Anda di halaman 1dari 35

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW – MENDIOLA PART I SUGGESTEDANSWERS TO BAR EXAM QUESTIONS

YEARS 1990-2006
LAW STUDENT GOVERNMENT (AY 2017-2018)
WILLS & SUCCESSION – BAR Q&As 1990-2013 Amount of Successional Rights (2004)
Mr. XT and Mrs. YT have been married for 20 years. Suppose the wife, YT,
Academics Committee Head: Vice President for Academics: died childless, survived only by her husband, XT. What would be the share
Pojas, Kristofer Abe B. Alfaro, Rennette Joy G. of XT from her estate as inheritance? Why? Explain. (5%)
(3rd Year Batch Representative)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Contributors/Members: Under the Civil Code, the widow or widower is a legal and compulsory heir
Abuzo, Jan Michael C. Capucion, Shawn Kemp A. of the deceased spouse. If the widow is the only surviving heir, there being
Lacadin, Anna Raeza A. Liberato, Suzette Ria T. no legitimate ascendants, descendants, brothers, and sisters, nephews and
Lumio, Jhon Rommel L. Mallari, Hazel Marie Y. nieces, she gets the entire estate.
Noble, JeshaAina F. Nuguid, Alexis John N.
Santos, Mary Kolyn T. Tan, James Bryan Barrier between Illegitimate & Legitimate Relatives (1993)
A is the acknowledged natural child of B who died when A was already 22
This work was made possible through joint efforts of the members and years old. When B's full blood brother, C, died he (C) was survived by his
volunteers of the Law Student Government Academics Committee 2017- widow and four children of his other brother D. Claiming that he is entitled
2018. This is not an original work by the persons named herein but is only to inherit from his father's brother C. A brought suit to obtain his share in
a compilation of answers to bar examination questions by the UP Law the estate of C. Will his action prosper?
Complex, Philippine Association of Law Schools, and local law students and
lawyers. This work is not intended for sale nor commerce but may be freely SUGGESTED ANSWER:
distributed and mass produced by those who seek a better understanding No, the action of A will not prosper. On the premise that B, C and D are
of the concepts in Wills and Succession. 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
Due credit and appreciation are extended to those who actually own the own right and the legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the children of D as C's
intellectual property rights over the content of this material as well as to legitimate nephews inheriting as collateral relatives) can inherit in intestacy.
the contributors and volunteers. The latter intends to do no copyright (Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975, Civil Code)
infringement nor do they accept any liability for the content and
consequences of any act performed by the user, except for typographical, ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
grammatical, or related errors. 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
For contributions, suggestions, participations, you may approach the Law legitimate relatives of his father.
Student Government or contact the same through any of the following
media: Facebook: LSG San Beda Manila (@lsg.sanbedamanila); Barrier between Illegitimate & Legitimate Relatives (1996) Cristina the
Contact Number: 09951693210; E-mail address: lsg.beda@gmail.com illegitimate daughter of Jose and Maria, died intestate, without any
descendant or ascendant. Her valuable estate is being claimed by Ana, the
UIOGD.
Page 1 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
legitimate daughter of Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate son of Maria. Is without his knowledge, much less consent, and that it deprived him of his
either, both, or neither of them entitled to inherit? Explain. legitime. After all, he had given her no cause for disinheritance, added
Jorge in his opposition. How will you rule on Jorge's opposition to the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: probate of Maria's will if you were the Judge?
Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of ab intestato from Cristina.
Both are legitimate relatives of Cristina's illegitimate parents and therefore SUGGESTED ANSWER:
they fall under the prohibition prescribed by Art. 992, NCC (Manuel v. As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's opposition should be sustained in
Ferrer, 242 SCRA 477; Diaz v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 427 ). 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
Collation (1993) Civil Code does not apply, and the institution of Miguela as heir is valid,
Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio Cruz a residential lot of 300 square but only to the extent of the free portion of one-half. Jorge is still entitled
meters in Quezon City for which Joaquin paid Julio the amount of to one-half of the estate as his legitime. (Art. 1001, Civil Code)
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 ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
child. Thus, the deed was so prepared and executed by Julio. Joaquina then a) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's opposition should be sustained
built a house on the lot where she, her husband and children resided. in part and denied in part. This is a case of ineffective disinheritance under
Upon Joaquin's death, his legitimate children sought to recover possession Art.918 of the Civil Code, because the omission of the compulsory heir
and ownership of the lot, claiming that Joaquina Roxas was but a trustee of Jorge by Maria was intentional. Consequently, the institution of Miguela as
their father. Will the action against Joaquina Roxas prosper? 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
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the other half.
