required to be filed b) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela can take
by the notary public) may still constitute a effect even with respect to the properties
document which contains an admission of located in the Philippines because what
illegitimate filiation. Article 834 also provides governs the distribution of their estate is no
that the recognition of an illegitimate child does longer Philippine law but their national law at
not lose its legal effect even though the will the time of their demise. Hence, the joint will
wherein it was made should be revoked. This produces legal effect even with respect to the
provision by itself warrants a conclusion that a properties situated in the Philippines.
will may be considered as proof of filiation. The
donation mortis causa may be considered valid IV.
because although unborn, a fetus has a Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived
presumptive personality for all purposes together as common law spouses and agreed
favorable to it provided it be born under the to raise a son of Bert’s living brother as their
conditions specified in Article 41. child without legally adopting him. Bert worked
while Joe took care of their home and the boy.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS In their 20 years of cohabitation they were able
SUGGESTED ANSWERS to acquire real estate assets registered in their
2015 CIVIL LAW BAR EXAMINATIONS names as co-owners. Unfortunately, Bert died
By: Assoc. Dean Viviana M. Paguirigan of cardiac arrest, leaving no will. Bert was
survived by his biological siblings, Joe, and the filiation to the deceased. Maria can set up the defense that
boy. the action has prescribed. An action for revocation of the
xxxx donation on the ground that it impaired the legitime of a
b) What are the successional rights of the compulsory heir may only be filed
boy Bert Joe and raised as their son? (2%) within ten (10) years from the time the cause
xxxxx of action accrues which is at the time of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: death of Jose. The facts are not clear as to
b)Neither of the two will inherit from Bert. Joe when Jose died but on the assumption that he
cannot inherit because the law does not died ten years prior to the filing of the action,
recognize the right of a stranger to inherit from the same has clearly prescribed.
the decedent in the absence of a will. Their
cohabitation will not vest Joe with the right to Heirs; Fideicommissary Substitution
inherit from Bert. The child will likewise not (2008)
inherit from Bert because of the lack of formal No. XIII. Raymond, single, named his sister
adoption of the child. A mere ward or .ampon. Ruffa in his will as a devisee of a parcel of
has no right to inherit from the adopting land which he owned. The will imposed
parents. (Manuel v. Ferrer, 247 SCRA 476) upon Ruffa the obligation of preseving the
land and transferring it, upon her death, to
IX. her illegitimate daughter Scarlet who was
Jose, single, donated a house and lot to his only then only one year old. Raymond later died,
niece, Maria, who was of legal age and who leaving behind his widowed mother, Ruffa
accepted the donation. The donation and and Scarlet.
Maria’s acceptance thereof were evidenced by
a Deed of Donation. Maria then lived in the (A). Is the condition imposed upon Ruffa, to
house and lot donated to her, religiously preserve the property and to transmit it
paying real estate taxes thereon. Twelve years upon her death to Scarlet, valid? (1%)
later, when Jose had already passed away, a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
woman claiming to be an illegitimate daughter Yes, the condition imposed upon Ruffa
of Jose filed a complaint against Maria. to preserve the property and to transmit
Claiming rights as an heir, the woman prayed it upon her death to Scarlet is valid because it is
that Maria be ordered to reconvey the house tantamount to fideicommissary substitution under Art.
and lot to Jose’s estate. In her complaint she 863 of the Civil Code.
alleged that the notary public who notarized
the Deed of Donation had an expired notarial (B). If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, who inherits the
commission when the Deed of Donation was property? (2%)
executed by Jose. Can Maria be made to
reconvey the property? What can she put up as SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a defense? (4%) Ruffa will inherit the property as
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Scarlet's heir. Scarlet acquires a right to
No. Maria cannot be compelled to reconvey the the succession from the time of
property. The Deed of Donation was void Raymond's death, even though she
because it was not considered a public should predecease Ruffa (Art. 866, Civil
document. However, a void donation can Code).
trigger acquisitive prescription. (Solis v. CA 176
SCRA 678; Doliendo v. Biarnesa 7 Phil. 232) The (C). If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, can
void donation has a quality of titulo colorado Scarlet inherit the property directly from
enough for acquisitive prescription especially Raymond? (2%)
since 12 years had lapsed from the deed of
donation. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3 If Ruffa predeceases Raymond,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Maria can be made Raymond's widowed mother will be
to reconvey the property. The law provides entitled to the inheritance. Scarlet, an
that no person may give or receive by way of illegitimate child, cannot inherit the
donation more than what he may give or property by intestate succession from
receive by will. On the assumption that the Raymond who is a legitimate relative of
property donated to Maria is the only property Ruffa (Art. 992, Civil Code). Moreover,
of Jose, the legitime of his illegitimate child Scarlet is not a compulsory heir of
would be impaired if Maria would be allowed to Raymond, hence she can inherit only by
keep the entire property. After taking into testamentary succession. Since
account the value of the property, Maria can be Raymond executed a will in the case at
made to reconvey the property to the extent bar, Scarlet may inherit from Raymond.
necessary to satisfy the legitime of Jose.s
illegitimate daughter provided that the woman Heirs; Intestate Succession; Legitime;
claiming to be Jose.s child can prove her Computation (2010)
No.XI. The spouses Peter and Paula had pay the said legitime of the 3 illegitimate children, because
three (3) children. Paula later obtained a only ¼ of the estate is left after paying the legitime of the
judgment of nullity of marriage. Their surviving spouse which is
absolute community of property having preferred. Hence, the remaining ¼ of the estate
been dissolved, they delivered P1 million to shall be divided among the 3 illegitimate
each of their 3 children as their children.
presumptive legitimes. Peter later re-married and had two
(2) children by his second wife Marie. Peter and Marie, (B). What is the effect of the receipt by
having successfully engaged in business, acquired real Peter’s 3 children by his first marriage of
properties. Peter later died intestate. their presumptive legitimes on their right to
inherit following Peter’s death? (5%)
(A). Who are Peter’s legal heirs and how will
his estate be divided among them? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the distribution of Peter’s estate, ½ of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the presumptive received by the 3 children of the first
The legal heirs of Peter are his children marriage shall be collated to Peter’s estate and shall be
by the first and second marriages and imputed as an advance of their respective inheritance
his surviving second wife. Their shares in the estate of from Peter. Only
Peter will depend, however, on the cause of the nullity of half of the presumptive legitime is collated to the estate
the first marriage. If the of Peter because the other half shall be collated to the
nullity of the first marriage was psychological incapacity estate of his first wife.
of one or both spouses, the three children of that void
marriage are legitimate and all of the legal heirs shall Heirs; Representation; Iron-Curtain Rule(2012)
share the estate of Peter in equal shares. If the judgment No.VIII.
