Bar Questions From UP Law Complex-SUCCESSION

8/16/2019 Bar Questions From UP Law Complex-SUCCESSION

1/55

CCE ION

Amount of Successional Rights (2004)Mr. XT and Mrs. YT have been married for 20 years. Suppose the wife, YT, died childless, survived only by her husband,XT. What would be the share of XT from her estate as inheritance Why !"plain. #$%&SUGGESTED ANSWER:

'nder the (ivil (ode, the widow or widower is a le)al and compulsory heir of the deceased spouse. *f the widow is theonly survivin) heir, there bein) no le)itimate ascendants, descendants, brothers, and sisters, nephews and nieces, she )etsthe entire estate.

a!!ie! "et#een illegitimate $ legitimate !elati%es (&'' )+ is the ac nowled)ed natural child of - who died when + was already 22 years old. When - s full blood brother, (,died he #(& was survived by his widow and four children of his other brother /. (laimin) that he is entitled to inheritfrom his father s brother (. + brou)ht suit to obtain his share in the estate of (. Will his action prosper

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

o, the action of + will not prosper. 1n the premise that -, ( and / are le)itimate brothers, as an ille)itimate child of -, +cannot inherit in intestacy from ( who is a le)itimate brother of -. 1nly the wife of ( in her own ri)ht and the


2/55

le)itimate relatives of ( #i.e. the children of / as ( s ow will you rule on 3or)e s opposition to the probate of le)itimate nephews inheritin) as collateral relatives& can inherit in intestacy. #+rts. 442, 5005, 511$ and 46$, (ivil(ode&A)TERNAT*+E ANSWER:

The action of + will not prosper. -ein) an ille)itimate, he is barred by +rticle 442 of the (ivil (ode from inheritin) abintestato from the le)itimate relatives of his father.

a!!ie! "et#een illegitimate $ legitimate !elati%es (&'',) (ristina the ille)itimate dau)hter of 3ose and Maria, diedintestate, without any descendant or ascendant. er valuable estate is bein) claimed by +na, the le)itimate dau)hter of

3ose, and !duardo, the le)itimate son of Maria. *s either, both, or neither of them entitled to inherit !"plain.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

either +na nor !duardo is entitled to inherit of ab intestato from (ristina. -oth are le)itimate relatives of (ristina sille)itimate parents and therefore they fall under the prohibition prescribed by +rt. 442, (( (Manuel v. Ferrer, 242 SCRA477; Diaz v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA427 .

-ollation (&'' )3oa7uin 8eyes bou)ht from 3ulio (ru9 a residential lot of :00 s7uare meters in ;ue9on (ity for which 3oa7uin paid 3ulio theamount of of the (ivil (ode, because the omission of the compulsory heir 3or)e by Mariawas intentional. (onse7uently, the institution of Mi)uela as heir is void only insofar as the le)itime of 3or)e is preDudiced.+ccordin)ly, 3or)e is entitled to his le)itime of oneChalf of the estate, and Mi)uela )ets the other half.

b& +s 3ud)e, * shall rule as followsB 3or)e s opposition should be sustained. This is a case of preterition under +rticle >$= (ivil(ode, the result of the omission of 3or)e as compulsory heir havin) the same ri)ht e7uivalent to a le)itimate child Ein thedirect lineE is that total intestacy will arise, and 3or)e will inherit the entire estate.

c& +s 3ud)e, * shall rule as followsB the opposition should be denied since it is predicated upon causes not reco)ni9ed by lawas )rounds for disallowance of a wll, to witB

5 that the will was made without his nowled)e?2 that the will was made without his consent? and

: that it has the effect of deprivin) him of his le)itime, which is a )round that )oes into the intrinsic validity of the will andneed not be resolved durin) the probate proceedin)s. owever, the opposition may be entertained for, the purpose ofsecurin) to the husband his ri)ht to the le)itime on the theory that the will constitutes an ineffective disinheritanceunder +rt. 45> of the (ivil (ode,

d& +s 3ud)e, * shall rule as followsB 3or)e is entitled to receive his le)itime from the estate of his wife. e was not disinheritedi h ill i ) h h ) ) d f di i h i h h i ill i l d hi l )i i 3 ) h


3/55

cannot receive anythin) from the free portion. e cannot claim preterition as he is not a compulsory heir in the direct line.There bein) no preterition, the institution of the sister was valid and the only ri)ht of 3or)e is to claim his le)itime.

Disinhe!itance *neffecti%e (&''')Mr.