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 b) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's opposition should be sustained.
437). However, the donation should be collated to the hereditary estate This is a case of preterition under Article 854 Civil Code, the result of the
and the legitime of the other heirs should be preserved. 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
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Jorge will inherit the entire estate.
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 c) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: the opposition should be denied since it
will be entitled to retain her own share as an illegitimate child, (Arts. 1440 is predicated upon causes not recognized by law as grounds for
and 1453. Civil Code; Art.176, F. C.) disallowance of a will, 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
Disinheritance vs. Preterition (1993) the effect of depriving him of his legitime, which is a ground that goes into
Maria, to spite her husband Jorge, whom she suspected was having an the intrinsic validity of the will and need not be resolved during the
affair with another woman, executed a will, unknown to him, bequeathing probate proceedings. However, the opposition may be entertained for, the
all the properties she inherited from her parents, to her sister Miguela. purpose of securing to the husband his right to the legitime on the theory
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
Page 2 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
that the will constitutes an ineffective disinheritance under Art. 918 of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Civil Code. The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective because the ground relied
upon by the testator does not constitute maltreatment under Article
d) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge is entitled to receive his legitime 919(6) of the New Civil Code. Hence, the testamentary provisions in the
from the estate of his wife. He was not disinherited in the will even will shall be annulled but only to the extent that her legitime was impaired.
assuming that he gave ground for disinheritance, hence, he is still entitled The total omission of Elvira does not constitute preterition because she is
to his legitime. Jorge, however, cannot receive anything from the free not a compulsory heir in the direct line. Only compulsory heirs in the direct
portion. He cannot claim preterition as he is not a compulsory heir in the line may be the subject of preterition. Not having been preterited, she will
direct line. There being no preterition, the institution of the sister was valid be entitled only to her legitime.
and the only right of Jorge is to claim his legitime.
The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article 1028 for being in
Disinheritance; Ineffective (1999) consideration of her adulterous relation with the testator. She is, therefore,
Mr. Palma, widower, has three daughters D, D-1 and D-2. He executes a disqualified to receive the legacy of 100,000 pesos. The legacy of 50,000
Will disinheriting D because she married a man he did not like, and pesos in favor of Ernie is not inofficious not having exceeded the free
instituting daughters D-1 and D-2 as his heirs to his entire estate of P portion. Hence, he shall be entitled to receive it.
1,000,000.00, Upon Mr, Palma's death, how should his estate be divided?
Explain. (5%) 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:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
This is a case of ineffective disinheritance because marrying a man that the Baldo 450,000
father did not approve of is not a ground for disinheriting D. Therefore, the Wilma 250,000
institution of D-1 and D-2 shall be annulled insofar as it prejudices the Elvira 250,000
legitime of D, and the institution of D-1 and D-2 shall only apply on the Ernie 50,000
free portion in the amount of P500,000.00. Therefore, D, D-1 and D-2 will 1,000,000
get their legitimes of P500.000.00 divided into three equal parts and D-1
and D-2 will get a reduced testamentary disposition of P250,000.00 each. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Hence, the shares will be: The disinheritance of Wilma was effective because disrespect of, and
D P166,666.66 raising of voice to, her father constitute maltreatment under Article 919(6)
D-l P166,666.66 + P250.000.00 of the New Civil Code. She is, therefore, not entitled to inherit anything.
D-2 P166,666.66 + P250,000.00 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.