of
nullity was for other causes, the three a) Ricky and Arlene are married. They begot Franco during
children are illegitimate and the estate their marriage. Franco had an illicit relationship with
shall be distributed such that an illegitimate child of the Audrey and out of which, they begot Arnel. Frnaco
first marriage shall receive half of the share of a legitimate predeceased Ricky, Arlene and Arnel. Before Ricky died,
child of the second marriage, and the second wife will he executed a will which when submitted to probate was
inherit a share opposed by Arnel on the ground that he
equal to that of a legitimate child. In no should be given the share of his father,
case may the two legitimate children of Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel correct?
the second marriage receive a share less Why? (5%)
than one-half of the estate which is their
legitime. When the estate is not sufficient to pay all the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
legitimes of the compulsory heirs, the legitime of the No, his opposition is not correct. Arnel
spouse is preferred and the illegitimate children suffer the cannot inherit from Ricky in the representation of his
reduction. father Franco. In representation, the representative must
not only be a legal heir of the person he is representing,
Computation: he must also be a legal heir of the decedent he seeks to
(A) If the ground of nullity is inherit from.
psychological incapacity: While Arnel is a legal heir of Franco, he
3 children by first marriage is not a legal heir of Ricky because under
1/6 of the estate for each Art 992 of the NCC, an illegitimate child
2 children by second marriage has no right to inherit ab intestato from
1/6 of the estate for each the legitimate children and relatives of
Surviving second spouse his father or mother. Arnel is disqualified to inherit from
1/6 of the estate Ricky because Arnel is an illegitimate child of Franco and
Ricky is a legitimate relative of Franco.
(B) If the ground of nullity is not
psychological capacity: Heirs; Reserva Troncal (2009)
2 legitimate children No. I. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
¼ of the estate for statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain
each of second marriage your answer in not more than two (2) sentences.
Surviving second spouse
¼ of the estate (B).In reservatroncal, all reservatarios (reser
3 illegitimatechildren vees) inherit as a class and in equal shares
1/12 of estate for regardless of their proximity in degree to
each of first marriage the prepositus. (1%)
Note: The legitime of an illegitimate
child is supposed to be ½ the legitime of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a legitimate child or 1/8 of the estate.
But the estate will not be sufficient to
FALSE. Not all the relatives within the third degree will
inherit as reservatario, and not all those who are entitled Therefore, the three (3) nephews will
to inherit will inherit in the equal shares. receive P1,111,111.10 each the half sister
will receive the sum of P1,666,666.60.
The applicable laws of intestate succession will determine
who among the relatives will inherit as reservatarios and
what shares they will take, i.e., the direct line excludes the Intestate Succession (2008)
collateral, the No.X. Arthur executed a will which contained only: (i) a
descending direct line excludes the ascending ,the nearer provision disinheriting his daughter Bernica for running
excludes the more remote, the nephews and nieces off with a married man, and (ii) a provision disposing of
exclude the uncles and the aunts, and half blood relatives his share in the family house and lot in favor of his other
inherit half the share of full-blooded relatives. children Connie and Dora. He did not make any provisions
in favor of his wife Erica, because as the will stated, she
Intestate Succession (2008) would anyway get ½ of the house and lot as her conjugal
No. VII. Ramon Mayaman died intestate, share. The will was very brief and straightforward and both
leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00. the
Determine how much each heir will receive above provisions were contained in page 1,
from the estate: which Arthur and his instrumental witness,
signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained the
(A). If Ramon is survived by his wife, three attestation clause and the signatures, at
full-blood brothers, two half-brothers, and the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental
one nephew (the son of a deceased fullblood witnesses which included Lambert, the
brother)? Explain. (3%) driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared
Having died intestate, the estate of Ramon shall be the will. There was a 3rd page, but this only
inherited by his wife and his full and half blood siblings or contained the notarial acknowledgement.
their respective representatives. In intestacy, if the wife The attestation clause stated the will was
concurs with no one but the siblings of the husband, all of signed on the same occasion by Arthur and
them are his instrumental witnesses who all signed
the intestate heirs of the deceased husband. The wife will in the presence of each other, and the notary public who
receive half of the intestate estate, while the siblings or notarized the will. There
their respective representatives, will inherit the other half are no marginal signatures or pagination
to be divided among them equally. If some siblings are of appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon his
the full-blood and the other of the half blood, a half blood death, it was discovered that apart from the
sibling will receive half the share of a full-blood sibling. house and lot, he had a P 1 million account
deposited with ABC bank.
(1). The wife of Ramon will, therefore, (D). How should the house and lot, and the
receive one half (½) of the estate or the cash be distributed? (1%)
amount of P5,000,000.00.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2). The three (3) full-blood brothers, will, therefore, Since the probate of the will cannot be
receive P1,000,000.00 each. allowed, the rules on intestate succession apply. Under
Art. 996 of the Civil Code, if a widow or widower and
(3). The nephew will receive P1,000,000.00 by right of legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving
representation. spouse has the same
share as of the children. Thus, ownership over the house
(4). The two (2) half-brothers will receive and lot will be created among wife Erica and her children
P500,000.00 each. Bernice, Connie and Dora. Similarly, the amount of P 1
million will be equally divided among them.
(B). If Ramon is survived by his wife, a halfsister,
and three nephews (sons of a deceased full-blood
brother)? Explain. (3%)
Intestate Succession; Rights of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Representation: Illegitimate, Adopted
The wife will receive one half (1/2) of the Child; Iron Curtain Rule (2007)
estate or P5,000,000.00. The other half
shall be inherited by (1) the full-blood brother, No. X. For purpose of this question, assume
represented by his three children, and (2) the half-sister. all formalities and procedural requirements
They will divide the other half between them such that the have been complied with.
share of the half-sister is just half the share of the full-
blood In 1970, Ramon and Dessa got married.
brother. The share of the full-blood brother shall in turn Prior to their marriage, Ramon had a child,
be inherited by the three nephews in equal shares by right Anna. In 1971 and 1972, Ramon and Dessa
of presentation.
legally adopted Cherry and Michelle respectively. In 1973, represented person is supposed to inherit. In the case of
Dessa died while giving birth to Larry Anna had a child, Shelly, while she is a legal heir of Cherry by virtue of
Lia. Anna never married. Cherry, on the other hand, legally adoption, she is not a legal heir of
adopted Shelly. Larry had twins, Hans and Gretel, with his Ramon. Adoption creates a personal legal relation only
girlfriend, Fiona. In 2005, Anna, Larry and Cherry between the adopting parent and the adopted child
died in a car accident. In 2007, Ramon died. Who may (Teotico v. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406, 1965. Michelle cannot
inherit from Ramon and who may not? Give your reason inherit from Ramon, because she was adopted not by
briefly.(10%) Ramon but by Dessa. In the eyes of the law, she is not
related
SUGGESTED ANSWER: to Ramon at all. Hence, she is not a legal heir of Ramon.