4/55

This is a case of ineffective disinheritance because marryin) 502> for bein) in consideration of her adulterous relationa man that the father did not approve of is not a )round for disinheritin) /. Therefore, the institution of /Cl and /C2 shall beannulled insofar as it preDudices the le)itime of /, and the institution of /Cl and /C2 shall only apply on the free portion inthe amount of


5/55

5,000,000

A)TERNAT*+E ANSWER:

The disinheritance of !ilma was effective because disrespect of, and raising of voice to, her father constitute maltreatment under "rticle#$#%&' of the (ew )ivil )ode. She is, therefore, not entitled to inherit anything. *er inheritance will go to the other legal heirs. The totalomission of Elvira is not preterition because she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line. She will receive only her legitime. The legacy infavor of +osa is void under "rticle

er ai!s *ntestate ei!s Rese!%a T!oncal (&''3)*sidro and *rma, Ailipinos, both 5> years of a)e, were passen)ers of Ali)ht o. :56 of 1riental +irlines. The plane they

boarded was of


6/55

CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)died, he was succeeded by his survivin) wife *rma, and hisle)itimate unborn child. They divided the estate e7ually between them, the child e"cludin) the parents of *sidro. +n unbornchild is considered born for all purposes favorable to it provided it is born later. The child was considered born because,havin) an intraCuterine life of more than seven months, it lived for a few minutes after its complete delivery. *t wasle)itimate because it was born within the valid marria)e of the parents. Succession is favorable to it. When the child died,*rma inherited the share of the child. owever, the share of the child in the hands of *rma is subDect to reserva troncal for the

benefit of the relatives of the child within the third de)ree of consan)uinity and who belon) to the line of *sidro.A)TERNAT*+E ANSWER:

*f the marria)e is void. *rma has no successional ri)hts with respect to *sidro but she would have successional ri)hts withrespect to the child.

ei!s *ntestate ei!s Sha!es (200 )Guis was survived by two le)itimate children, two ille)itimate children, his parents, and two brothers. e left an estate of 2 of the (ivil (ode provides that )randchildren inherit by ri)ht of

representation.#c& X L 5 2 by representation of - (Ll 2 Y L 5 = byrepresentation of (

#d& X C 5 : in his own ri)ht YC 5 : in his own ri)ht 2 C 5 : in his own ri)ht

+rticle 466 of the (ivil (ode provides that heirs who repudiate their share cannot be represented.

*ntestate Succession (&'' )ETE died intestate on 5 September 5446. e was survived by M #his mother&, W #his widow&, + and - #his le)itimatechildren&, ( #his )randson, bein) the le)itimate son of -&, / #his other )randson, bein) the son of ! who was a le)itimateson of, and who predeceased, ETE&, and A #his )randson, bein) the son of I, a le)itimate son who repudiated the

inheritance from ETE&. is distributable net estate is


7/55


8/55

spouse has in the succession the same share as that of be set aside as Mario s conDu)al share from the communityeach of the children, c& ( has no share because his father is still alive hence succession by representation shall not apply#+rt. 46$&.

d& / inherits 5 on the ri)ht of representation.e& A has no share because his father I repudiated the inheritance. 'nder +rticle 466 heirs who repudiate their share may not be

represented.

*ntestate Succession (&''5)!nri7ue died, leavin) a net hereditary estate of


9/55

brother. Shortly after !u)enio s death, +ntonio also died, leavin) three le)itimate children. Subse7uently, Martina, thechildren of 3oa7uin and the children of +ntonio e"ecuted an e"traDudicial settlement of the estate of !u)enio, dividin) itamon) themselves. The succeedin) year, a petition to annul the e"traDudicial settlement was filed by +ntero, an ille)itimateson of +ntonio, who claims he is entitled to share in the estate of !u)enio. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the)round that +ntero is barred by +rticle 442 of the (ivil (ode from inheritin) from the le)itimate brother of his father. owwill you resolve the motion #$%&

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion to dismiss should be )ranted. +rticle 442 does not apply. +ntero is not claimin) any inheritance from !u)enio.e is claimin) his share in the inheritance of his father consistin) of his father s share in the inheritance of


10/55

!u)enio (Dela Mer'e* v. Dela Mer'e*, r o. 12%7$7, 25 $M inherited by Mrs. Guna from Mr. Guna will be inheritedFe6ruar! 1### .A)TERNAT*+E ANSWER:

*t depends. *f +ntero was not ac nowled)ed by +ntonio, the motion to dismiss should be )ranted because +ntero is not ale)al heir of +ntonio. *f +ntero was ac nowled)ed, the motion should be denied because +rticle 442 is not applicable. Thisis because +ntero is claimin) his inheritance from his ille)itimate father, not from !u)enio.

