Succession

SUCCESSION
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? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the Civil Code, the widow or widower is a legal and
compulsory heir of the deceased spouse. If the widow is the
only surviving heir, there being no legitimate ascendants,
descendants, brothers, and sisters, nephews and nieces, she
gets the entire estate.
Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate relatives (1993)
A is the acknowledged natural child of B who died when A
was already 22 years old. When B's full blood brother, C,
died he (C) was survived by his widow and four children of
his other brother D. Claiming that he is entitled to inherit
from his father's brother C. A brought suit to obtain his
share in the estate of C. Will his action prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the action of A will not prosper. On the premise that B,
C and D are legitimate brothers, as an illegitimate child of B,
A cannot inherit in intestacy from C who is a legitimate
brother of B. Only the wife of C in her own right and the

CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the children of D as C's How will you rule on Jorge's opposition to the probate of
legitimate nephews inheriting as collateral relatives) can
inherit in intestacy. (Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975, Civil
Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action of A will not prosper. Being an illegitimate, he is
barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting ab
intestato from the legitimate relatives of his father.
Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate relatives (1996)
Cristina the illegitimate daughter of Jose and Maria, died
intestate, without any descendant or ascendant. Her valuable
estate is being claimed by Ana, the legitimate daughter of
Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate son of Maria. Is either,
both, or neither of them entitled to inherit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of ab intestato
from Cristina. Both are legitimate relatives of Cristina's
illegitimate parents and therefore they fall under the
prohibition prescribed by Art. 992, NCC (Manuel v. Ferrer,
242 SCRA 477; Diaz v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA
427).
Collation (1993)
Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio Cruz a residential lot of 300
square meters in Quezon City for which Joaquin paid Julio the
amount of P300,000.00, When the deed was about to be
prepared Joaquin told Julio that it be drawn in the name of
Joaquina Roxas, his acknowledged natural child. Thus, the
deed was so prepared and executed by Julio. Joaquina then
built a house on the lot where she, her husband and children
resided. Upon Joaquin's death, his legitimate children sought
to recover possession and ownership of the lot, claiming that
Joaquina Roxas was but a trustee of their father. Will the
action against Joaquina Roxas prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because there is a presumed donation in favor of
Joaquina under Art. 1448 of the Civil Code (De los Santos
v. Reyes, 27 January 1992, 206 SCRA 437). However, the
donation should be collated to the hereditary estate and the
legitime of the other heirs should be preserved.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the action against Joaquina Roxas will prosper, but only
to the extent of the aliquot hereditary rights of the legitimate
children as heirs. Joaquina will be entitled to retain her own
share as an illegitimate child, (Arts. 1440 and 1453. Civil
Code; Art. 176, F. C.)
Disinheritance vs. Preterition (1993)
Maria, to spite her husband Jorge, whom she suspected was
having an affair with another woman, executed a will,
unknown to him, bequeathing all the properties she inherited
from her parents, to her sister Miguela. Upon her death, the
will was presented for probate. Jorge opposed probate of the
will on the ground that the will was executed by his wife
without his knowledge, much less consent, and that it
deprived him of his legitime. After all, he had given her no
cause for disinheritance, added Jorge in his opposition.
Maria's will. If you were the Judge?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's opposition should be
sustained in part and denied in part. Jorge's omission as
spouse of Maria is not preterition of a compulsory heir in the
direct line. Hence, Art. 854 of the Civil Code does not apply,
and the institution of Miguela as heir is valid, but only to the
extent of the free portion of one-half. Jorge is still entitled to
one-half of the estate as his legitime. (Art. 1001, Civil Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
a) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's opposition should
be sustained in part and denied in part. This is a case of
ineffective disinheritance under Art, 918 of the Civil Code,
because the omission of the compulsory heir Jorge by Maria
was intentional. Consequently, the institution of Miguela as
heir is void only insofar as the legitime of Jorge is prejudiced.
Accordingly, Jorge is entitled to his legitime of one-half of the
estate, and Miguela gets the other half.
b) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's opposition should
be sustained. This is a case of preterition under Article 854
Civil Code, the result of the omission of Jorge as compulsory
heir having the same right equivalent to a legitimate child "in
the direct line" is that total intestacy will arise, and Jorge will
inherit the entire estate.
c) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: the opposition should
be denied since it is predicated upon causes not recognized
by law as grounds for disallowance of a wll, to wit:
1 that the will was made without his knowledge;
2 that the will was made without his consent; and
3 that it has the effect of depriving him of his
legitime, which is a ground that goes into the intrinsic
validity of the will and need not be resolved during the
probate proceedings. However, the opposition may be
entertained for, the purpose of securing to the husband
his right to the legitime on the theory that the will
constitutes an ineffective disinheritance under Art. 918
of the Civil Code,
d) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge is entitled to receive
his legitime from the estate of his wife. He was not
disinherited in the will even assuming that he gave ground for
disinheritance, hence, he is still entitled to his legitime. Jorge,
however, cannot receive anything from the free portion. He
cannot claim preterition as he is not a compulsory heir in the
direct line. There being no preterition, the institution of the
sister was valid and the only right of Jorge is to claim his
legitime.
Disinheritance; Ineffective (1999)
Mr. Palma, widower, has three daughters D, D-l and D-2. He
executes a Will disinheriting D because she married a man he
did not like, and instituting daughters D-1 and D-2 as his
heirs to his entire estate of P 1,000,000.00, Upon Mr, Palma's
death, how should his estate be divided? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

This is a case of ineffective disinheritance because marrying 1028 for being in consideration of her adulterous relation
a man that the father did not approve of is not a ground for
disinheriting D. Therefore, the institution of D-l and D-2
shall be annulled insofar as it prejudices the legitime of D,
and the institution of D-l and D-2 shall only apply on the
free portion in the amount of P500,000.00. Therefore, D, D-l
and D-2 will get their legitimes of P500.000.00 divided into
three equal parts and D-l and D-2 will get a reduced
testamentary disposition of P250,000.00 each. Hence, the
shares will be:
D P166,666.66
D-l P166,666.66 + P250.000.00
D-2 P166,666.66 + P250,000.00
Disinheritance; Ineffective; Preterition (2000)
In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1) disinherits his
daughter Wilma because "she is disrespectful towards me and
raises her voice talking to me", 2) omits entirely his spouse
Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of P100,000.00 to his mistress Rosa
and P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4) institutes his son
Baldo as his sole heir. How will you distribute his estate of
P1,000,000.00? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective because the
ground relied upon by the testator does not constitute
maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code.
Hence, the testamentary provisions in the will shall be
annulled but only to the extent that her legitime was impaired.
The total omission of Elvira does not constitute preterition
because she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line. Only
compulsory heirs in the direct line may be the subject of
preterition. Not having been preterited, she will be entitled
only to her legitime.
The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article 1028 for
being in consideration of her adulterous relation with the
testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the legacy of
100,000 pesos. The legacy of 50,000 pesos in favor of Ernie is
not inofficious not having exceeded the free portion. Hence,
he shall be entitled to receive it.
The institution of Baldo, which applies only to the free
portion, shall be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto
will be distributed as follows:
Baldo-----------------450,000
Wilma---------------250,000
Elvira-----------------250,000
Ernie-----------------50,000
1,000,000
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The disinheritance of Wilma was effective because disrespect of,
and raising of voice to, her father constitute maltreatment under
Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code. She is, therefore, not entitled to
inherit anything. Her inheritance will go to the other legal heirs. The
total omission of Elvira is not preterition because she is not a
compulsory heir in the direct line. She will receive only her legitime.
The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article
with the testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the
legacy. Ernie will receive the legacy in his favor because it is not
inofficious. The institution of Baldo, which applies only to the free
portion, will be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto shall be
distributed as follows:
Heir Legitime Legacy Institution TOTAL
Baldo 500,000 200.000 700,000 Elvira 250,000 250,000 Ernie
50,000 50,000 TOTAL 750,000 50,000 200,000 1,000,000
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Same answer as the first Alternative Answer except as to
distribution. Justice Jurado solved this problem differently. In
his opinion, the legitime of the heir who was disinherited is
distributed among the other compulsory heirs in proportion
to their respective legitimes, while his share in the intestate
portion. If any, is distributed among the other legal heirs by
accretion under Article 1018 of the NCC in proportion to
their respective intestate shares. In sum the distribution shall
be as follows:
Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Reserva Troncal (1995)
Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both 18 years of age, were
passengers of Flight No. 317 of Oriental Airlines. The plane
they boarded was of Philippine registry. While en route from
Manila to Greece some passengers hijacked the plane, held
the chief pilot hostage at the cockpit and ordered him to fly
instead to Libya. During the hijacking Isidro suffered a heart
attack and was on the verge of death. Since Irma was already
eight months pregnant by Isidro, she pleaded to the hijackers
to allow the assistant pilot to solemnize her marriage with
Isidro. Soon after the marriage, Isidro expired. As the plane
landed in Libya Irma gave birth. However, the baby died a
few minutes after complete delivery. Back in the Philippines
Irma Immediately filed a claim for inheritance. The parents of
Isidro opposed her claim contending that the marriage
between her and Isidro was void ab initio on the following
grounds: (a) they had not given their consent to the marriage
of their son; (b) there was no marriage license; (c) the
solemnizing officer had no 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
fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Irma succeeded to the estate of Isidro as his surviving
spouse to the estate of her legitimate child. When Isidro