The following may inherit from Ramon: Hans and Gretel are not entitled to inherit from Ramon,
(1). Michelle, as an adopted child of Ramon, will inherit as because they are barred by Art. 992 NCC. Being
a legitimate child of Ramon. As an adopted child, Michelle illegitimate children of Larry, they cannot inherit from the
has all the rights of a legitimate child (Sec 18, Domestic legitimate
Adoption Law). relatives of their father Larry. Ramon is
a legitimate relative of Larry who is the
(2). Lia will inherit in representation of Anna. Although Lia legitimate father.
is an illegitimate child, she is not barred by Articles 992,
because her mother Anna is an illegitimate herself. She Legitimes; Compulsory Heirs (2012)
will represent Anna as regards Anna's legitime under Art. No.VIII.
902, NCC and as regards Anna's intestate share under Art.
990, NCC. b) How can RJP distribute his estate by will, if his heirs are
JCP, his wife; HBR and RVC, his parents; and an illegitimate
The following may not inherit from Ramon: child, SGO?
(1). Shelly, being an adopted child, she cannot represent
Cherry. This is because adoption creates a personal legal SUGGESTED ANSWER:
relation only between the adopter and the adopted. The A testator may dispose of by will the free portion of his
law on representation requires the representative to be a estate. Since the legitime of JCP is 1/8 of the estate, SGO
legal heir of the person he is representing and is ¼ of the estate and that of HBR and RVC is ½ of the
also of the person from whom the person being hereditary estate under Art 889 of the NCC, the remaining
represented was supposed to inherit. While Shelly is a 1/8 of the estate is the free portion which the testator may
legal heir of Cherry, Shelly is not a legal heir of Ramon. dispose of by will.
Adoption created a purely
personal legal relation only between Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2008)
Cherry and Shelly. No. XII. Ernesto, an overseas Filipino worker, was coming
home to the Philippines after working for so many years
(2). Hans and Gretel are barred from in the Middle East. He had saved P100.000 in his saving
inheriting from Ramon under Art. 992, account in Manila which intended to use to start a
NCC. Being illegitimate children, they business in his home country. On his flight home, Ernesto
cannot inherit ab intestao from Ramon. had a
fatal heart attack. He left behind his widowed mother, his
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: common-law wife and their twins sons. He left no will, no
The problem expressly mentioned the dates of the debts, no other relatives and no other properties except
adoption of Cherry and Michelle as 1971 and 1972. During the money in his saving account.
that time, adoption was governed by the New Civil Code.
Under the New Civil Code, husband and wife were allowed Who are the heirs entitled to inherint from
to adopt separately or not jointly with the other spouse. him and how much should each receive?(3%)
And since the problem does not specifically and
categorically state, it is possible to construe the use of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
word "respectively" in the problem as The mother and twin sons are entitled to
indicative of the situation that Cherry was adopted by inherit from Ernesto. Art. 991 of the Civil Code, provides
Ramon alone and Michelle was adopted by Dessa alone. that if legitimate ascendants are left, the twin sons shall
In such case of separate adoption the alternative answer divide the inheritance with them taking one-half of the
to the problem will be as follows: Only Lia will inherit from estate. Thus, the widowed mother gets P50,000.00 while
Ramon in representation of Ramon's the twin
illegitimate daughter Anna. Although Lia sons shall receive P25,000.00 each. The common-law wife
is an illegitimate child, she is not barred cannot inherit from him because when the law speaks
from inheriting from Ramon because her "widow or widower" as a compulsory heir, the law refers
mother is herself illegitimate. Shelly cannot inherit in to a legitimate spouse (Art. 887, par 3, Civil Code).
representation of Cherry because Shelly is just an adopted
child of Cherry. In representation, the representative must Preterition; Disinheritance (2008)
not only be a legal heir of the person he is representing No.X. Arthur executed a will which
but also of the decedent from whom the contained only: (i) a provision disinheriting
his daughter Bernica for running off with a
married man, and (ii) a provision disposing was pregnant. She insured her own life and named her
of his share in the family house and lot in unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she was
favor of his other children Connie and Dora. already due to give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the
He did not make any provisions in favor of father of her unborn child, were kidnapped in a resort in
his wife Erica, because as the will stated, Bataan where they were vacationing. The military gave
she would anyway get ½ of the house and chase and after one week, they were found in an
lot as her conjugal share. The will was very abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were hacked
brief and straightforward and both the with bolos. Marian and the baby delivered were both
above provisions were contained in page 1, found dead, with the baby's umbilical cord already cut.
which Arthur and his instrumental witness, Pietro survived.
signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained the (B). Between Marian and the baby, who is
attestation clause and the signatures, at presumed to have died ahead? (1%)
the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental
witnesses which included Lambert, the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and The baby is presumed to have died ahead
Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared of Marian. Under Par. 5, rule 131, Sec. 5
the will. There was a 3rd page, but this only (KK) of the Rules of Court, if one is under 15 or above 60
contained the notarial acknowledgement. and the age of the other is in between 15 and 60, the latter
The attestation clause stated the will was is presumed to have survived. In the instant case, Marian
signed on the same occasion by Arthur and was already 18 when she found out that she was pregnant.
his instrumental witnesses who all signed She could be of the same age or maybe 19 years of age
in the presence of each other, and the when she gave birth.
notary public who notarized the will. There (C). Will Pietro, as surviving biological
are no marginal signatures or pagination father of the baby, be entitled to claim the
appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon his proceeds of the life insurance on the life of
death, it was discovered that apart from the Marian? (2%)
house and lot, he had a P 1 million account SUGGESTED ANSWER:
deposited with ABC bank. Pietro, as the biological father of the
(A). Was Erica preterited? (1%) baby, shall be entitled to claim the
proceeds of life insurance of the Marian
SUGGESTED ANSWER: because he is a compulsory heir of his
Erica cannot be preterited. Art. 854 of child.
the Civil Code provides that only
compulsory heirs in the direct line can be preterited. Succession; Rule on Survivorship (2009)
No. II. Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his son
(B). What other defects of the will, if any, Roberto both died in a fire that gutted their home while
can cause denial of probate? (2%) they were sleeping in their air-conditioned rooms.