Disinheritance; Ineffective; Preterition (2000) She will receive only her legitime. The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under
In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1) disinherits his daughter Wilma Article 1028 for being in consideration of her adulterous relation with the
because "she is disrespectful towards me and raises her voice talking to testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the legacy. Ernie will
me", 2) omits entirely his spouse Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of P100,000.00 to receive the legacy in his favor because it is not inofficious. The institution
his mistress Rosa and P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4) institutes his son of Baldo, which applies only to the free portion, will be respected. In sum,
Baldo as his sole heir. How will you distribute his estate of P1,000,000.00? the estate of Lamberto shall be distributed as follows:
(5%)
Page 3 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
contending that the marriage between her and Isidro was void ab initio on
Heir Legitime Legacy Institution TOTAL the following grounds: (a) they had not given their consent to the marriage
Baldo 500,000 200,000 700,000 of their son; (b) there was no marriage license; (c) the solemnizing officer
Elvira 250,000 250,000 had no authority to perform the marriage; and, (d) the solemnizing officer
Ernie 50,000 50,000 did not file an affidavit of marriage with the proper civil registrar.
TOTAL 750,000 50,000 200,000 1,000,000
Does Irma have any successional rights at all? Discuss fully.

ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Same answer as the first Alternative Answer except as to distribution. Irma succeeded to the estate of Isidro as his surviving spouse to the estate
Justice Jurado solved this problem differently. of her legitimate child. When Isidro died, he was succeeded by his
surviving wife Irma, and his legitimate unborn child. They divided the
In his opinion, the legitime of the heir who was disinherited is distributed estate equally between them, the child excluding the parents of Isidro. An
among the other compulsory heirs in proportion to their respective unborn child is considered born for all purposes favorable to it provided it
legitimes, while his share in the intestate portion. If any, is distributed is born later. The child was considered born because, having an intra-
among the other legal heirs by accretion under Article 1018 of the NCC in uterine life of more than seven months, it lived for a few minutes after its
proportion to their respective intestate shares. In sum the distribution shall complete delivery. It was legitimate because it was born within the valid
be as follows: marriage of the parents. Succession is favorable to it. When the child died,
Heir Legitime Distribution of Legacy TOTAL Irma inherited the share of the child. However, the share of the child in the
Wilma’s Legitime Institution hands of Irma is subject to reserva troncal for the benefit of the relatives of
Baldo 250,000 125,000 200,000 575,000 the child within the third degree of consanguinity and who belong to the
Wilma (250,000) line of Isidro.
Elvira 250,000 125,000 375,000
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
TOTAL 750,000 50,000 200,000
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; Reserva Troncal (1995)
Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both 18 years of age, were passengers of Flight
Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Shares (2003)
No. 317 of Oriental Airlines. The plane they boarded was of Philippine
Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two illegitimate children, his
registry. While en route from Manila to Greece some passengers hijacked
parents, and two brothers. He left an estate of P1 million. Luis died
the plane, held the chief pilot hostage at the cockpit and ordered him to fly
intestate. Who are his intestate heirs, and how much is the share of each in
instead to Libya. During the hijacking Isidro suffered a heart attack and was
his estate?
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
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
her marriage with Isidro. Soon after the marriage, Isidro expired. As the
The intestate heirs are the two (2) legitimate children and the two (2)
plane landed in Libya Irma gave birth. However, the baby died a few
illegitimate children. In intestacy the estate of the decedent is divided
minutes after complete delivery. Back in the Philippines Irma Immediately
among the legitimate and illegitimate children such that the share of each
filed a claim for inheritance. The parents of Isidro opposed her claim

Page 4 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
illegitimate child is one -half the share of each legitimate child. Their shares inheritance from "T"). His distributable net estate is P120.000.00. How
are: should this amount be shared in intestacy among the surviving heirs?
For each legitimate child – P333,333.33
For each illegitimate child – P166,666.66 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(Article 983, New Civil Code; Article 176, Family Code) 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
Intestate Succession (1992) the repudiation of G, the predecessor. M is excluded by the legitimate
F had three (3) legitimate children: A, B, and C. B has one (1) legitimate children of T. The answer may be premised on two theories: the Theory of
child X. C has two (2) legitimate children: Y and Z. F and A rode together in Exclusion and the Theory of Concurrence.