Heir Legitime Distribution

of
Wilmas
Legacy
Institution
TOTAL

Legitime

Bald
o 250,0000 125,000 200,000 575,000
Wil
ma

(250.000)

Elvi
ra
250,000 125.000

375.000
Erni
e

50,000 50.000
TO
TAL 500,000 250,000
50,0
00
200,00
0 1,000,000

died, he was succeeded by his surviving wife Irma, and his
legitimate unborn child. They divided the estate equally
between them, the child excluding the parents of Isidro. An
unborn child is considered born for all purposes favorable to
it provided it is born later. The child was considered born
because, having an intra-uterine life of more than seven
months, it lived for a few minutes after its complete delivery.
It was legitimate because it was born within the valid marriage
of the parents. Succession is favorable to it. When the child
died, Irma inherited the share of the child. However, the
share of the child in the hands of Irma is subject to reserva
troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the child within the
third degree of consanguinity and who belong to the line of
Isidro.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the marriage is void. Irma has no successional rights with
respect to Isidro but she would have successional rights with
respect to the child.
Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Shares (2003)
Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two illegitimate
children, his parents, and two brothers. He left an estate of P1
million. Luis died intestate. Who are his intestate heirs, and
how much is the share of each in his estate?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The intestate heirs are the two (2) legitimate children and the
two (2) illegitimate children. In intestacy the estate of the
decedent is divided among the legitimate and illegitimate
children such that the share of each illegitimate child is one
-half the share of each legitimate child.
Their share are : For each legitimate child
P333,333.33 For each illegitimate child
P166,666.66
(Article 983, New Civil Code; Article 176, Family Code)
Intestate Succession (1992)
F had three (3) legitimate children: A, B, and C. B has one
(1) legitimate child X. C has two (2) legitimate children: Y
and Z. F and A rode together in a car and perished together
at the same time in a vehicular accident, F and A died, each
of them leaving substantial estates in intestacy.
a) Who are the intestate heirs of F? What are their
respective fractional shares?
b) Who are the intestate heirs of A? What are their
respective fractional shares?
c) If B and C both predeceased F, who are Fs intestate
heirs? What are their respective fractional shares? Do
they inherit in their own right or by representation?
Explain your answer.
d) If B and C both repudiated their shares in the estate of
F who are F's intestate heirs? What are their respective
fractional shares? Do they inherit in their own right or by
representation? Explain your answer,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) B = 1/2

(b) B = 1/2 Z = 1/4 by representation of C C= 1/2 Article 982
of the Civil Code provides that grandchildren inherit by right
of representation.
(c) X = 1/2 by representation of B C=l/2 Y = 1/4 by
representation of C