Roberto’s wife, Marilyn, and their two children were pared
SUGGESTED ANSWER: because they were in the province at the time. Dr. Lopez
The other defects of the will that can left an estate worth P20M and a life insurance policy in the
cause its denial are as follows: (a) Atty. amount of P1M with his three children ---
Zorba, the one who prepared the will was one of whom is Roberto --- as beneficiaries. Marilyn is
one of the three witnesses, violating the now claiming for herself and her
three-witnesses rule; (b) no marginal children her husband’s share in the estate left by Dr.
signature at the last page; (c ) the attestation did not state Lopez, and her husband’s share in the proceeds of Dr.
the number of pages upon which the will is written; and, Lopez’s life insurance policy. Rule on the validity of
(d) no pagination appearing Marilyn’s claims with reasons. (4%)
correlatively in letters on the upper part
of the three pages (Azuela v. C.A., G.R. SUGGESTED ANSWER :
No. 122880, 12 Apr 2006 and cited cases As to the Estate of Dr. Lopez: Marilyn is not entitled to a
therein, Art 805 and 806, Civil Code). share in the estate of Dr. Lopez. For purpose of
(C). Was the disinheritance valid? (1%) succession, Dr. Lopez and his son
Roberto are presumed to have died at the same time,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: there being no evidence to prove otherwise, and there
Yes, the disinheritance was valid. Art. shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other
919, par 7, Civil Code provides that "when a child or (Article 43, NCC). Hence, Roberto, inherited nothing from
descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life, like his father that Marilyn would in turn inherit from
running off with a married man, there is sufficient cause Roberto .The children of Roberto, however, will succeed
for disinheritance." their grandfather, Dr. Lopez ,in representation of their
Succession; Proof of Death between persons called to father Roberto and together Roberto will receive 1/3 of
succeed each other (2008) the estate of Dr. Lopez since their father Roberto was one
of the three children of Dr. Lopez . Marilyn cannot
No. II. At age 18, Marian found out that she represent her husband Roberto because the right is not
given by the law to a surviving spouse. As to the proceeds recognized illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. Fuentes left for the
of the insurance on United States, passed the New York medical licensure
the life of Dr. Lopez: examinations, resided therein, and became a naturalized
American citizen.
Since succession is not involved as
regards the insurance contract, the He died in New York in 2007. The laws of
provisions of the Rules of Court (Rule New York do not recognize holographic wills
131, Sec. 3 , [jj] [5] ) on survivorship or compulsory heirs.
shall apply. Under the Rules, Dr. Lopez, who was 70 years
old, is presumed to have died ahead of Roberto who is (A). Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes
presumably between the ages 15 and 60. Having survived be admitted to probate in the Philippines?
the insured, Roberto's right as a beneficiary became Why or why not? (3%)
vested upon the death of Dr. Lopez. When Roberto died
after Dr. Lopez, his right to receive the insurance became SUGGESTED ANSWER:
part of his hereditary estate, which in turn was Yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes
inherited in equal shares by his legal heirs, namely, his may be admitted to probate in the Philippines because
spouse and children. Therefore, Roberto's children and his there is no public policy violated by such probate. The
spouse are entitled to Roberto's one-third share in the only issue at probate is the due execution of the will which
insurance proceeds. includes the formal validity of the will. As regards formal
validity, the only issue the court will resolve at probate is
Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions & whether or not the will was executed in accordance with
Cancellations (2012) the form prescribed by the law observed by the testator
No.VII.a) Natividad’s holographic will, which in the execution of his will.
had only one (1) substantial provision, as
first written, named Rosa as her sole heir. For purposes of probate in the
However, when Gregorio presented it for probate, it Philippines, an alien testator may
already contained an alteration, observe the law of the place where the
naming Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as sole heir, but without will was executed (Art 17, NCC), or the
authentication by Natividad’s signature. Rosa opposes the formalities of the law of the place where
probate alleging such lack of proper authentication. She he resides, or according to the
claims that the unaltered form of the will should be given formalities of the law of his own country,
effect. Whose claim should be granted? or in accordance with the Philippine
Explain. (5%) Civil Code (Art. 816, NCC). Since Dr.
Fuentes executed his will in accordance
SUGGESTED ANSWER: with the Philippine law, the Philippine
It depends. If the cancellation of Rosa’s court shall apply the New Civil Code in
name in the will was done by the testator himself, Rosa’s determining the formal validity of the
claimed that the holographic will in its original tenor holographic will. The subsequent change
should be given effect must be denied. The said in the citizenship of Dr. Fuentes did not
cancellation has revoked the affect the law governing the validity of
entire will as nothing remains of the will after the name of his will. Under the new Civil Code, which
Rosa was cancelled. Such cancellation is valid revocation was the law used by Dr. Fuentes, the law
of the will and does not require enforced at the time of execution of the
authentication by the full signature of the testator to be will shall govern the formal validity of
effective. However, if the cancellation of Rosa’s name was the will (Art. 795, NCC).
not done by the testator himself, such cancellation shall (B). Assuming that the will is probated in
not be the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that
effective and the will in its original tenor shall remain valid. he be given his legitime? Why or why not?
The effectively of the holographic will cannot be left to the (3%)
mercy of unscrupulous third parties. The writing of
Gregorio’s name as sole SUGGESTED ANSWER:
heir was ineffective, even though written No, Jay cannot insist because under New
by the testator himself, because such is York law he is not a compulsory heir entitled to a legitime.
an alteration that requires authentication by the full The national law of the testator
signature of the testator to be valid and effective. Not determines who his heirs are, the order
having an authenticated, the designation of Gregorio as that they succeed, how much their
an heir was ineffective, (Kalaw v. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207, successional rights are, and whether or
Sept28, 1984). not a testamentary disposition in his will
is valid (Art 16, NCC). Since, Dr. Fuentes
Wills; Holographic Wills; Probate (2009) was a US citizen, the laws of the New
No.VI. York determines who his heirs are. And
since the New York law does not
On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes executed a recognize the concept of compulsory
holographic will, wherein he gave nothing to his heirs, Jay is not a compulsory heir of Dr.
Fuentes entitled to a legitime. (1) Should the will be admitted to probate?
Explain. (2%)
Wills; Joint Wills (2008)
No. XI. John and Paula, British citizens at SUGGESTED ANSWER:
birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by No, the will should not be admitted to
naturalization after their marriage. During probate. Since the couples are both
their marriage the couple acquired substanial Filipino citizens, Art 818 and 819 of the
landholdings in London and in Makati. Paula bore John NCC shall apply. Said articles prohibits
three children, Peter, Paul and Mary. In one of their trips the execution of joint wills and make
to London, the couple executed a joint will appointing them void, even though authorized of
each other as their heirs and providing that upon the the country where they were executed.
death of the survivor between them the entire estate
would go to Peter and Paul only but the two (2) Are the testamentary dispositions valid?
could not dispose of nor divide the London Explain. (2%)
estate as long as they live. John and Paul
died tragically in the London Subway SUGGESTED ANSWER:
terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul Since the joint will is void, all the
filed a petition for probate of their parent's testamentary disposition written therein
will before a Makati Regional Trial Court. are also void. However, if the will is
(A). Should the will be admitted to probate? valid, the institutions of the heirs shall
(2%) be annulled because Joshur was
preterited. He was preterited because he
SUGGESTED ANSWER: will receive nothing from the will, will
No. The will cannot be admitted to receive nothing in testacy, and the facts
probate because a joint will is expressly do not show that he received anything as
prohibited under Art. 818 of the Civil an advance on his inheritance. He was
Code. This provision applies John and totally excluded from the inheritance of
Paula became Filipino citizens after their his parents.
marriage.
(3) Is the testamentary prohibition against
the division of the London estate valid?