*ntestate Succession Rese!%a T!oncal (&''')Mr. Guna died, leavin) an estate of Ten Million #


11/55

million. Who are the compulsory heirs of Guis, how much is the le)itime of each, and how much is the free portion of hisestate, if anySUGGESTED ANSWER:

The compulsory heirs are the two le)itimate children and the two ille)itimate children. The parents are e"cluded by thele)itimate children, while the brothers are not compulsory heirs at all. Their respective le)itimate areB a& The le)itime ofthe two #2& le)itimate children is one

half #5 2& of the estate #


12/55

c& Since the total le)itime of the compulsory heirs is le)itime of the le)itimate children and it follows that the


13/55

/!ocee8ings *ntestate /!ocee8ings 9u!is8iction (2004)*n his lifetime, a


14/55

obDected, ar)uin) that it should be in 3olo before a ShariHa mother, in favor of another sister, with their mother notcourt since his lands are in Sulu. -ut +dilHs sisters in = of the Aamily (ode amendin) +rt 5:0 of the (ivil (ode, contractual succession is no lon)er possible since thelaw now re7uires that donations of future property be )overned by the provisions on the testamentary succession andformalities of wills.A)TERNAT*+E ANSWER:

-. *n the case of Corona*o vs.CA(l#1 SCRA81 , it was ruled that no property passes under a will without its bein) probated, but may under +rticle 50$> of the (ivil (ode of 5>4>, be sustained as a partition by an act inter vivos :Man!;9! vs. CA 144SCRA&& .

+nd in the case of C-avez vs, AC 11#1 SCRA211 , it was ruled that while the law prohibits contracts upon future inheritance,the partition by the parent, as provided in +rt. 50>0 is a case e"pressly authori9ed by law. + person has two options inma in) a partition of his estateB either by an act inter vivos or by will. *f the partition is by will, it is imperative that such

partition must be e"ecuted in accordance with the provisions of the law on wills? if by an act inter vivos, such partition may

even be oral or written, and need not be in the form of a will, provided the le)itime is not preDudiced.

EWhere several sisters e"ecute deeds of sale over their 5 @ undivided share of the paraphernal property of their The children of their )uardian, or the trustee of their

property, may as for the enforcement of the Dud)ment.

The delivery of the presumptive le)itimes herein prescribed shall in no way preDudice the ultimate successional ri)hts of thechildren accruin) upon the death of either or both of the parents? but the value of the properties already received under thedecree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their le)itime.

+rt. $2. The Dud)ment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marria)e, the partition and distribution of the properties ofthe spouses, and the delivery of the children s presumptive le)itimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil re)istry andre)istries of property? otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons.

Wills -o8icil *nstitution of ei!s Su"stitution of ei!s (2002)-y virtue of a (odicil appended to his will, Theodore devised to /ivino a tract of su)ar land, with the obli)ation on the part

f /i i hi h i d li i ifi d l f ) h d i ) i H lif i * i l d


15/55

in the (odicil that in the event the obli)ation is not fulfilled, -etina should immediately sei9e the property from /ivino orlatterHs heirs and turn it over to TheodoreHs compulsory heirs. /ivino failed to fulfill the obli)ation under the (odicil.-etina brin)s suit a)ainst /ivino for the reversion of the tract of land. a& /istin)uish between modal institution andsubstationof heirs. #:%& b& /istin)uish between simple and fideicommissarysubstitution of heirs. #2%& c& /oes -etina have a cause of action a)ainst /ivino

!"plain #$%&SUGGESTED ANSWER:


16/55

+. + M1/+G * ST*T'T*1 is the institution of an heir made for a certain purpose or cause #+rts. >65 and >>2, ((&. S'-ST*T'T*1 is the appointment of another heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of the heir ori)inality instituted. #+rt. >$6, ((&.

-. *n a S*M$4 and >@4, ((&

(. -etina has a cause of action a)ainst /ivino. This is a case of a testamentary disposition subDect to a mode and the will itself provides for the conse7uence if the mode is not complied with. To enforce the mode, the will itself )ives -etina the ri)ht tocompel the return of the property to the heirs of Theodore. (Ra6a*illa v. Cons'oluella, &&4 SCRA 522 :2$$$< R 11&725, 2#"une 2$$$ .