(d) X - 1/3 in his own right Y- 1/3 in his own right 2 - 1/3
in his own right
Article 977 of the Civil Code provides that heirs who
repudiate their share cannot be represented.
"T" died intestate on 1 September 1997.He was survived by
M (his mother), W (his widow), A and B (his legitimate
children), C (his grandson, being the legitimate son of B), D
(his other grandson, being the son of E who was a legitimate
son of, and who predeceased, "T"), and F (his grandson,
being the son of G, a legitimate son who repudiated the
inheritance from "T"). His distributable net estate is
P120.000.00. How should this amount be shared in intestacy
among the surviving heirs?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The legal heirs are A, B, D, and W. C is excluded by B who is
still alive. D inherits in representation of E who predeceased.
F is excluded because of the repudiation of G, the
predecessor. M is excluded by the legitimate children of
T. The answer may be premised on two theories: the Theory
of Exclusion and the Theory of Concurrence.
Under the Theory of Exclusion the legitimes of the heirs
are accorded them and the free portion will be given
exclusively to the legitimate descendants. Hence under the
Exclusion Theory: A will get P20.000.00. and P 13.333.33 (1/3
of the free portion) B will get P 20,000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3
of the free portion) D will get P20.000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of
the free portion)
W, the widow is limited to the legitime of P20.000.00 Under
the Theory of Concurrence. In addition to their legitimes,
the heirs of A, B, D and W will be given equal shares in the
free portions:
A: P20.000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1 /4 of the free portion)
B: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (l/4 of the free portlon)
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) Alternative
Answer: Shares in Intestacy T - decedent Estate: P120.000.00
Survived by: M - Mother............................None W -
Widow.............................P 30,000.00 A - Son.................................P 30,000.00 B
- Son.................................P30.000.00 C - Grandson (son of B).............None D -
Grandson (son of E who predeceased T)................P 30,000.00 F - Grandson
(son of G who repudiated the Inheritance from"T").......................None
Explanation:
a) The mother (M) cannot inherit from T because
under Art. 985 the ascendants shall inherit in default of
legitimate children and descendants of the deceased.
b) The widow's share is P30.000.00 because under Art,
996 it states that if the widow or widower and legitimate
children or descendants are left, the surviving
spouse has in the succession the same share as that of be set aside as Mario's conjugal share from the community
each of the children, c) C has no share because his father is
still alive hence succession by representation shall not apply
(Art. 975).
d) D inherits P30.000 which is the share of his father
E who predeceased T by virtue of Art. 981 on the right of
representation.
e) F has no share because his father G repudiated the
inheritance. Under Article 977 heirs who repudiate their
share may not be represented.
Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary estate of P1.2 million.
He is survived by his widow, three legitimate children, two
legitimate grandchildren sired by a legitimate child who
predeceased him, and two recognized illegitimate children.
Distribute the estate in intestacy. [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the theory of Concurrence, the shares are as follows:
A (legitimate child) = P200,000 B (legitimate child) =
P200,000 C (legitimate child) = P200,000 D (legitimate
child) = O (predeceased] E (legitimate child of D) = P100,000 -
by right of representation F (legitimate child of D) = P100,000 - by
right of representation G (illegitimate child) = P100,000 - 1/2
share of the legitimate child H (illegitimate child) = P100,000 - 1/2
share of the legitimate child W (Widow) = P200.000 - same share
as legitimate child
ANOTHER ANSWER:
Under the theory of Exclusion the free portion (P300,000) is
distributed only among the legitimate children and is given to
them in addition to their legitime. All other Intestate heirs are
entitled only to their respective legitimes. The distribution is as
follows:
Legitime Free Portion Total
A [legitimate child) P150.000 + P 75,000 - P225.000 B {legitimate
child) P150.000 + P150.000 - P225.000 C (legitimate child) P150.000
+ P 75.000 - P225.000 D (legitimate child) 0 0 0 E (legitimate child of
D) P 75,000 + P35.500 - P112,500 F (legitimate child of D) P
75.000 + P 37.500 - P112,500 G (illegitimate child) P 75.000 0
-P 75,500 H (illegitimate child) P 75.000 0 - P 75,500 W (Widow)
P150,000 0 -P150.000
Tessie died survived by her husband Mario, and two nieces,
Michelle and Jorelle, who are the legitimate children of an
elder sister who had predeceased her. The only property she
left behind was a house and lot worth two million pesos,
which Tessie and her husband had acquired with the use of
Mario's savings from his income as a doctor. How much of
the property or its value, if any, may Michelle and Jorelle
claim as their hereditary shares? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides, "Should brothers and
sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter
shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and
sisters or their children to the other half." Tessie's gross estate
consists of a house and lot acquired during her marriage, making it
part of the community property. Thus, one-half of the said property
would have to
property. The other half, amounting to one million pesos, is her
conjugal share (net estate), and should be distributed to her
intestate heirs. Applying the above provision of law, Michelle and
Jorelle, Tessie's nieces, are entitled to one-half of her conjugal
share worth one million pesos, or 500,000 pesos, while the other
one-half amounting to P500,000 will go to Mario, Tessie's surviving
spouse. Michelle and Jorelle are then entitled to P250,000 pesos
each as their hereditary share.
Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are childless, met with a serious
motor vehicle accident with Mr. Cruz at the wheel and Mrs.
Cruz seated beside him, resulting in the instant death of Mr.
Cruz. Mrs. Cruz was still alive when help came but she also
died on the way to the hospital. The couple acquired
properties worth One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos during
their marriage, which are being claimed by the parents of
both spouses in equal shares. Is the claim of both sets of
parents valid and why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No, the claim of both parents is not valid. When Mr. Cruz
died, he was succeeded by his wife and his parents as his
intestate heirs who will share his estate equally. His estate
was 0.5 Million pesos which is his half share in the absolute
community amounting to 1 Million Pesos. His wife, will,
therefore, inherit O.25 Million Pesos and his parents will
inherit 0.25 Million Pesos.
When Mrs. Cruz died, she was succeeded by her parents as
her intestate heirs. They will inherit all of her estate consisting
of her 0.5 Million half share in the absolute community and
her 0.25 Million inheritance from her husband, or a total of
0.750 Million Pesos.
In sum, the parents of Mr. Cruz will inherit 250,000 Pesos
while the parents of Mrs. Cruz will inherit 750,000 Pesos.
Eugenio died without issue, leaving several parcels of land in
Bataan. He was survived by Antonio, his legitimate brother;
Martina, the only daughter of his predeceased sister Mercedes;
and five legitimate children of Joaquin, another predeceased
brother. Shortly after Eugenio's death, Antonio also died,
leaving three legitimate children. Subsequently, Martina, the
children of Joaquin and the children of Antonio executed an
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Eugenio, dividing it
among themselves. The succeeding year, a petition to annul
the extrajudicial settlement was filed by Antero, an illegitimate
son of Antonio, who claims he is entitled to share in the
estate of Eugenio. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that Antero is barred by Article 992 of the
Civil Code from inheriting from the legitimate brother of his
father. How will you resolve the motion? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss should be granted. Article 992 does
not apply. Antero is not claiming any inheritance from
Eugenio. He is claiming his share in the inheritance of his
father consisting of his father's share in the inheritance of
Eugenio (Dela Merced v. Dela Merced, Gr No. 126707, 25 5M inherited by Mrs. Luna from Mr. Luna will be inherited
February 1999).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It depends. If Antero was not acknowledged by Antonio, the
motion to dismiss should be granted because Antero is not a
legal heir of Antonio. If Antero was acknowledged, the
motion should be denied because Article 992 is not
applicable. This is because Antero is claiming his inheritance
from his illegitimate father, not from Eugenio.
Intestate Succession; Reserva Troncal (1999)
Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten Million (P1
0,000,000.00) Pesos. His widow gave birth to a child four
months after Mr, Luna's death, but the child died five hours
after birth. Two days after the child's death, the widow of Mr.
Luna also died because she had suffered from difficult
childbirth. The estate of Mr. Luna is now being claimed by his
parents, and the parents of his widow. Who is entitled to Mr.
Luna'a estate and why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go to the parents of Mrs.
Luna as their inheritance from Mrs. Luna, while the other
half will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna as the
reservatarios of the reserved property inherited by Mrs. Luna
from her child.
When Mr. Luna died, his heirs were his wife and the unborn
child. The unborn child inherited because the inheritance was
favorable to it and it was born alive later though it lived only
for five hours. Mrs. Luna inherited half of the 10 Million
estate while the unborn child inherited the other half. When
the child died, it was survived by its mother, Mrs. Luna. As
the only heir, Mrs. Luna inherited, by operation of law, the
estate of the child consisting of its 5 Million inheritance from
Mr. Luna. In the hands of Mrs. Luna, what she inherited
from her child was subject to reserva troncal for the benefit
of the relatives of the child within the third degree of
consanguinity and who belong to the family of Mr. Luna, the
line where the property came from.
When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived by her parents as her
only heirs. Her parents will inherit her estate consisting of the
5 Million she inherited from Mr. Luna. The other 5 Million
she inherited from her child will be delivered to the parents of
Mr. Luna as beneficiaries of the reserved property.
In sum, 5 Million Pesos of Mr. Luna's estate will go to the
parents of Mrs. Luna, while the other 5 Million Pesos will go
to the parents of Mr. Luna as reservatarios.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the child had an intra-uterine life of not less than 7 months, it
inherited from the father. In which case, the estate of 10M will be
divided equally between the child and the widow as legal heirs.
Upon the death of the child, its share of 5M shall go by operation of
law to the mother, which shall be subject to reserva troncal. Under
Art. 891, the reserva is in favor of relatives belonging to the
paternal line and who are within 3 degrees from the child. The
parents of Mr, Luna are entitled to the reserved portion which is 5M
as they are 2 degrees related from child. The
from her by her parents.
However, if the child had intra-uterine life of less than 7
months, half of the estate of Mr. Luna, or 5M, will be
inherited by the widow (Mrs. Luna), while the other half, or
5M, will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna. Upon the
death of Mrs. Luna, her estate of 5M will be inherited by her
own parents.
Legitime (1997)
"X", the decedent, was survived by W (his widow). A (his
son), B (a granddaughter, being the daughter of A) and C and
D (the two acknowledged illegitimate children of the
decedent). "X" died this year (1997) leaving a net estate of
P180,000.00. All were willing to succeed, except A who
repudiated the inheritance from his father, and they seek your
legal advice on how much each can expect to receive as their
respective shares in the distribution of the estate. Give your
answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The heirs are B, W, C and D. A inherits nothing because of his
renunciation. B inherits a legitime of P90.000.00 as the nearest
and only legitimate descendant, inheriting in his own right not
by representation because of A's renunciation. W gets a
legitime equivalent to one-half (1 / 2) that of B amounting to
P45.000. C and D each gets a legitime equivalent to one-half
(1/2) that of B amounting to P45.000.00 each. But since the
total exceeds the entire estate, their legitimes would have to be
reduced corresponding to P22.500.00 each (Art. 895. CC).
The total of all of these amounts to P180.000.00.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
INTESTATE SUCCESSION
ESTATE: P180,000.00
W- (widow gets 1/2 share) P90.000.00 (Art. 998) A- (son who
repudiated his inheritance) None Art. 977) B - (Granddaughter)
None C - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45.000.00 (Art.998)
D - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45,000.00 (Art. 998) The
acknowledged illegitimate child gets 1/2 of the share of each
legitimate child.
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2003)
Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two illegitimate
children, his parents, and two brothers. He left an estate of P1
million. Who are the compulsory heirs of Luis, how much is
the legitime of each, and how much is the free portion of his
estate, if any?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The compulsory heirs are the two legitimate children and the
two illegitimate children. The parents are excluded by the
legitimate children, while the brothers are not compulsory
heirs at all. Their respective legitimate are: a) The legitime of
the two (2) legitimate children is one
half (1/2) of the estate (P500,000.00) to be divided
between them equally, or P250,000.00 each. b) The legitimate
of each illegitimate child is one-half
(1/2) the legitime of each legitimate child or
P125,000.00.