(B). Are the testamentary dispositions Explain. (1%)
valid? (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming the will of John and Maria was
SUGGESTED ANSWER: valid, the testamentary prohibition on the
No. The testamentary dispositions are division of the London estate shall be valid
not valid because (a) omission of Mary, a but only for 20 years. Under Arts 1083 and
legitimate child, is tantamount to preterition which shall 494 of the NCC, a testamentary disposition
annul the institution of Peter and Paul as heirs (Art. 854, of the testator cannot forbid the partition of
Civil Code); and, (b) the all or part of the estate for a period longer
disposition that Peter and Paul could not than twenty (20) years.
dispose of nor divide the London estate
for more than 20 years is void (Art. 870,
Civil Code).
Wills; Prohibition to Partition of a Co-
Wills; Joint Wills; Probate (2012) Owned Property (2010)
No.VII.b) John Sagun and Maria Carla No.I. True or False.
Camua, British citizens at birth, acquired (B) X, a widower, died leaving a will stating
Philippine citizenship by naturalization that the house and lot where he lived
after their marriage. During their marriage, cannot be partitioned for as long as the
the couple acquired substantial landholdings in London youngest of his four children desires to stay
and in Makati. Maria begot three (3) children, Jorge, there. As coheirs and co-owners, the other
Luisito, and Joshur. In one of their trips to London, the three may demand partition anytime. (1%)
couple executed a joint will appointing each other as their
heirs and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
providing that upon the death of the survivor between FALSE, The other three co – heirs may not anytime
them, the entire estate would go to Jorge and Luisito only demand the partition of the house and lot since it was
but the two (2) could not dispose of nor divide the London expressly provided by the decedent in his will that the
estate as long as they live. John and Maria died tragically same cannot be partitioned while his youngest child
in the London subway terrorist attack in 2005. Jorge and desires to stay there. Article 1083 of the New Civil Code
Luisito filed a petition for probate of their allows a decedent to prohibit, by will, the partition of a
parents’ will before a Makati Regional Trial property and his estate for a period not longer than 20
Court. Joshur vehemently objected because years no matter what his reason maybe. Hence, the three
he was preterited.
co-heir cannot demand its partition at anytime but only No. the testamentary prohibition against
after 20 the division of the London estate is void
years from the death of their father. Even if the deceased (Art. 870, Civil Code). A testator, however, may prohibit
parent did not leave a will, if the house and lot constituted partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty (20)
their family home, Article years (Art. 870 in relation to Art. 494, par 3, Civil Code).
159 of the Family Code prohibits its partition for a period
of ten (10) years, or for as long as there is a
minorbeneficiary living in the family home. Wills; Witnesses to a Will, Presence
required; Thumbmark as Signature
Wills; Notarial Wills; Blind Testator; (2007)No.VI.
Requisites (2008) No. XIV. Clara, thinking of her mortality,
Stevie was born blind. He went to drafted a will and asked Roberta, Hannah,
school for the blind, and learned to read in Luisa and Benjamin to be witnesses. During the day of
Baille Language. He Speaks English fluently. Can he: signing of her will, Clara fell down the stairs and broke her
arms. Coming from the hospital, Clara insisted on signing
(A). Make a will? (1%) her will by thumb mark and said that she can sign her full
SUGGESTED ANSWER: name later. While the will was being signed, Roberta
Assuming that he is of legal age (Art. 797, Civil Code) and experienced a stomach ache and kept going to the
of sound mind at the time of execution of the will (Art. restroom for long periods of time.
798, Civil Code), Stevie, a blind person, can make a notarial Hannah, while waiting for her turn to sign the will, was
will, subject to compliance with the "two-reading rule" reading the 7th Harry Potter book on the couch, beside
(Art. 808, Civil Code) and the provisions of Arts. 804, 805 the table on which everyone was signing. Benjamin, aside
and 806 of the Civil Code. from witnessing the will, also offered to notarize it. A week
after, Clara was run over by a drunk driver while crossing
(B). Act as a witness to a will? (1%) the street in Greenbelt.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: May the will of Clara be admitted to
Stevie cannot be a witness to a will. Art. probate? Give your reasons briefly. (10%)
820 of the Civil Code provides that "any
person of sound mind and of the age of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
eighteen years or more, and not blind, Probate should be denied. The requirement that the
deaf or dumb, and able to read and write, testator and at least three (3) witnesses must sign all in
may be a witness to the execution of a the "presence" of one another was not
will. complied with. Benjamin who notarized the will is
disqualified as a witness, hence he cannot be counted as
(C). In either of the above instances, must one of the three witnesses (Cruz v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 31,
the will be read to him? (1%) 1973). The testatrix and the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: other witnesses signed the will not in the presence of
If Stevie makes a will, the will must be Roberta because she was in the restroom for extended
read to him twice, once by one of the periods of time. Inside the restroom, Roberta could not
subscribing witnesses, and again, by the have possibly seen the testatrix and the other witnesses
notary public before whom the will is sign the will by merely casting her eyes in the proper
acknowledged (Art. 808, Civil Code). direction (Jaboneta v. Gustilo, 5 Phil 541, 1906; Nera v.
Rimando, 18 Phil 451, 1914). Therefore, the testatrix
Wills; Testamentary Disposition; Period signed the will in the presence of only two witnesses, and
to Prohibit Partition (2008) only two witnesses
No. XI. John and Paula, British citizens at signed the will in the presence of the testatrix and of one
birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by another.
naturalization after their marriage. During
their marriage the couple acquired substanial It is to be noted, however, that the
landholdings in London and in Makati. Paula bore John thumb mark intended by the testator to
three children, Peter, Paul and Mary. In one of their trips be his signature in executing his last will
to London, the couple executed a joint will appointing and testament is valid (Payad v.Tolentino, 62 Phil 848,
each other as their heirs and providing that upon the 1936; Matias v. Salud, L-104 Phil 1046, 23 June, 1958).
death of the survivor between them the entire estate
would go to Peter and Paul only but the two The problem, however, states that Clara
could not dispose of nor divide the London "said that she can sign her full name later;" Hence, she did
estate as long as they live. John and Paul not consider her thumb mark as her "complete" signature,
died tragically in the London Subway terrorist attack in and intended further action on her part. The testatrix and
2005. Peter and Paul filed a petition for probate of their the other witness signed the will in the presence of
parent's will before a Makati Regional Trial Court. (C). Is Hannah, because she was aware of her function and role
the testamentary prohibition against the division of the as witness and was in a position to see the testatrix and
London estate valid? (2%) the other witnesses sign by merely casting her eyes in the
proper direction.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Donation
Donations; Formalities; In Writing (2007) legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the children of D as C's How
No. VIII. will you rule on Jorge's opposition to the probate of
In 1986, Jennifer and Brad were madly in love. In 1989, legitimate nephews inheriting as collateral relatives) can
because a certain Picasso painting reminded Brad of her, inherit in intestacy. (Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975, Civil
Jennifer acquired it and placed it in his bedroom. In 1990, Code)
Brad and Jennifer broke up. While Brad was mending his
broken heart, he met Angie and fell in love. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Because the Picasso painting reminded Angie of him, Brad The action of A will not prosper. Being an illegitimate, he
in his will bequeathed the painting to Angie. Brad died in is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting
1995. Saddened by Brad's death, Jennifer asked for the ab intestato from the legitimate relatives of his father.
Picasso painting as a remembrance of him. Angie refused Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate relatives
and claimed that Brad, in his will, bequeathed the painting (1996)
to her. Is Angie correct? Why or why not?(10%) Cristina the illegitimate daughter of Jose and Maria, died
intestate, without any descendant or ascendant. Her
SUGGESTED ANSWER: valuable estate is being claimed by Ana, the legitimate
NO. Angie is not correct. The Picasso painting is not given daughter of Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate son of
or donated by Jennifer to Brad. She merely "placed it in Maria. Is either,
his bedroom." Hence, she is still the owner of the painting. both, or neither of them entitled to inherit? Explain.