Wills :o!malities (&''0)#5& *f a will is e"ecuted by a testator who is a Ailipino citi9en, what law will )overn if the will is e"ecuted in the 5=, ((. The ori)inal will, however, remains valid because aholo)raphic will is not invalidated by the unauthenticated insertions or alterations (A=ero v. CA, 2&% SCRA 4%85= of the (( does not apply but +rt. >:0. ((. +rt. >:0 of the (( does notre7uire the testator to authenticate his cancellation for the effectivity of a revocation effected throu)h such cancellation(>ala) v. Relova, 1&2 SCRA 2&7 . *n the alaw case, the ori)inal holo)raphic will desi)nated only one heir as the onlysubstantial provision which was altered by substitutin) the ori)inal heir with another heir. ence, if the unauthenticatedcancellation amounted to a revocation of the will, the will may not be probated because it had already been revo ed.

Wills olog!a6hic Wills Witnesses (&''4)1n his deathbed, icente was e"ecutin) a will. *n the room were (arissa, (armela, (omelio and +tty. (impo, a notary

public. Suddenly, there was a street brawl which cau)ht (omelio s attention, promptin) him to loo out the window.(ornelio did not see icente si)n a will. *s the will valid


17/55


18/55

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the will may be probated in the


19/55

absence of the re7uired witness, then the petition for the probate of the notarial will should prosper.Wills Re%ocation of Wills De6en8ent Relati%e Re%ocation(200 )Mr. 8eyes e"ecuted a will completely valid as to form. + wee later, however, he e"ecuted another will which e"presslyrevo ed his first will, which he tore his first will to pieces.'pon the death of Mr. 8eyes, his second will was presented for probate by his heirs, but it was denied probate


20/55

due to formal defects. +ssumin) that a copy of the first will e"cluded by a le)itimate son of the decedent N+rt. >>6, ew


21/55

is available, may it now be admitted to probate and )iven effect WhySUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the first will may be admitted to probate and )iven effect. When the testator tore first will, he was under themista en belief that the second will was perfectly valid and he would not have destroyed the first will had he nownthat the second will is not valid. The revocation by destruction therefore is dependent on the validity of the second will.Since it turned out that the second will was invalid, the tearin) of the first will did not produce the effect of revocation.This is nown as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation (Molo v. Molo, #$ 3-il &7.A)TERNAT*+E ANSWERS:

o, the first will cannot be admitted to probate. While it is true that the first will was successfully revo ed by the second will because the second will was later denied probate, the first will was, nevertheless, revo ed when the testator destroyed it after e"ecutin) the second invalid will.(Diaz v. De eon, 4& 3-il 41& :1#22< .

Wills Testamenta!7 Dis6osition (200,)/on died after e"ecutin) a Gast Will and Testament leavin) his estate valued at


22/55

c c e s sio n

/isposition? Mortis (ausa vs. *ntervivos? (orpse #2004&

No. XI. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the

statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two !" senten#es.

E". A person #an $ispose of his #orpse throu%h an a#t intervivos . &'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

Aalse. + persons cannot dispose of his corpse throu)h an act inter vivos, i.e., an act to ta e effect

durin) his lifetime. -efore his death there is no corpse to dispose. -ut he is allowed to do so throu)h

an act mortis causa, i.e., an act to ta e effect upon his death.

eirs? Aideicommissary Substitution #200>&

No. XIII. Raymon$, sin%le, name$ his sister Ru(a in his will as a $e)isee of a par#el

of lan$ whi#h he owne$. The will impose$ upon Ru(a the o*li%ation of prese)in%

the lan$ an$ transferrin% it, upon her $eath, to her ille%itimate $au%hter S#arlet

who was then only one year ol$. Raymon$ later $ie$, lea)in% *ehin$ his wi$owe$

mother, Ru(a an$ S#arlet.


23/55

A". Is the #on$ition impose$ upon Ru(a, to preser)e the property an$ to transmit it

upon her $eath to S#arlet, )ali$+ &'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

Yes, the condition imposed upon 8uffa to preserve the property and to transmit it upon her death to

Scarlet is valid because it is tantamount to fideicommissary substitution under +rt. >@: of the (ivil (ode.

,". If S#arlet pre$e#eases Ru(a, who inherits the property+ !'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

8uffa will inherit the property as Scarlet s heir. Scarlet ac7uires a ri)ht to the succession from the time

of 8aymond s death, even thou)h she should predecease 8uffa #+rt. >@@, (ivil (ode&.