c) Since the total legitime of the compulsory heirs is legitime of the legitimate children and it follows that the
P750,000.00, the balance of P250,000.00 is the free
portion.
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs vs. Secondary Compulsory
Heirs (2005)
Emil, the testator, has three legitimate children, Tom, Henry
and Warlito; a wife named Adette; parents named Pepe and
Pilar; an illegitimate child, Ramon; brother, Mark; and a sister,
Nanette. Since his wife Adette is well-off, he wants to leave to
his illegitimate child as much of his estate as he can legally do.
His estate has an aggregate net amount of Pl,200,000.00, and
all the above-named relatives are still living. Emil now comes
to you for advice in making a will. How will you distribute his
estate according to his wishes without violating the law on
testamentary succession? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
P600,000.00 legitime to be divided equally between Tom,
Henry and Warlito as the legitimate children. Each will be
entitled to P200,000.00. (Art. 888, Civil Code) P100,000.00 --
share of Ramon the illegitimate child. Equivalent to 1/2 of
the share of each legitimate child. (Art. 176, Family Code)
P200,000.00 Adette the wife. Her share is equivalent to the
share of one legitimate child. (Art. 892, par. 2, Civil Code)
Pepe and Pilar, the parents are only secondary compulsory
heirs and they cannot inherit if the primary compulsory heirs
(legitimate children) are alive. (Art. 887, par. 2, Civil Code)
Brother Mark and sister Nanette are not compulsory heirs
since they are not included in the enumeration under Article
887 of the Civil Code.
The remaining balance of P300,000.00 is the free portion
which can be given to the illegitimate child Ramon as an
instituted heir. (Art. 914, Civil Code) If so given by the
decedent, Ramon would receive a total of P400,000.00.
Preterition (2001)
Because her eldest son Juan had been pestering her for
capital to start a business, Josefa gave him P100,000. Five
years later, Josefa died, leaving a last will and testament in
which she instituted only her four younger children as her
sole heirs. At the time of her death, her only properly left was
P900,000.00 in a bank. Juan opposed the will on the ground
of preterition. How should Josefa's estate be divided among
her heirs? State briefly the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was no preterition of the oldest son because the
testatrix donated 100,000 pesos to him. This donation is
considered an advance on the son's inheritance. There being
no preterition, the institutions in the will shall be respected
but the legitime of the oldest son has to be completed if he
received less.
After collating the donation of P100.000 to the remaining
property of P900,000, the estate of the testatrix is P1,000,000.
Of this amount, one-half or P500,000, is the
legitime of one legitimate child is P100,000. The legitime,
therefore, of the oldest son is P100,000. However, since the
donation given him was P100,000, he has already received in
full his legitime and he will not receive anything anymore
from the decedent. The remaining P900,000, therefore, shall
go to the four younger children by institution in the will, to
be divided equally among them. Each will receive P225,000.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Assuming that the donation is valid as to form and substance,
Juan cannot invoke preterition because he actually had
received a donation inter vivos from the testatrix (III
Tolentino 188,1992 ed.). He would only have a right to a
completion of his legitime under Art. 906 of the Civil Code.
The estate should be divided equally among the five children
who will each receive P225,000.00 because the total hereditary
estate, after collating the donation to Juan (Art. 1061, CC),
would be P1 million. In the actual distribution of the net
estate, Juan gets nothing while his siblings will get
P225,000.00 each.
Preterition; Compulsory Heir (1999)

(a) Mr, Cruz, widower, has three legitimate children, A, B
and C. He executed a Will instituting as his heirs to his estate
of One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos his two children A and
B, and his friend F. Upon his death, how should Mr. Cruz's
estate be divided? Explain. (3%)
(b) In the preceding question, suppose Mr. Cruz instituted his
two children A and B as his heirs in his Will, but gave a legacy
of P 100,000.00 to his friend F. How should the estate of Mr,
Cruz be divided upon his death? Explain, (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Assuming that the institution of A, B and F were to the
entire estate, there was preterition of C since C is a
compulsory heir in the direct line. The preterition will result
in the total annulment of the institution of heirs. Therefore,
the institution of A, B and F will be set aside and Mr. Cuz's
estate will be divided, as in intestacy, equally among A, B and
C as follows: A - P333,333.33; B - P333.333.33; and C -
P333,333.33.

(b) On the same assumption as letter (a), there was preterition
of C. Therefore, the institution of A and B is annulled but the
legacy of P100.000.00 to F shall be respected for not being
inofficious. Therefore, the remainder of P900.000.00 will be
divided equally among A, B and C.
Proceedings; Intestate Proceedings; Jurisdiction (2004)
In his lifetime, a Pakistani citizen, ADIL, married three times
under Pakistani law. When he died an old widower, he left
behind six children, two sisters, three homes, and an estate
worth at least 30 million pesos in the Philippines. He was
born in Lahore but last resided in Cebu City, where he had a
mansion and where two of his youngest children now live
and work. Two of his oldest children are farmers in Sulu,
while the two middle-aged children are employees in
Zamboanga City. Finding that the deceased left no will, the
youngest son wanted to file intestate proceedings before the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Two other siblings
objected, arguing that it should be in Jolo before a Sharia mother, in favor of another sister, with their mother not
court since his lands are in Sulu. But Adils sisters in Pakistan
want the proceedings held in Lahore before a Pakistani court.
Which court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue for the
intestate proceedings? The law of which country shall govern
succession to his estate? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In so far as the properties of the decedent located in the
Philippines are concerned, they are governed by Philippine
law (Article 16, Civil Code). Under Philippine law, the proper
venue for the settlement of the estate is the domicile of the
decedent at the time of his death. Since the decedent last
resided in Cebu City, that is the proper venue for the intestate
settlement of his estate.
However, the successional rights to the estate of ADIL are
governed by Pakistani law, his national law, under Article 16
of the Civil Code.
Succession; Death; Presumptive Legitime (1991)
a) For purposes of succession, when is death deemed to
occur or take place? b) May succession be conferred by
contracts or acts inter
vivos? Illustrate. c) Is there any law which allows the delivery
to
compulsory heirs of their presumptive legitimes during
the lifetime of their parents? If so, in what instances?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Death as a fact is deemed to occur when it actually takes
place. Death is presumed to take place in the circumstances
under Arts. 390-391 of the Civil Code. The time of death is
presumed to be at the expiration of the 10year period as
prescribed by Article 390 and at the moment of disappearance
under Article 391.
B. Under Art. 84 of the Family Code amending Art 130 of
the Civil Code, contractual succession is no longer possible
since the law now requires that donations of future property
be governed by the provisions on the testamentary succession
and formalities of wills.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
B. In the case of Coronado vs.CA(l91 SCRA81), it was ruled
that no property passes under a will without its being
probated, but may under Article 1058 of the Civil Code of
1898, be sustained as a partition by an act inter vivos
[Many-Oy vs. CA 144SCRA33).
And in the case of Chavez vs, IAC 1191 SCRA211), it was ruled
that while the law prohibits contracts upon future inheritance,
the partition by the parent, as provided in Art. 1080 is a case
expressly authorized by law. A person has two options in
making a partition of his estate: either by an act inter vivos or
by will. If the partition is by will, it is imperative that such
partition must be executed 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 legitime is not prejudiced.
"Where several sisters execute deeds of sale over their 1 /6
undivided share of the paraphernal property of their
only giving her authority thereto but even signing said deeds,
there is a valid partition inter vivos between the mother and
her children which cannot be revoked by the mother. Said
deeds of sale are not contracts entered into with respect to
future inheritance.
"It would be unjust for the mother to revoke the sales to a
son and to execute a simulated sale in favor of a daughter
who already benefited by the partition."
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. Yes, under Arts. 51 and 52 of the New Family Code. In
case of legal separation, annulment of marriage, declaration
of nullity of marriage and the automatic termination of a
subsequent marriage by the reappearance of the absent
spouse, the common or community property of the spouses
shall be dissolved and liquidated.
Art, 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive
legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of
the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in
cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by
mutual agreement, judicially approved, had already provided
for such matters.
The children of their guardian, or the trustee of their
property, may ask for the enforcement of the judgment.
The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed
shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of
the children accruing upon the death of either or both of the
parents; but the value of the properties already received
under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be
considered as advances on their legitime.
Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of
the marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties
of the spouses, and the delivery of the children's presumptive
legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and
registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect
third persons.
Wills; Codicil; Institution of Heirs; Substitution of Heirs
(2002)
By virtue of a Codicil appended to his will, Theodore devised
to Divino a tract of sugar land, with the obligation on the part
of Divino or his heirs to deliver to Betina a specified volume
of sugar per harvest during Betinas lifetime. It is also stated
in the Codicil that in the event the obligation is not fulfilled,
Betina should immediately seize the property from Divino or
latters heirs and turn it over to Theodores compulsory heirs.
Divino failed to fulfill the obligation under the Codicil. Betina
brings suit against Divino for the reversion of the tract of
land. a) Distinguish between modal institution and substation
of heirs. (3%) b) Distinguish between simple and
fideicommissary
substitution of heirs. (2%) c) Does Betina have a cause of
action against Divino?
Explain (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. A MODAL INSTITUTION is the institution of
an heir made for a certain purpose or cause (Arts. 871 and
882, NCC). SUBSTITUTION is the appointment of another
heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of the
heir originality instituted. (Art. 857, NCC).
B. In a SIMPLE SUBSTITUTION of heirs, the testator
designates one or more persons to substitute the heirs
instituted in case such heir or heirs should die before him, or
should not wish or should be incapacitated to accept the
inheritance. In a FIDEICOMMISSARY SUBSTITUTION,
the testator institutes a first heir and charges him to preserve
and transmit the whole or part of the inheritance to a second
heir. In a simple substitution, only one heir inherits. In a
fideicommissary substitution, both the first and second heirs
inherit. (Art. 859 and 869, NCC)
C. Betina has a cause of action against Divino. This is a case
of a testamentary disposition subject to a mode and the will
itself provides for the consequence if the mode is not
complied with. To enforce the mode, the will itself gives
Betina the right to compel the return of the property to the
heirs of Theodore. (Rabadilla v. Conscoluella, 334 SCRA 522
[2000] GR 113725, 29 June 2000).
Wills; Formalities (1990)
(1) If a will is executed by a testator who is a Filipino citizen,
what law will govern if the will is executed in the Philippines?
What law will govern if the will is executed in another
country? Explain your answers.