Not being the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
owner of the Picasso painting, Brad cannot validly Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of ab
bequeath the same to Angie (Art. 930, NCC). Even intestate from Cristina. Both are legitimate relatives of
assuming that the painting was impliedly given or Cristina's illegitimate parents and therefore they fall under
donated by Jennifer to Brad, the donation is nevertheless the prohibition prescribed by Art. 992, NCC (
void for not being in writing. The Picasso painting must be
worth more than 5,000 pesos. Under Art. 748, NCC, the Collation (1993)
donation and acceptance of a movable worth more than Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio Cruz a residential lot of
5,000 pesos must be in writing, 300
otherwise the donation is void. The donation being void, square meters in Quezon City for which Joaquin paid Julio
Jennifer remained the owner of the Picasso painting and the
Brad could not have validly disposed of said painting in amount of P300,000.00, When the deed was about to be
favor of Angie in his will. prepared Joaquin told Julio that it be drawn in the name
of
SUCCESSION Joaquina Roxas, his acknowledged natural child. Thus, the
Amount of Successional Rights (2004) deed was so prepared and executed by Julio. Joaquina
Mr. XT and Mrs. YT have been married for 20 years. then
Suppose the wife, YT, died childless, survived only by her built a house on the lot where she, her husband and
husband, XT. What would be the share of XT from her children resided. Upon Joaquin's death, his legitimate
estate as nheritance? Why? Explain. (5%) children sought to recover possession and ownership of
the lot, claiming that Joaquina Roxas was but a trustee of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: their father. Will the
Under the Civil Code, the widow or widower is a legal and action against Joaquina Roxas prosper?
compulsory heir of the deceased spouse. If the widow is
the only surviving heir, there being no legitimate SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ascendants, Yes, because there is a presumed donation in favor of
descendants, brothers, and sisters, nephews and nieces, Joaquina under Art. 1448 of the Civil Code (De los Santos
she gets the entire estate. v. Reyes, 27 January 1992, 206 SCRA 437). However, the
donation should be collated to the hereditary estate and
Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate relatives the legitime of the other heirs should be preserved.
(1993)
A is the acknowledged natural child of B who died when ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A was already 22 years old. When B's full blood brother, Yes, the action against Joaquina Roxas will prosper, but
C, died he (C) was survived by his widow and four children only
of his other brother D. Claiming that he is entitled to to the extent of the aliquot hereditary rights of the
inherit from his father's brother C. A brought suit to obtain legitimate
his children as heirs. Joaquina will be entitled to retain her
share in the estate of C. Will his action prosper? own
share as an illegitimate child, (Arts. 1440 and 1453. Civil
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Code; Art. 176, F. C.)
No, the action of A will not prosper. On the premise that
B,C and D are legitimate brothers, as an illegitimate child Disinheritance; Ineffective; Preterition (2000)
of B, A cannot inherit in intestacy from C who is a In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1) disinherits his
legitimate brother of B. Only the wife of C in her own right daughter Wilma because "she is disrespectful towards me
and the and raises her voice talking to me", 2) omits entirely his
spouse
Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of P100,000.00 to his mistress illegitimate child is one -half the share of each legitimate
Rosa and P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4) institutes child.
his son Baldo as his sole heir. How will you distribute his Their share are : For each legitimate child –
estate of P333,333.33 For each illegitimate child –
P1,000,000.00? (5%) P166,666.66
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective because the Intestate Succession (1998)
ground relied upon by the testator does not constitute Tessie died survived by her husband Mario, and two
maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code. nieces, Michelle and Jorelle, who are the legitimate
children of an elder sister who had predeceased her. The
Hence, the testamentary provisions in the will shall be only property she left behind was a house and lot worth
annulled but only to the extent that her legitime was two million pesos, which Tessie and her husband had
impaired. The total omission of Elvira does not constitute acquired with the use of Mario's savings from his income
preterition because she is not a compulsory heir in the as a doctor. How much of the property or its value, if any,
direct line. Only compulsory heirs in the direct line may be may Michelle and Jorelle
the subject of preterition. Not having been preterited, she claim as their hereditary shares? [5%]
will be entitled only to her legitime. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides, "Should brothers
The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article 1028 for and sisters or their children survive with the widow or
being in consideration of her adulterous relation with the widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the
testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children
legacy of 100,000 pesos. The legacy of 50,000 pesos in to the other half." Tessie's gross estate consists of a house
favor of Ernie is not inofficious not having exceeded the and lot acquired during her marriage, making it part of the
free portion. Hence, he shall be entitled to receive it.The community property. Thus, one-half of the said property
institution of Baldo, which applies only to the free portion, would have to property. The other half, amounting to one
shall be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto million pesos, is her
will be distributed as follows: conjugal share (net estate), and should be distributed to
Baldo-----------------450,000 her intestate heirs. Applying the above provision of law,
Wilma---------------250,000 Michelle and Jorelle, Tessie's nieces, are entitled to one-
Elvira-----------------250,000 half of her conjugal share worth one million pesos, or
Ernie-----------------50,000 500,000 pesos, while the other one-half amounting to
1,000,000 P500,000 will go to Mario, Tessie's surviving spouse.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Michelle and Jorelle are then entitled to P250,000 pesos
The disinheritance of Wilma was effective because each as their hereditary share.
disrespect of,
and raising of voice to, her father constitute maltreatment ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
under Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code. She is, INTESTATE SUCCESSION
therefore, not entitled to ESTATE: P180,000.00
inherit anything. Her inheritance will go to the other legal W- (widow gets 1/2 share) P90.000.00 (Art. 998) A- (son
heirs. The total omission of Elvira is not preterition who repudiated his inheritance) None Art. 977) B -
because she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line. She (Granddaughter) None
will receive only her legitime. The legacy in favor of Rosa C - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45.000.00 (Art.998)
is void under Article with the testator. She is, therefore, D - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45,000.00 (Art. 998)
disqualified to receive the legacy. Ernie will receive the The acknowledged illegitimate child gets 1/2 of the share
legacy in his favor because it is not of each
inofficious. The institution of Baldo, which applies only to legitimate child.