-". If Ru(a pre$e#eases Raymon$, #an S#arlet inherit the property $ire#tly from

Raymon$+ !'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

8uffa #+rt. 442, (ivil (ode&. Moreover, Scarlet is not a compulsory heir of 8aymond, hence she can

inherit only by testamentary succession. Since 8aymond e"ecuted a will in the case at

bar, Scarlet may inherit from 8aymond.

eirs? *ntestate Succession? Ge)itime? (omputation #2050&

No.XI. The spouses eter an$ aula ha$ three /" #hil$ren. aula later o*taine$ a

0u$%ment of nullity of marria%e. Their a*solute #ommunity of property ha)in%

*een $issol)e$, they $eli)ere$ & million to ea#h of their / #hil$ren as their

presumpti)e le%itimes.

eter later re1marrie$ an$ ha$ two !" #hil$ren *y his se#on$ wife 2arie. eter

an$ 2arie, ha)in% su##essfully en%a%e$ in *usiness, a#3uire$ real properties.

eter later $ie$ intestate.

A". 4ho are eter5s le%al heirs an$ how will his estate *e $i)i$e$ amon% them+ 6'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B


24/55

*f 8uffa predeceases 8aymond, 8aymond s widowed mother will be entitled to the inheritance. Scarlet, an

ille)itimate child, cannot inherit the property by intestate succession from 8aymond who is a le)itimate

relative of

The le)al heirs of


25/55

nullity of the first marria)e. *f the nullity of the first marria)e was psycholo)ical incapacity of one or

both spouses, the three children of that void marria)e are le)itimate and all of the le)al heirs shall share the

estate of


26/55

an$ shall *e


27/55


28/55

e"cludes the more remote, the nephews and nieces e"clude


29/55

the uncles and the aunts, and half blood relatives inherit half the share of full blooded relatives.

*ntestate Succession #200>&

No. 9II. Ramon 2ayaman $ie$ intestate, lea)in% a net estate of &;,;;;,;;;.;;.


30/55

of


31/55

*ntestate Succession #200>&

No.X. Arthur exe#ute$ a will whi#h #ontaine$ only= i" a pro)ision $isinheritin% his

$au%hter erni#a for runnin% o( with a marrie$ man, an$ ii" a pro)ision $isposin%

of his share in the family house an$ lot in fa)or of his other #hil$ren -onnie an$

e $i$ not ma:e any pro)isions in fa)or of his wife Eri#a, *e#ause as the will

state$, she woul$ anyway %et 8 of the house an$ lot as her #on0u%al share. The

will was )ery *rief an$ strai%htforwar$ an$ *oth the a*o)e pro)isions were

#ontaine$ in pa%e &, whi#h Arthur an$ his instrumental witness, si%ne$ at the

*ottom. a%e ! #ontaine$ the attestation #lause an$ the si%natures, at the

*ottom thereof, of the / instrumental witnesses whi#h in#lu$e$ Lam*ert, the

$ri)er of Arthur? @oly, the family #oo:, an$ Attorney or*a, the lawyer who

prepare$ the will. There was a /r$ pa%e, *ut this only #ontaine$ the notarial

a#:nowle$%ement. The attestation #lause state$ the will was si%ne$ on the sameo##asion *y Arthur an$ his instrumental witnesses who all si%ne$ in the presen#e

of ea#h other, an$ the notary pu*li# who notariBe$ the will. There are no mar%inal

si%natures or pa%ination appearin% on any of the / pa%es. Upon his $eath, it was

$is#o)ere$ that apart from the house an$ lot, he ha$ a & million a##ount

$eposite$ with A - *an:.


32/55

#hil$, Anna. In &CD& an$ &CD!, Ramon an$


33/55

twins, >ans an$ retel, with his %irlfrien$, Fiona. In !;;6, Anna, Larry an$ -herry

$ie$ in a #ar a##i$ent. In !;;D, Ramon $ie$. 4ho may inherit from Ramon an$

who may not+ i)e your reason *rie y. &;'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

The followin) may inherit from 8amonB

(&). 2ichelle, as an adopted child of Ra"on, +ill inherit as a legiti"ate

child of Ra"on. As an adopted child, 2ichelle has all the rights of a

legiti"ate child (Sec &3, 4o"estic Adoption La+).

(!). Lia +ill inherit in representation of Anna. Although Lia is an illegiti"ate

child, she is not arred y Articles 55!, ecause her "other Anna is an

illegiti"ate herself. She +ill represent Anna as regards Anna6s legiti"e

under Art. 50!, 788 and as regards Anna6s intestate share under Art.

550, 788.