(2) If a will is executed by a foreigner, for instance, a
Japanese, residing in the Philippines, what law will govern if
the will is executed in the Philippines? And what law will
govern if the will is executed in Japan, or some other country,
for instance, the U.S.A.? Explain your answers.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(1) a. If the testator who is a Filipino citizen executes his will
in the Philippines, Philippine law will govern the formalities.

b. If said Filipino testator executes his will in another country,
the law of the country where he maybe or Philippine law will
govern the formalities. (Article 815, Civil Code}
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(2) a. If the testator is a foreigner residing in the Philippines
and he executes his will in the Philippines, the law of the
country of which he is a citizen or Philippine law will govern
the formalities.

b. If the testator is a foreigner and executes his will in a
foreign country, the law of his place of residence or the law of
the country of which he is a citizen or the law of the place of
execution, or Philippine law will govern the formalities
(Articles 17. 816. 817. Civil Code).
POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
a. In the case of a Filipino citizen, Philippine law shall
govern substantive validity whether he executes his will in the
Philippines or in a foreign country.
b. In the case of a foreigner, his national law shall govern
substantive validity whether he executes his will in the
Philippines or in a foreign country.
Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions & Cancellations (1996)
Vanessa died on April 14, 1980, leaving behind a holographic
will which is entirely written, dated and signed in her own
handwriting. However, it contains insertions and cancellations
which are not authenticated by her signature. For this reason,
the probate of Vanessa's will was opposed by her relatives
who stood to inherit by her intestacy. May Vanessa's
holographic will be probated? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the will as originally written may be probated. The
insertions and alterations were void since they were not
authenticated by the full signature of Vanessa, under Art. 814,
NCC. The original will, however, remains valid because a
holographic will is not invalidated by the unauthenticated
insertions or alterations (Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 468].
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It depends. As a rule, a holographic will is not adversely
affected by Insertions or cancellations which were not
authenticated by the full signature of the testator (Ajero v. CA,
236 SCRA 468). However, when the insertion or cancellation
amounts to revocation of the will, Art.814 of the NCC does
not apply but Art. 830. NCC. Art. 830 of the NCC does not
require the testator to authenticate his cancellation for the
effectivity of a revocation effected through such cancellation
(Kalaw v. Relova, 132 SCRA 237). In the Kalaw case, the
original holographic will designated only one heir as the only
substantial provision which was altered by substituting the
original heir with another heir. Hence, if the unauthenticated
cancellation amounted to a revocation of the will, the will may
not be probated because it had already been revoked.
Wills; Holographic Wills; Witnesses (1994)
On his deathbed, Vicente was executing a will. In the room
were Carissa, Carmela, Comelio and Atty. Cimpo, a notary
public. Suddenly, there was a street brawl which caught
Comelio's attention, prompting him to look out the window.
Cornelio did not see Vicente sign a will. Is the will valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a) Yes, The will is valid. The law does not require a witness to
actually see the testator sign the will. It is sufficient if the
witness could have seen the act of signing had he chosen to
do so by casting his eyes to the proper direction.
b) Yes, the will is valid. Applying the "test of position",
although Comelio did not actually see Vicente sign the will,
Cornelio was in the proper position to see Vicente sign if
Cornelio so wished.
Wills; Joint Wills (2000)
Manuel, a Filipino, and his American wife Eleanor, executed
a Joint Will in Boston, Massachusetts when they were residing
in said city. The law of Massachusetts allows the execution of
joint wills. Shortly thereafter, Eleanor died. Can the said Will
be probated in the Philippines for the settlement of her
estate? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the will may be probated in the Philippines insofar as
the estate of Eleanor is concerned. While the Civil Code
prohibits the execution of Joint wills here and abroad, such
prohibition applies only to Filipinos. Hence, the joint will
which is valid where executed is valid in the Philippines but
only with respect to Eleanor. Under Article 819, it is void
with respect to Manuel whose joint will remains void in the
Philippines despite being valid where executed.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The will cannot be probated in the Philippines, even though
valid where executed, because it is prohibited under Article
818 of the Civil Code and declared void under Article 819,
The prohibition should apply even to the American wife
because the Joint will is offensive to public policy. Moreover,
it is a single juridical act which cannot be valid as to one
testator and void as to the other.
Wills; Probate; Intrinsic Validity (1990)
H died leaving a last will and testament wherein it is stated
that he was legally married to W by whom he had two
legitimate children A and B. H devised to his said forced
heirs the entire estate except the free portion which he gave
to X who was living with him at the time of his death.
In said will he explained that he had been estranged from his
wife W for more than 20 years and he has been living with X
as man and wife since his separation from his legitimate
family.
In the probate proceedings, X asked for the issuance of
letters testamentary in accordance with the will wherein she is
named sole executor. This was opposed by W and her
children.
(a) Should the will be admitted in said probate proceedings?
(b) Is the said devise to X valid?
(c) Was it proper for the trial court to consider the intrinsic
validity of the provisions of said will? Explain your answers,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Yes, the will may be probated if executed according to the
formalities prescribed by law.

(b) The institution giving X the free portion is not valid,
because the prohibitions under Art. 739 of the Civil Code on
donations also apply to testamentary dispositions (Article
1028, Civil Code), Among donations which are considered
void are those made between persons who were guilty of
adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation.