the free portion, will be respected. In sum, the estate of
Lamberto shall be distributed as follows: Legitime; Compulsory Heirs vs. Secondary
Heir Legitime Legacy Institution TOTAL Compulsory
Baldo 500,000 200.000 700,000 Elvira 250,000 250,000 Heirs (2005)
Ernie Emil, the testator, has three legitimate children, Tom,
50,000 50,000 TOTAL 750,000 50,000 200,000 1,000,000 Henry and Warlito; a wife named Adette; parents named
Pepe and Pilar; an illegitimate child, Ramon; brother, Mark;
Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Shares (2003) and a sister,
Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two Nanette. Since his wife Adette is well-off, he wants to leave
illegitimate children, his parents, and two brothers. He left to his illegitimate child as much of his estate as he can
an estate of P1 million. Luis died intestate. Who are his legally do. His estate has an aggregate net amount of
intestate heirs, and Pl,200,000.00, and
how much is the share of each in his estate? all the above-named relatives are still living. Emil now
SUGGESTED ANSWER: comes to you for advice in making a will. How will you
The intestate heirs are the two (2) legitimate children and distribute his estate according to his wishes without
the two (2) illegitimate children. In intestacy the estate of violating the law on
the decedent is divided among the legitimate and testamentary succession? (5%)
illegitimate children such that the share of each
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Two other siblings objected, arguing that it should be in
P600,000.00 — legitime to be divided equally between Jolo before a Shari’a mother, in favor of another sister,
Tom, Henry and Warlito as the legitimate children. Each with their mother not
will be entitled to P200,000.00. (Art. 888, Civil Code) court since his lands are in Sulu. But Adil’s sisters in
P100,000.00 -- Pakistan want the proceedings held in Lahore before a
share of Ramon the illegitimate child. Equivalent to 1/2 of Pakistani court. Which court has jurisdiction and is the
the share of each legitimate child. (Art. 176, Family Code) proper venue for the intestate proceedings? The law of
P200,000.00 — Adette the wife. Her share is equivalent to which country shall govern succession to his estate? (5%)
the share of one legitimate child. (Art. 892, par. 2, Civil
Code) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pepe and Pilar, the parents are only secondary In so far as the properties of the decedent located in the
compulsory heirs and they cannot inherit if the primary Philippines are concerned, they are governed by
compulsory heirs (legitimate children) are alive. (Art. 887, Philippine law (Article 16, Civil Code). Under Philippine
par. 2, Civil Code) Brother Mark and sister Nanette are not law, the proper venue for the settlement of the estate is
compulsory heirs since they are not included in the the domicile of the decedent at the time of his death.
enumeration under Article 887 of the Civil Code. Since the decedent last resided in Cebu City, that is the
The remaining balance of P300,000.00 is the free portion proper venue for the intestate settlement of his estate.
which can be given to the illegitimate child Ramon as an However, the successional rights to the estate of ADIL are
instituted heir. (Art. 914, Civil Code) If so given by the governed by Pakistani law, his national law, under Article
decedent, Ramon would receive a total of P400,000.00. 16 of the Civil Code.

Preterition; Compulsory Heir (1999) BAR 2017

(a) Mr, Cruz, widower, has three legitimate children, A, B Don Ricardo had 2 legitimate children-Tomas and Tristan.
and C. He executed a Will instituting as his heirs to his Tristan has 3 children. Meanwhile, Tomas had a
estate of One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos his two relationship with Nancy, who was also single and had the
children A and B, and his friend F. Upon his death, how legal capacity to marry. Nancy became pregnant and gave
should Mr. Cruz's estate be divided? Explain. (3%) birth to Tomas, Jr. After the birth of Tomas, Jr., his father,
Tomas, died. Later, Don Ricardo died without a will and
(b) In the preceding question, suppose Mr. Cruz instituted Tristan opposed the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be declared
his two children A and B as his heirs in his Will, but gave a an heir of the deceased since he is an illegitimate child.
legacy of P 100,000.00 to his friend F. How should the Tomas, Jr.countered that Article 992 of the Civil Code is
estate of Mr, Cruz be divided upon his death? Explain, (2%) unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection of
the laws. He explained that an illegitimate child of an
SUGGESTED ANSWER: illegitimate parent is allowed to inherit under Articles
(a) Assuming that the institution of A, B and F were to 902,982 and 990 of the Civil Code while he-an illegitimate
theentire estate, there was preterition of C since C is a child of a legitimate father-cannot. Civil Law commentator
compulsory heir in the direct line. The preterition will Arturo Tolentino opined that Article 992 created an
result in the total annulment of the institution of heirs. absurdity and committed an injustice because while the
Therefore, the institution of A, B and F will be set aside illegitimate descendant of an illegitimate child can
and Mr. Cruz's estate will be divided, as in intestacy, represent, the illegitimate descendant of a legitimate child
equally among A, B and C as follows: A - P333,333.33; B - cannot. Decide the case and explain. (5%)
P333.333.33; and C -
P333,333.33. SUGGESTED ANSWER

(b) On the same assumption as letter (a), there was I will deny the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be declared as an
preterition of C. Therefore, the institution of A and B is heir of the deceased. Tomas jr., being an illegitimate child
annulled but the legacy of 100.000.00 to F shall be of the deceased legitimate son, Tomas, cannot inherit ab
respected for not being inofficious. Therefore, the intestate from the deceased, Don Ricardo, because of the
remainder of P900.000.00 will be iron curtain rule under Article 992 of the Civil Code. Tomas
divided equally among A, B and C. cannot argue that Article 992 is violative of the equal
protection clause because equal protection simply
Proceedings; Intestate Proceedings; Jurisdiction requires that all persons or things similarly situated should
(2004) be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
In his lifetime, a Pakistani citizen, ADIL, married three responsibilities imposed (Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-
times under Pakistani law. When he died an old widower, 7995, May 31, 1957, 101 Phil: 7755). It, however, does not
he left behind six children, two sisters, three homes, and require the universal application of the laws to all persons
an estate worth at least 30 million pesos in the Philippines. or things without distinction. What it simply requires is
He was born in Lahore but last resided in Cebu City, where equality among equals as determined according to a valid
he had a mansion and where two of his youngest children classification Indeed, the equal protection clause permits
now live and work. Two of his oldest children are farmers classification.
in Sulu, while the two middle-aged children are
employees in Zamboanga City. Finding that the deceased XX
left no will, the youngest son wanted to file intestate Princess married:Roberto and bore a son, Onofre. Roberto
proceedings before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. died in a plane crash Princess later married Märk and they
also had a son-Pepito. Onofre donated to Pepito, his half- problem. Veneranda is not a legal heir of Pedro because
brother, a lot in Makati City worth p3,000,000.00. Pepito she and Pedro were not married.