The followin) may not inherit from 8amonB

(&). Shelly, eing an adopted child, she cannot represent 8herry. This is

ecause adoption creates a personal legal relation only et+een the adopter

and the adopted. The la+ on representation re9uires the representati$e to

e a legal heir of the person he is representing and

also of the person from whom the person bein) represented was supposed to inherit. While Shelly is a

le)al heir of (herry, Shelly is not a le)al heir of 8amon. +doption created a purely personal le)al

relation only between (herry and Shelly.

(!). ans and ;retel are arred fro" inheriting fro" Ra"on under Art. 55!,

788. eing illegiti"ate children, they cannot inherit a intestao fro"

Ra"on.

+GT!8 +T* ! + SW!8B

The problem e"pressly mentioned the dates of the adoption of (herry and Michelle as 5465 and 5462.

/urin) that time, adoption was )overned by the ew (ivil (ode. 'nder the ew (ivil (ode, husband and

wife were allowed to adopt separately or not Dointly with the other spouse. +nd since the problem does not

specifically and cate)orically state, it is possible to construe the use of the word ErespectivelyE in the


34/55

problem as indicative of the situation that (herry was adopted by 8amon alone and Michelle was

adopted by /essa alone. *n such case of separate adoption the alternative answer to the problem will be as

followsB 1nly Gia will inherit from 8amon in representation of 8amon s ille)itimate dau)hter +nna.

+lthou)h Gia is an ille)itimate child, she is not barred from inheritin) from 8amon because her


35/55

mother is herself ille)itimate. Shelly cannot inherit in representation of (herry because Shelly is Dust an

adopted child of (herry. *n representation, the representative must not only be a le)al heir of the person

he is representin) but also of the decedent from whom the represented person is supposed to inherit. *n

the case of Shelly, while she is a le)al heir of (herry by virtue of adoption, she is not a le)al heir of

8amon. +doption creates a personal le)al relation only between the adoptin) parent and the adopted

child #Teotico v. /el al, 5: S(8+ =0@, 54@$. Michelle cannot inherit from 8amon, because she was

adopted not by 8amon but by /essa. *n the eyes of the law, she is not related to 8amon at all. ence,

she is not a le)al heir of 8amon. ans and Iretel are not entitled to inherit from 8amon, because they

are barred by +rt. 442 ((. -ein) ille)itimate children of Garry, they cannot inherit from the le)itimate

relatives of their father Garry. 8amon is a le)itimate relative of Garry who is the le)itimate father.

Ge)itimes? (ompulsory eirs #2052&

No.9III.*" >ow #an RG $istri*ute his estate *y will, if his heirs are G- , his wife?

> R an$ R9-, his parents? an$ an ille%itimate #hil$, S H+

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

+ testator may dispose of by will the free portion of his estate. Since the le)itime of 3(< is 5 > of

the estate, SI1 is V of the estate and that of -8 and 8 ( is U of the hereditary estate under

+rt >>4 of the ((, the remainin) 5 > of the estate is the free portion which the testator may

dispose of by will.

Ge)itime? (ompulsory eirs #200>&

No. XII. Ernesto, an o)erseas Filipino wor:er, was #omin% home to the hilippines

after wor:in% for so many years in the 2i$$le East. >e ha$ sa)e$ &;;.;;; in his

sa)in% a##ount in 2anila whi#h inten$e$ to use to start a *usiness in his home

#ountry. Hn his i%ht home, Ernesto ha$ a fatal heart atta#:. >e left *ehin$ his

wi$owe$ mother, his #ommon1law wife an$ their twins sons. >e left no will, no

$e*ts, no other relati)es an$ no other properties ex#ept the money in his sa)in%

a##ount. 4ho are the heirs entitle$ to inherint from him an$ how mu#h shoul$

ea#h re#ei)e+ /'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B


36/55

The mother and twin sons are entitled to inherit from !rnesto. +rt. 445 of the (ivil (ode, provides

that if le)itimate


37/55


38/55

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

The other defects of the will that can cause its denial are as followsB #a& +tty. Korba, the one who prepared

the will was one of the three witnesses, violatin) the threeCwitnesses rule? #b& no mar)inal si)nature at the

last pa)e? #c & the attestation did not state the number of pa)es upon which the will is written? and, #d& no

pa)ination appearin) correlatively in letters on the upper part of the three pa)es #+9uela v. (.+.,

I.8.