(c) As a general rule, the will should be admitted in probate
proceedings if all the necessary requirements for its extrinsic
validity have been met and the court should not consider the
intrinsic validity of the provisions of said will. However, the
exception arises when the will in effect contains only one
testamentary disposition. In effect, the only testamentary
disposition under the will is the giving of the free portion to X,
since legitimes are provided by law. Hence, the trial court may
consider the intrinsic validity of the provisions of said will.
(Nuguid v. Nuguid, etal.. No. L23445, June 23, 1966, 17 SCRA;
Nepomuceno v. CA, L-62952,
9 October 1985. 139 SCRA 206).
Wills; Probate; Notarial and Holographic Wills (1997)
Johnny, with no known living relatives, executed a notarial
will giving all his estate to his sweetheart. One day, he had a
serious altercation with his sweetheart. A few days later, he
was introduced to a charming lady who later became a dear
friend. Soon after, he executed a holographic will expressly
revoking the notarial will and so designating his new friend as
sole heir. One day when he was clearing up his desk, Johnny
mistakenly burned, along with other papers, the only copy of
his holographic will. His business associate, Eduardo knew
well the contents of the will which was shown to him by
Johnny the day it was executed. A few days after the burning
incident, Johnny died. Both wills were sought to be probated
in two separate petitions. Will either or both petitions
prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The probate of the notarial will will prosper. The holographic
will cannot be admitted to probate because a holographic will
can only be probated upon evidence of the will itself unless
there is a photographic copy. But since the holographic will
was lost and there was no other copy, it cannot be probated
and therefore the notarial will will be admitted to probate
because there is no revoking will.
ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
1. In the case of Gan vs. Yap (104 Phil 509), the execution
and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will
may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses
who have seen or read such will. The will itself must be
presented otherwise it shall produce no effect. The law
regards the document itself as material proof of
authenticity. Moreover, in order that a will may be
revoked by a subsequent will, it is necessary that the
latter will be valid and executed with the formalities
required for the making of a will. The latter should
possess all the requisites of a valid will whether it be
ordinary or a holographic will, and should be probated in
order that the revocatory clause thereof may produce
effect. In the case at bar, since the holographic will itself
cannot be presented, it cannot therefore be probated.
Since it cannot be probated, it cannot revoke the notarial
will previously written by the decedent.
2. On the basis of the Rules of Court, Rule 76, Sec. 6,
provides that no will shall be proved as a lost or
destroyed will unless its provisions are clearly and
distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible witnesses.
Hence, if we abide strictly by the two-witness rule to
prove a lost or destroyed will, the holographic will which
Johnny allegedly mistakenly burned, cannot be probated,
since there is only one witness, Eduardo, who can be
called to testify as to the existence of the will. If the
holographic will, which purportedly, revoked the earlier
notarial will cannot be proved because of the absence of
the required witness, then the petition for the probate of
the notarial will should prosper.
Wills; Revocation of Wills; Dependent Relative Revocation
(2003)
Mr. Reyes executed a will completely valid as to form. A week
later, however, he executed another will which expressly
revoked his first will, which he tore his first will to pieces.
Upon the death of Mr. Reyes, his second will was presented
for probate by his heirs, but it was denied probate

due to formal defects. Assuming that a copy of the first will excluded by a legitimate son of the decedent [Art. 887, New
is available, may it now be admitted to probate and given
effect? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the first will may be admitted to probate and given
effect. When the testator tore first will, he was under the
mistaken belief that the second will was perfectly valid and he
would not have destroyed the first will had he known that 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 tearing
of the first will did not produce the effect of revocation. This
is known as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation
(Molo v. Molo, 90 Phil 37.)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
No, the first will cannot be admitted to probate. While it is true
that the first will was successfully revoked by the second will
because the second will was later denied probate, the first will
was, nevertheless, revoked when the testator destroyed it after
executing the second invalid will.
(Diaz v. De Leon, 43 Phil 413 [1922]).
Wills; Testamentary Disposition (2006)
Don died after executing a Last Will and Testament leaving
his estate valued at P12 Million to his common-law wife
Roshelle. He is survived by his brother Ronie and his half-
sister Michelle.
(1) Was Don's testamentary disposition of his estate in
accordance with the law on succession? Whether you agree or
not, explain your answer. Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Don's testamentary disposition
of his estate is in accordance with the law on succession. Don
has no compulsory heirs not having ascendants, descendants
nor a spouse [Art. 887, New Civil Code]. Brothers and sisters
are not compulsory heirs. Thus, he can bequeath his entire
estate to anyone who is not otherwise incapacitated to inherit
from him. A common-law wife is not incapacitated under the
law, as Don is not married to anyone.
(2) If Don failed to execute a will during his lifetime, as his
lawyer, how will you distribute his estate? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: After paying the legal obligations of
the estate, I will give Ronie, as full-blood brother of Don, 2/3
of the net estate, twice the share of Michelle, the half-sister
who shall receive 1/3. Roshelle will not receive anything as
she is not a legal heir [Art. 1006 New Civil Code].
(3) Assuming he died intestate survived by his brother Ronie,
his half-sister Michelle, and his legitimate son Jayson, how will
you distribute his estate? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jayson will be entitled to the entire
P12 Million as the brother and sister will be excluded by a
legitimate son of the decedent. This follows the principle of
proximity, where "the nearer excludes the farther."
(4) Assuming further he died intestate, survived by his father
Juan, his brother Ronie, his half-sister Michelle, and his
legitimate son Jayson, how will you distribute his estate?
Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jayson will still be entitled to the
entire P12 Million as the father, brother and sister will be
Civil Code]. This follows the principle that the descendants
exclude the ascendants from inheritance.
Wills; Testamentary Intent (1996)
Alfonso, a bachelor without any descendant or ascendant,
wrote a last will and testament in which he devised." all the
properties of which I may be possessed at the time of my
death" to his favorite brother Manuel. At the time he wrote
the will, he owned only one parcel of land. But by the time he
died, he owned twenty parcels of land. His other brothers and
sisters insist that his will should pass only the parcel of land
he owned at the time it was written, and did not cover his
properties acquired, which should be by intestate succession.
Manuel claims otherwise. Who is correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Manuel is correct because under Art. 793, NCC, property
acquired after the making of a will shall only pass thereby, as
if the testator had possessed it at the time of making the will,
should it expressly appear by the will that such was his
intention. Since Alfonso's intention to devise all properties he
owned at the time of his death expressly appears on the will,
then all the 20 parcels of land are included in the devise.
DONATION
Donation vs. Sale (2003)
a) May a person sell something that does not belong to
him? Explain. b) May a person donate something that does
not belong
to him? Explain. 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Yes, a person may sell something which does not belong
to him. For the sale to be valid, the law does not require the
seller to be the owner of the property at the time of the sale.
(Article 1434, NCC). If the seller cannot transfer ownership
over the thing sold at the time of delivery because he was not
the owner thereof, he shall be liable for breach of contact.