succumbed to an illness and died intestate. The tot: given
to Pepito by Onofre was inherited by his father, Mark. Ordinarily, the share of an illegitimate child in intestate
Mark also died intestate. Lonely, Princess followed Mark succession is one-half of the share of the legitimate child.
to the life beyond. The claimants: to the subject lot Considering, however, that the three illegitimate chidlren
emerged-jojo, the father of Princess; Victor, the father of will impair the legitime of Alex if the foregoing formula is
Mark; and Jerico, the father of Roberto. followed, Alex is entitled instead to get his legitime, which
is ½ of the estate, or P2.5 Million, while the remaining P2.5
Who among the three (3) ascendants is entitled to the lot? Million is to be divided equally among the three
Explain. (5%) illegitimate children of Pedro. Their legitimes in this case
will likewise be their shares in intestate succession.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(b) Assuming that Pedro’s will is discovered soon after his
Jojo, Princess’s father, is entitled to the lot: This is a clear funeral. In the will, he disposed of half of his estate in favor
case of reserva troncal. The Origin is Onofre. The of Veneranda, and the other half in favor of his children
Prepositus is Pepito. The mode of transmission from and his parents in equal shares. Assuming also that the
Onofre to Pepito is donation (hence by gratuitous title), will is admitted to probate by the proper court. Are the
The Reservista is Mark, who acquired it from his testamentary dispositions valid and effective under the
descendant (son) Pepito by legitime and intestacy (hence, law on succession? Explain your answer. (4%)
by operation of law). The Reservatario is Princess, a
relative of the Prepositus Pepito within the third degree SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and who belonged to the line of origin (the maternal line). No, because the testamentary dispositions impair the
Line of origin is the maternal line because Onofre (the legitimes of Pedro’s compulsory heirs.
Origin) and Pepito. (the Prepositus) are maternal half- Following the provisions of the Civil Code, only Alex and
blood siblings. When Mark (Reservista) died, the property Pedro’s three illegitimate children are Pedro’s compulsory
passed to Princess as sole. reservatario, thus extinguishing heirs. Since Alex is Pedro’s legitimate descendant and a
the reserva troncal. Upon Princess’s death, the property primary compulsory heir, she excludes Pedro’s parents as
was transmitted ab intestato to her father Jojo. compulsory heirs, the latter being merely secondary
Transmission to Jojo is by the ordinary rules of compulsory heirs. However, the three illegitimate chidlren
compulsory and intestate succession, not by reserva are considered concurring compulsory heirs who are also
troncal, because the reserva was extinguished upon the entitled to a share of the legitime.
transmission of the property to Princess, this making
Princess the absolute owner subject to no reserva. Under the law, the legitime of Alex, being a legitimate
descendant, is ½ of Pedro’s estate, or
Bar Questions and Answers 2017 P2.5 Million. The legitime of each of the illegitimate
Pedro had worked for 15 years in Saudi Arabia when he children is supposed to be ½ of the
finally decided to engage in farming in his home province share of Alex, or P1.25 Million each. Considering, however,
where his 10-hectare farmland valued at P2,000,000 was that the remaining portion of the estate is no longer
located. He had already P3,000,000 savings from his long sufficient to cover the supposed legitimes of the three
stint in Saudi Arabia. Eagerly awaiting Pedro’s arrival at the illegitimate children, they will simply share equally in the
NAIA were his aging parents Modesto and remaining P2.5 Million. Consequently, there is no
Jacinta, his common-law spouse Veneranda, their three disposable free portion that Pedro may validly give to
children, and Alex, his child by Carol, his departed legal Veneranda or to his parents. Hence, the will is intrinsically
wife. Sadly for all of them, Pedro suffered a stroke because invalid.
of his over-excitement just as the plane was about to land,
and died without seeing any of them. The farmland and BAR Questions 2018
the savings were all the properties he left. V. Sol Soldivino, widow, passed away, leaving two (2)
legitimate children: a 25- year old son, Santino (whom she
(a) State who are Pedro’s legal heirs, and the shares of had not spoken to for five [5] years prior to her death since
each legal heir to the estate? he attempted to kill her at that time), and a 20-year-old
Explain your answer. (4%) daughter, Sara. She left an estate worth PhP8 million and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: a will containing only one provision: that PhP1 million
Pedro’s legal heirs are his legitimate child, Alex, and his should be given to "the priest who officiated at my
three illegitimate chidlren with Veneranda. Pedro’s wedding to my children's late father." Sara, together with
chidlren with Veneranda are illegitimate because they two (2) of her friends, acted as an attesting witness to the
were conceived and born outside of a valid marriage. Alex, will. On the assumption that the will is admitted for
on the other hand, is a legitimate child because she was probate and that there are no debts, divide the estate and
conceived or born inside a valid marriage. Pedro’s indicate the heirs/legatees entitled to inherit, the amount
surviving parents are not legal heirs because they are that each of them will inherit, and where (i.e., legitime/free
excluded by Alex. In intestate succession, the legitimate portion/intestate share) their shares should be charged.
ascendants do not become legal heirs if there is a
surviving legitimate descendant, such as Alex in the ANSWER:
Santino and Sara shall be entitled to half of the estate as
their legitime. Thus, they are entitled to 4M collectively, or
2M each. The legitime of legitimate children and
descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate
of the father and of the mother (Art. 888). The priest, being
a legatee, is entitled to his 1M as provided by the
decedent’s last will and testament. This share is chargable
to the Free Portion of the hereditary estate.

The remaining 3M shall be subjected to the rules of

intestate succession. Sara is incapacitated to inherit since
she was an attesting witness.

XX
Sydney, during her lifetime, was a successful lawyer. By her
own choice, she remained unmarried and devoted all her
time to taking care of her nephew and two (2) nieces:
Socrates, Saffinia, and Sophia. She wrote a will giving all
her properties remaining upon her death to the three (3)
of them. The will was admitted to probate during her
lifetime. Later, she decided to make a new will giving all
her remaining properties only to the two (2) girls, Saffinia
and Sophia. She then tore up the previously probated will.
The second will was presented for probate only after her
death. However, the probate court found the second will
to be void for failure to comply with formal requirements.
(a) Will the doctrine of dependent relative revocation
apply? (b) Will your answer be the same if the second will
was found to be valid but both Saffinia and Sophia
renounce their inheritance?

a. Yes, the doctrine of relative revocation will apply.

Under this doctrine, when a first will is revoked to connect

with the making of the new will so as to fairly raise the
inference that the testator meant the revocation of the old
will to depend upon the efficacy of the new disposition, if
for any reason the new will becomes inoperative, the old
will shall remain in force and the prior revocation is
deemed void.

b. No, even if the instituted heirs in the second will

renounced their rights to the inheritance, it does not have
the effect of revocation of the will as would permit the
application of the doctrine of dependent relative
revocation . The effect will just pave the way for intestate
succession and not the revival of the previously revoked
will.