39/55


40/55

-". 4ill ietro, as sur)i)in% *iolo%i#al father of the *a*y, *e entitle$ to #laim the


41/55

pro#ee$s of the life insuran#e on the life of 2arian+ !'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B


42/55

Since succession is not involved as re)ards the insurance contract, the provisions of the 8ules of (ourt

#8ule 5:5, Sec. : , NDDO N$O & on survivorship shall apply. 'nder the 8ules, /r. Gope9, who was 60 years

old, is presumed to have died ahead of 8oberto who is presumably between the a)es 5$ and @0. avin)

survived the insured, 8oberto s ri)ht as a beneficiary became vested


43/55

upon the death of /r. Gope9. When 8oberto died after /r. Gope9, his ri)ht to receive the insurance became

part of his hereditar y estate, which in turn was inherited in e7ual shares by his le)al heirs, namely, his

spouse and children. Therefore, 8oberto s children and his spouse are entitled to 8oberto s one third share

in the insurance proceeds.

Wills? olo)raphic Wills? *nsertions (ancellations #2052&

No.9II.a" Nati)i$a$5s holo%raphi# will, whi#h ha$ only one &" su*stantial

pro)ision, as 7rst written, name$ Rosa as her sole heir. >owe)er, when re%orio

presente$ it for pro*ate, it alrea$y #ontaine$ an alteration, namin% re%orio,

instea$ of Rosa, as sole heir, *ut without authenti#ation *y Nati)i$a$5s si%nature.

Rosa opposes the pro*ate alle%in% su#h la#: of proper authenti#ation. She #laims

that the unaltere$ form of the will shoul$ *e %i)en e(e#t. 4hose #laim shoul$ *e

%rante$+ Explain. 6'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

It $epen$s. If the #an#ellation of Rosa5s name in the will was done by the testator

himself, Rosa5s #laime$ that the holo)raphic will in its ori)inal tenor

should be )iven effect must be denied. The said cancellation has revo ed the entire will as nothin)

remains of the will after the name of 8osa was cancelled. Such cancellation is valid revocation of the

will and does not re7uire authentication by the full si)nature of the testator to be effective.

>owe)er, if the #an#ellation of Rosa5s name was not done by the testator himself, such

cancellation shall not be effective and the will in its ori)inal tenor shall remain valid. The effectively

of the holo)raphic will cannot be left to the mercy of unscrupulous third parties.

The writin% of re%orio5s name as sole heir was ineffective, even thou)h written by the

testator himself, because such is an alteration that re7uires authentication by the full

si)nature of the testator to be valid and effective. ot havin) an authenticated, the desi)nation of

Ire)orio as an heir was ineffective, # alaw v. 8elova, I.8. o. GC=0206, Sept 2>, 54>=&.

Wills? olo)raphic Wills?


44/55


45/55

Unite$ States, passe$ the New @or: me$i#al li#ensure examinations, resi$e$

therein, an$ *e#ame a naturaliBe$ Ameri#an #itiBen. >e $ie$ in New @or: in !;;D.

The laws of New @or: $o not re#o%niBe holo%raphi# wills or #ompulsory heirs.

A". -an the holo%raphi# will of


46/55

Wills? 3oint Wills #200>&

No. XI. Gohn an$ aula, ritish #itiBens at *irth, a#3uire$ hilippine #itiBenship *y

naturaliBation after their marria%e.


47/55

their heirs an$ pro)i$in% that upon the $eath of the sur)i)or *etween them, the

entire estate woul$ %o to Gor%e an$ Luisito only *ut the two !" #oul$ not $ispose

of nor $i)i$e the Lon$on estate as lon% as they li)e. Gohn an$ 2aria $ie$

tra%i#ally in the Lon$on su*way terrorist atta#: in !;;6. Gor%e an$ Luisito 7le$ a

petition for pro*ate of their parents5 will *efore a 2a:ati Re%ional Trial


48/55

-ourt. Goshur )ehemently o*0e#te$ *e#ause he was preterite$.

&"Shoul$ the will *e a$mitte$ to pro*ate+ Explain. !'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

o, the will should not be admitted to probate. Since the couples are both Ailipino citi9ens, +rt >5> and >54

of the (( shall apply. Said articles prohibits the e"ecution of Doint wills and ma e them void, even

thou)h authori9ed of the country where they were e"ecuted.

!" Are the testamentary $ispositions )ali$+ Explain. !'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

Since the Doint will is void, all the testamentary disposition written therein are also void. owever, if the

will is valid, the institutions of the heirs shall be annulled because 3oshur was preterited. e was

preterited because he will receive nothin) from the will, will receive nothin) in testacy, and the facts do

not show that he received anythin) as an advance on his inheritance. e was totally e"cluded from the

inheritance of his parents.