(b) As a general rule, a person cannot donate something which
he cannot dispose of at the time of the donation (Article 751,
New Civil Code).
Donations; Condition; Capacity to Sue (1996)
Sometime in 1955, Tomas donated a parcel of land to his
stepdaughter Irene, subject to the condition that she may not
sell, transfer or cede the same for twenty years. Shortly
thereafter, he died. In 1965, because she needed money for
medical expenses, Irene sold the land to Conrado. The
following year, Irene died, leaving as her sole heir a son by
the name of Armando. When Armando learned that the land
which he expected to inherit had been sold by Irene to
Conrado, he filed an action against the latter for annulment
of the sale, on the ground that it violated the restriction
imposed by Tomas. Conrado filed a motion to dismiss, on
the ground that Armando did not have the legal capacity to
sue. If you were the Judge, how will you rule on this motion
to dismiss? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As judge, I will grant the motion to dismiss. Armando has no
personality to bring the action for annulment of the sale to
Conrado. Only an aggrieved party to the contract may bring
the action for annulment thereof (Art. 1397. NCC). While
Armando is heir and successor-in-interest of his mother (Art.
1311, NCC), he [standing in place of his mother) has no
personality to annul the contract. Both are not aggrieved
parties on account of their own violation of the condition of,
or restriction on, their ownership imposed by the donation.
Only the donor or his heirs would have the personality to
bring an action to revoke a donation for violation of a
condition thereof or a restriction thereon. (Garrido u. CA, 236
SCRA 450). Consequently, while the donor or his heirs were
not parties to the sale, they have the right to annul the
contract of sale because their rights are prejudiced by one of
the contracting parties thereof [DBP v. CA, 96 SCRA 342;
Teves vs. PHHC. 23 SCRA 114]. Since Armando is neither the
donor nor heir of the donor, he has no personality to bring
the action for annulment.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
As judge, I will grant the motion to dismiss. Compliance with
a condition imposed by a donor gives rise to an action to
revoke the donation under Art. 764, NCC. However, the right
of action belongs to the donor. Is transmissible to his heirs,
and may be exercised against the donee's heirs. Since
Armando is an heir of the donee, not of the donor, he has no
legal capacity to sue for revocation of the donation. Although
he is not seeking such revocation but an annulment of the sale
which his mother, the donee, had executed in violation of the
condition imposed by the donor, an action for annulment of a
contract may be brought only by those who are principally or
subsidiarily obliged thereby (Art. 1397, NCC). As an exception
to the rule, it has been held that a person not so obliged may
nevertheless ask for annulment if he is prejudiced in his rights
regarding one of the contracting parties (DBP us. CA. 96
SCRA 342 and other cases) and can show the detriment which
would result to him from the contract in which he had no
intervention, (Teves vs. PHHC, 23 SCRA 1141).
Such detriment or prejudice cannot be shown by Armando.
As a forced heir, Armando's interest in the property was, at
best, a mere expectancy. The sale of the land by his mother
did not impair any vested right. The fact remains that the
premature sale made by his mother (premature because only
half of the period of the ban had elapsed) was not voidable at
all, none of the vices of consent under Art. 139 of the NCC
being present. Hence, the motion to dismiss should be
granted.
Donations; Conditions; Revocation (1991)
Spouses Michael and Linda donated a 3-hectare residential
land to the City of Baguio on the condition that the city
government would build thereon a public park with a boxing
arena, the construction of which shall commence within six
(6) months from the date the parties ratify the donation. The
donee accepted the donation and the title to the property was
transferred in its name. Five years elapsed but the public park
with the boxing arena was never started. Considering the
failure of the donee to comply with the condition of the
donation, the donor-spouses sold the
property to Ferdinand who then sued to recover the land
from the city government. Will the suit prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ferdinand has no right to recover the land. It is true that the
donation was revocable because of breach of the conditions.
But until and unless the donation was revoked, it remained
valid. Hence, Spouses Michael and Linda had no right to sell
the land to Ferdinand. One cannot give what he does not
have. What the donors should have done first was to have the
donation annulled or revoked. And after that was done, they
could validly have disposed of the land in favor of Ferdinand.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A. Until the contract of donation has been resolved or
rescinded under Article 1191 of the Civil Code or revoked
under Art. 764 of the Civil Code, the donation stands
effective and valid. Accordingly, the sale made by the donor
to Ferdinand cannot be said to have conveyed title to
Ferdinand, who, thereby, has no cause of action for recovery
of the land acting for and in his behalf.
B. The donation is onerous, And being onerous, what applies
is the law on contracts, and not the law on donation (De
Luna us. Abrigo, 81 SCRA 150). Accordingly, the
prescriptive period for the filing of such an action would be
the ordinary prescriptive period for contacts which may
either be six or ten depending upon whether it is verbal or
written. The filing of the case five years later is within the
prescriptive period and, therefore, the action can prosper,
Alternative Answer:
The law on donation lays down a special prescriptive period
in the case of breach of condition, which is four years from
non-compliance thereof (Article 764 Civil Code). Since the
action has prescribed, the suit will not prosper,
Donations; Effect; illegal & immoral conditions (1997)
Are the effects of illegal and immoral conditions on simple
donations the same as those effects that would follow when
such conditions are imposed on donations con causa
onerosa?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, they don't have the same effect. Illegal or impossible
conditions in simple and remuneratory donations shall be
considered as not imposed. Hence the donation is valid. The
donation will be considered as simple or pure. The condition
or mode is merely an accessory disposition, and its nullity
does not affect the donation, unless it clearly appears that the
donor would not have made the donation without the mode
or condition.
Donations con causa onerosa is governed by law on
obligations and contracts, under which an impossible or Illicit
condition annuls the obligation dependent upon the
condition where the condition is positive and suspensive. If
the impossible or illicit condition is negative, it is simply
considered as not written, and the obligation is converted into
a pure and simple one. However, in order that an illegal
condition may annul a contract, the impossibility must exist at
the time of the creation of the obligation; a supervening
impossibility does not affect the existence of the obligation.
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:

No. In simple or pure donation, only the illegal or irrevocable, the latter is revocable. In the problem given, all
impossible condition is considered not written but the
donation remains valid and becomes free from conditions.
The condition or mode being a mere accessory disposition.
Its nullity does not affect the donation unless it clearly
appears that the donor would not have made the donation
without the mode or condition. On the other hand, onerous
donation is governed by the rules on contracts. Under Article
1183, Impossible or illegal conditions shall annul the
obligation which depends upon them. In these cases, both the
obligation and the condition are void.
Donations; Formalities; Mortis Causa (1990)
B donated to M a parcel of land in 1980. B made the deed of
donation, entitled Donation Inter Vivos, in a public
instrument and M accepted the donation in the same
document. It was provided in the deed that the land donated
shall be immediately delivered to M and that M shall have the
right to enjoy the fruits fully. The deed also provided that B
was reserving the right to dispose of said land during his (Bs)
lifetime, and that M shall not register the deed of donation
until after Bs death. Upon Bs death, W, Bs widow and sole
heir, filed an action for the recovery of the donated land,
contending that the donation made by B is a donation mortis
causa and not a donation inter vivos. Will said action prosper?
Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the action will prosper. The donation is a donation
mortis causa because the reservation is to dispose of all the
property donated and, therefore, the donation is revocable at
will. Accordingly, the donation requires the execution of a
valid will, either notarial or holographic (Arts 755, 728 NCC).
Donations; Formalities; Mortis Causa (1998)
Ernesto donated in a public instrument a parcel of land to
Demetrio, who accepted it in the same document. It is there
declared that the donation shall take effect immediately, with
the donee having the right to take possession of the land and
receive its fruits but not to dispose of the land while Ernesto
is alive as well as for ten years following his death. Moreover,
Ernesto also reserved in the same deed his right to sell the
property should he decide to dispose of it at any time - a right
which he did not exercise at all. After his death, Ernesto's
heirs seasonably brought an action to recover the property,
alleging that the donation was void as it did not comply with
the formalities of a will. Will the suit prosper? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the suit will prosper as the donation did not comply with
the formalities of a will. In this instance, the fact that the
donor did not intend to transfer ownership or possession of
the donated property to the donee until the donor's death,
would result in a donation mortis causa and in this kind of
disposition, the formalities of a will should be complied with,
otherwise, the donation is void. In this Instance, donation
mortis causa embodied only in a public instrument without
the formalities of a will could not have transferred ownership
of disputed property to another.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
One of the essential distinctions between a donation inter vivos
and a donation mortis causa is that while the former is
the clauses or conditions mentioned in the deed of donation,
except one, are consistent with the rule of irrevocability and
would have sustained the view that the donation is inter vivos
and therefore valid. The lone exception is the clause which
reserves the donor's right to sell the property at any time
before his death. Such a reservation has been held to render
the donation revocable and, therefore, becomes a donation
mortis causa (Puig vs. Penqflorida, 15 SCRA 276, at p. 286).
That the right was not exercised is immaterial; its reservation
was an implied recognition of the donor's power to nullify the
donation anytime he wished to do so. Consequently, it should
have been embodied in a last will and testament. The suit for
nullity will thus prosper.
Donations; Inter Vivos; Acceptance (1993)
On January 21, 1986, A executed a deed of donation inter
vivos of a parcel of land to Dr. B who had earlier constructed
thereon a building in which researches on the dreaded disease
AIDS were being conducted. The deed, acknowledged before
a notary public, was handed over by A to Dr. B who received
it. A few days after, A flew to Davao City. Unfortunately, the
airplane he was riding crashed on landing killing him. Two
days after the unfortunate accident. Dr. B, upon advice of a
lawyer, executed a deed acknowledged before a notary public
accepting the donation. Is the donation effective? Explain
your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the donation is not effective. The law requires that the
separate acceptance of the donee of an immovable must be
done in a public document during the lifetime of the donor
(Art. 746 & 749, Civil Code) In this case, B executed the
deed of acceptance before a notary public after the donor
had already died.
Donations; Perfection (1998)
On July 27, 1997, Pedro mailed in Manila a letter to his
brother, Jose, a resident of Ilollo City, offering to donate a
vintage sports car which the latter had long been wanting to
buy from the former. On August 5, 1997, Jose called Pedro
by cellular phone to thank him for his generosity and to
inform him that he was sending by mail his letter of
acceptance. Pedro never received that letter because it was
never mailed. On August 14, 1997, Pedro received a telegram
from Iloilo informing him that Jose had been killed in a road
accident the day before (August 13, 1997)
1. Is there a perfected donation? [2%]
2. Will your answer be the same if Jose did mail his
acceptance letter but it was received by Pedro in Manila days
after Jose's death? [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. None. There is no perfected donation. Under Article 748
of the Civil Code, the donation of a movable may be made
orally or in writing. If the value of the personal property
donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the
acceptance shall be made in writing. Assuming that the value
of the thing donated, a vintage sports car, exceeds P5,000.00
then the donation and the acceptance must be in writing. In
this instance, the acceptance of Jose was not in writing,
therefore, the donation is void. Upon the other
hand, assuming that the sports car costs less than P5,000.00 Code which requires the donation and the acceptance
then the donation maybe oral, but still, the simultaneous
delivery of the car is needed and there being none, the
donation was never perfected.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Yes, the answer is the same. If Jose's mail containing his
acceptance of the donation was received by Pedro after the
former's death, then the donation is still void because under
Article 734 of the Civil Code, the donation is perfected the
moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee.
The death of Jose before Pedro could receive the acceptance
indicates that the donation was never perfected. Under Article
746 acceptance must be made during the lifetime of both the
donor and the donee.
Donations; Requisites; Immovable Property
Anastacia purchased a house and lot on installments at a
housing project in Quezon City. Subsequently, she was
employed in California and a year later, she executed a deed of
donation, duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate in
Los Angeles, California, donating the house and lot to her
friend Amanda. The latter brought the deed of donation to
the owner of the project and discovered that Anastacia left
unpaid installments and real estate taxes. Amanda paid these
so that the donation in her favor can be registered in the
project owner's office. Two months later, Anastacia died,
leaving her mother Rosa as her sole heir. Rosa filed an action
to annul the donation on the ground that Amanda did not
give her consent in the deed of donation or in a separate
public instrument. Amanda replied that the donation was an
onerous one because she had to pay unpaid installments and
taxes; hence her acceptance may be implied. Who is correct?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rosa is correct because the donation is void. The property
donated was an immovable. For such donation to be valid,
Article 749 of the New Civil Code requires both the donation
and the acceptance to be in a public instrument. There being
no showing that Amanda's acceptance was made in a public
instrument, the donation is void. The contention that the
donation is onerous and, therefore, need not comply with
Article 749 for validity is without merit. The donation is not
onerous because it did not impose on Amanda the obligation
to pay the balance on the purchase price or the arrears in real
estate taxes. Amanda took it upon herself to pay those
amounts voluntarily. For a donation to be onerous, the
burden must be imposed by the donor on the donee. In the
problem, there is no such burden imposed by the donor on
the donee. The donation not being onerous, it must comply
with the formalities of Article 749.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Neither Rosa nor Amanda is correct. The donation is onerous
only as to the portion of the property corresponding to the
value of the installments and taxes paid by Amanda.
The portion in excess thereof is not onerous. The onerous
portion is governed by the rules on contracts which do not
require the acceptance by the donee to be in any form. The
onerous part, therefore, is valid. The portion which is not
onerous must comply with Article 749 of the New Civil
thereof to be in a public instrument in order to be valid. The
acceptance not being in a public instrument, the part which is
not onerous is void and Rosa may recover it from Amanda.
Donations; Unregistered; Effects; Non-Compliance; Resolutory
Condition (2006)
Spouses Alfredo and Racquel were active members of a
religious congregation. They donated a parcel of land in favor
of that congregation in a duly notarized Deed of Donation,
subject to the condition that the Minister shall construct
thereon a place of worship within 1 year from the acceptance
of the donation. In an affidavit he executed on behalf of the
congregation, the Minister accepted the donation. The Deed
of Donation was not registered with the Registry of Deeds.
However, instead of constructing a place of worship, the Minister
constructed a bungalow on the property he used as his residence.
Disappointed with the Minister, the spouses revoked the donation
and demanded that he vacate the premises immediately. But the
Minister refused to leave, claiming that aside from using the
bungalow as his residence, he is also using it as a place for worship
on special occasions. Under the circumstances, can Alfredo and
Racquel evict the Minister and recover possession of the
property? If you were the couple's counsel, what action you
take to protect the interest of your clients? (5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Alfredo and Racquel can bring an action for ejectment against
the Minister for recovery of possession of the property evict the
Minister and recover possession of the property. An action for
annulment of the donation, reconveyance and damages should be
filed to protect the interests of my client. The donation is an onerous
donation and therefore shall be governed by the rules on contracts.
Because there was no fulfillment or compliance with the condition
which is resolutory in character, the donation may now be revoked
and all rights which the donee may have acquired under it shall be
deemed lost and extinguished
(Central Philippine University, G.R. No. 112127, July 17,1995).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, an action for ejectment will not prosper. I would advice
Alfredo and Racquel that the Minister, by constructing a
structure which also serves as a place of worship, has pursued
the objective of the donation. His taking up residence in the
bungalow may be regarded as a casual breach and will not
warrant revocation of the donation. Similarily, therefore, an
action for revocation of the donation will be denied (C. J. Yulo
& Sons, Inc. v. Roman Catholic Bishop, G.R. No. 133705,
March 31, 2005; Heirs ofRozendo Sevilla v. De Leon, G.R. No.
149570, March 12,
2004).
Donations; Validity; Effectivity; for Unborn Child (1999)
Elated that her sister who had been married for five years
was pregnant for the first time, Alma donated P100,000.00 to
the unborn child. Unfortunately, the baby died one hour
after delivery. May Alma recover the P100.000.00 that she

had donated to said baby before it was born considering not been fixed in the Deed of Donation, the donee is not
that the baby died? Stated otherwise, is the donation valid
and binding? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The donation is valid and binding, being an act favorable to
the unborn child, but only if the baby had an intra-uterine life
of not less than seven months and provided there was due
acceptance of the donation by the proper person representing
said child. If the child had less than seven months of intra-
uterine life, it is not deemed born since it died less than 24
hours following its delivery, in which ease the donation never
became effective since the donee never became a person,
birth being determinative of personality.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Even if the baby had an intra-uterine life of more than seven
months and the donation was properly accepted, it would be
void for not having conformed with the proper form. In
order to be valid, the donation and acceptance of personal
property exceeding five thousand pesos should be in writing.
(Article 748, par. 3)
Donations; with Resolutory Condition (2003)
In 1950, Dr. Alba donated a parcel of land to Central
University on condition that the latter must establish a
medical college on the land to be named after him. In the
year 2000, the heirs of Dr. Alba filed an action to annul the
donation and for the reconveyance of the property donated
to them for the failure, after 50 years, of the University to
established on the property a medical school named after
their father. The University opposed the action on the
ground of prescription and also because it had not used the
property for some purpose other than that stated in the
donation. Should the opposition of the University to the
action of Dr. Albas heirs be sustained? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The donation may be revoked. The non-established of the medical
college on the donated property was a resolutory condition imposed
on the donation by the donor. Although the Deed of Donation did
not fix the time for the established of the medical college, the failure
of the donee to establish the medical college after fifty (50) years
from the making of the donation should be considered as occurrence
of the resolutory condition, and the donation may now be revoked.
While the general rule is that in case the period is not fixed in the
agreement of the parties, the period must be fixed first by the court
before the obligation may be demanded, the period of fifty (50) years
was more than enough time for the donee to comply with the
condition. Hence, in this case, there is no more need for the court to
fix the period because such procedure with the condition. (Central
Philippine University v. CA. 246 SCRA 511).
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The donation may not as yet revoked. The establishment of a
medical college is not a resolutory or suspensive condition but
a charge, obligation, or a mode. The non- compliance
with the charge or mode will give the donor the right to
revoke the donation within four (4) years from the time the
charge was supposed to have been complied with, or to
enforce the charge by specific performance within ten
(10) years from the time the cause of action accrued.
Inasmuch as the time to established the medical college has
yet default in his obligation until the period is fixed by order
of the court under Article 1197 of the New Civil Code. Since
the period has not been fixed as yet, the donee is not yet
default, and therefore the donor has no cause of action to
revoke the donation. (Dissenting opinion of Davide, CJ,
Central Philippine University v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA
511 [1995])

Succession

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Succession

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUCCESSION

Amount of Successional Rights (2004)

You might also like