/" Is the testamentary prohi*ition a%ainst the $i)ision of the Lon$on estate )ali$+

Explain. &'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

Assumin% the will of Gohn an$ 2aria was )ali$, the testamentary prohi*ition on the

$i)ision of the Lon$on estate shall *e )ali$ *ut only for !; years. Un$er Arts &; /

an$ KCK of the N--, a testamentary $isposition of the testator #annot for*i$ the

partition of all or part of the estate for a perio$ lon%er than twenty !;" years.

Wills?


49/55

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

A+GS!, The other three co heirs may not anytime demand the partition of the house and lot since it

was e"pressly provided by the decedent in his will that the same cannot be partitioned while his youn)est

child desires to stay there. +rticle 50>: of the ew (ivil (ode allows a decedent to prohibit, by will, the

partition of a property and his estate for a period not lon)er than 20 years no


50/55

matter what his reason maybe. ence, the three coCheir cannot demand its partition at anytime but only

after 20 years from the death of their father. !ven if the deceased parent did not leave a will, if the

house and lot constituted their family home, +rticle

5$4 of the Aamily (ode prohibits its partition for a period of ten #50& years, or for as lon) as there is a

minor beneficiary livin) in the family home.

Wills? otarial Wills? -lind Testator? 8e7uisites #200>&

No. XI9. Ste)ie was *orn *lin$. >e went to s#hool for the *lin$, an$ learne$ to

rea$ in aille Lan%ua%e. >e Spea:s En%lish uently. -an he=

A". 2a:e a will+ &'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

+ssumin) that he is of le)al a)e #+rt. 646, (ivil (ode& and of sound mind at the time of e"ecution of

the will #+rt. 64>, (ivil (ode&, Stevie, a blind person, can ma e a notarial will, subDect to compliance

with the EtwoCreadin) ruleE #+rt. >0>, (ivil (ode& and the provisions of +rts. >0=, >0$ and >0@ of the

(ivil (ode.

,". A#t as a witness to a will+ &'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

Stevie cannot be a witness to a will. +rt. >20 of the (ivil (ode provides that Eany person of sound

mind and of the a)e of ei)hteen years or more, and not blind, deaf or dumb, and able to read and

write, may be a witness to the e"ecution of a will.

-". In either of the a*o)e instan#es, must the will *e rea$ to him+ &'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

*f Stevie ma es a will, the will must be read to him twice, once by one of the subscribin) witnesses, and

a)ain, by the notary public before whom the will is ac nowled)ed #+rt. >0>, (ivil (ode&.


51/55

Wills? Testamentary /isposition?


52/55

pro)i$in% that upon the $eath of the sur)i)or *etween them the entire estate woul$

%o to eter an$ aul only *ut the two #oul$ not $ispose of nor $i)i$e the Lon$on

estate as lon% as they li)e. Gohn an$ aul $ie$ tra%i#ally in the Lon$on Su*way

terrorist atta#: in !;;6. eter an$ aul 7le$ a petition for pro*ate of their parentJs

will *efore a 2a:ati Re%ional Trial -ourt.

-". Is the testamentary prohi*ition a%ainst the $i)ision of the Lon$on estate )ali$+

!'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B

o. the testamentary prohibition a)ainst the division of the Gondon estate is void #+rt. >60, (ivil

(ode&. + testator, however, may prohibit partition for a period which shall not e"ceed twenty

#20& years #+rt. >60 in relation to +rt. =4=, par :, (ivil (ode&.

Wills? Witnesses to a Will, annah,

Luisa an$ en0amin to *e witnesses. annah, while waitin% for her turn to si%n the will, was rea$in% the D th >arry

otter *oo: on the #ou#h, *esi$e the ta*le on whi#h e)eryone was si%nin%.

en0amin, asi$e from witnessin% the will, also o(ere$ to notariBe it. A wee: after,

-lara was run o)er *y a $run: $ri)er while #rossin% the street in reen*elt.

2ay the will of -lara *e a$mitte$ to pro*ate+ i)e your reasons *rie y. &;'"

S'II!ST!/ + SW!8B


53/55

was in the restroom for e"tended periods of time. *nside the restroom, 8oberta could not have possibly

seen the testatri" and the other witnesses si)n the will by merely castin) her eyes in the proper direction

#3aboneta v. Iustilo, $


54/55


55/55

Date post:	05-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rhona-cacanindin
View:	226 times
Download:	1 times

Bar Questions From UP Law Complex-SUCCESSION

Documents