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. Under the Theory of Exclusion the legitimes of the heirs are accorded them
a) Who are the intestate heirs of F? What are their respective fractional and the free portion will be given exclusively to the legitimate
shares? descendants. Hence under the Exclusion Theory: A will get P20.000.00. and
b) Who are the intestate heirs of A? What are their respective fractional P 13.333.33 (1/3 of the free portion) B will get P 20,000.00. and P13. 333.33
shares? (1/3 of the free portion) D will get P20.000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of the
c) If B and C both predeceased F, who are F’s intestate heirs? What are free portion)
their respective fractional shares? Do they inherit in their own right or by
representation? Explain your answer. W, the widow is limited to the legitime of P20.000.00 Under the Theory of
d) If B and C both repudiated their shares in the estate of F who are F's Concurrence. In addition to their legitimes, the heirs of A, B, D and W will
intestate heirs? What are their respective fractional shares? Do they inherit be given equal shares in the free portions: A: P20.000.00 plus P10.000.00
in their own right or by representation? Explain your answer, (1/4 of the free portion) B: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1/4 of the free
portion) C: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1/4 of the free portion) W:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: P20,000.00 plus P10,000.00 (1/4 of the free portion)
(a) B = 1/2
(b) B = 1/2 Z = 1/4 by representation of C C= 1/2 Article 982 of the Civil ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Code provides that grandchildren inherit by right of representation. Shares in Intestacy T - decedent Estate: P120.000.00
(c) X = 1/2 by representation of B C=l/2 Y = 1/4 by representation of C Survived by:
(d) X - 1/3 in his own right Y- 1/3 in his own right 2 - 1/3 in his own right M – Mother None
Article 977 of the Civil Code provides that heirs who repudiate their W – Widow P 30,000.00
share cannot be represented. A – Son P 30,000.00
B – Son P 30,000.00
Intestate Succession (1997) C – Grandson (Son of B) None
"T" died intestate on 1 September 1997. He was survived by M (his D – Grandson ( Son of E who predeceased T) P 30,000.00
mother), W (his widow), A and B (his legitimate children), C (his grandson,
F – Grandson (Son of G who repudiated the inheritance None
being the legitimate son of B), D (his other grandson, being the son of E from T)
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

Page 5 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
Explanation: ANOTHER ANSWER:
a) The mother (M) cannot inherit from T because under Art. 985 the Under the theory of Exclusion the free portion (P300,000) is distributed
ascendants shall inherit in default of legitimate children and descendants only among the legitimate children and is given to them in addition to
of the deceased. their legitime. All other Intestate heirs are entitled only to their respective
legitimes. The distribution is as follows:
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 Legitime Free Portion Total
surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of A (legitimate child) P150,000 P 75,000 P225,000
the children. B (legitimate child) P150,000 P750,000 P225,000
C (legitimate child) P150,000 P 75,000 P225,000
c) C has no share because his father is still alive hence succession by D (legitimate child) 0 0 0
representation shall not apply (Art. 975). E (legitimate child of D) P75,000 P37,500 P112,500
F (legitimate child of D) P75,000 P37,500 P112,500
d) D inherits P30.000 which is the share of his father E who predeceased T G (illegitimate child) P75,000 0 P75,000
by virtue of Art. 981 on the right of representation. H (illegitimate child) P75,000 0 P75,000
W (Widow) P150,000 0 P150,000
e) F has no share because his father G repudiated the inheritance. Under
Article 977 heirs who repudiate their share may not be represented. Intestate Succession (1998)
Tessie died survived by her husband Mario, and two nieces, Michelle and
Intestate Succession (1998)
Jorelle, who are the legitimate children of an elder sister who had
Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary estate of P1.2 million. He is survived
predeceased her. The only property she left behind was a house and lot
by his widow, three legitimate children, two legitimate grandchildren sired
worth two million pesos, which Tessie and her husband had acquired with
by a legitimate child who predeceased him, and two recognized
the use of Mario's savings from his income as a doctor. How much of the
illegitimate children. Distribute the estate in intestacy. (5%)
property or its value, if any, may Michelle and Jorelle claim as their
hereditary shares? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the theory of Concurrence, the shares are as follows:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A (legitimate child) = P200,000
Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides, "Should brothers and sisters or
B (legitimate child) = P200,000
their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled
C (legitimate child) = P200,000
to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children
D (legitimate child) = O (predeceased]
to the other half." Tessie's gross estate consists of a house and lot acquired
E (legitimate child of D) = P100,000 - by right of representation
during her marriage, making it part of the community property. Thus, one-
F (legitimate child of D) = P100,000 - by right of representation
half of the said property would have to be set aside as Mario's conjugal
G (illegitimate child) = P100,000 - 1/2 share of the legitimate child
share from the community property. The other half, amounting to one
H (illegitimate child) = P100,000 - 1/2 share of the legitimate child
million pesos, is her conjugal share (net estate), and should be distributed
W (Widow) = P200.000 - same share as legitimate child
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

Page 6 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
one million pesos, or P500,000 , while the other one-half amounting to Antero is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting from the
P500,000 will go to Mario, Tessie's surviving spouse. Michelle and Jorelle legitimate brother of his father. How will you resolve the motion? (5%)
are then entitled to P250,000 each as their hereditary share.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Intestate Succession (1999) The motion to dismiss should be granted. Article 992 does not apply.
Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are childless, met with a serious motor vehicle Antero is not claiming any inheritance from Eugenio. He is claiming his
accident with Mr. Cruz at the wheel and Mrs. Cruz seated beside him, share in the inheritance of his father consisting of his father's share in the
resulting in the instant death of Mr. Cruz. Mrs. Cruz was still alive when inheritance of Eugenio (Dela Merced v. Dela Merced, Gr No. 126707, 25
help came but she also died on the way to the hospital. The couple February 1999).
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 ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
shares. Is the claim of both sets of parents valid and why? (3%) 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
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Antero was acknowledged, the motion should be denied because Article
(a) No, the claim of both parents is not valid. When Mr. Cruz died, he was 992 is not applicable. This is because Antero is claiming his inheritance
succeeded by his wife and his parents as his intestate heirs who will share from his illegitimate father, not from Eugenio.
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, Intestate Succession; Reserva Troncal (1999)
therefore, inherit O.25 Million Pesos and his parents will inherit 0.25 Million Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten Million (P1 0,000,000.00) Pesos. His
Pesos. When Mrs. Cruz died, she was succeeded by her parents as her widow gave birth to a child four months after Mr. Luna's death, but the
intestate heirs. They will inherit all of her estate consisting of her 0.5 Million child died five hours after birth. Two days after the child's death, the widow
half share in the absolute community and her 0.25 Million inheritance from of Mr. Luna also died because she had suffered from difficult childbirth.
her husband, or a total of 0.750 Million Pesos. In sum, the parents of Mr. The estate of Mr. Luna is now being claimed by his parents, and the
Cruz will inherit 250,000 Pesos while the parents of Mrs. Cruz will inherit parents of his widow. Who is entitled to Mr. Luna'a estate and why? (5%)
750,000 Pesos.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Intestate Succession (2000) Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna as their
Eugenio died without issue, leaving several parcels of land in Bataan. He inheritance from Mrs. Luna, while the other half will be inherited by the
was survived by Antonio, his legitimate brother; Martina, the only daughter parents of Mr. Luna as the reservatarios of the reserved property inherited
of his predeceased sister Mercedes; and five legitimate children of Joaquin, by Mrs. Luna from her child.
another predeceased brother. Shortly after Eugenio's death, Antonio also
died, leaving three legitimate children. Subsequently, Martina, the children When Mr. Luna died, his heirs were his wife and the unborn child. The
of Joaquin and the children of Antonio executed an extrajudicial settlement unborn child inherited because the inheritance was favorable to it and it
of the estate of Eugenio, dividing it among themselves. The succeeding was born alive later though it lived only for five hours. Mrs. Luna inherited
year, a petition to annul the extrajudicial settlement was filed by Antero, an half of the 10 Million estate while the unborn child inherited the other half.
illegitimate son of Antonio, who claims he is entitled to share in the estate When the child died, it was survived by its mother, Mrs. Luna. As the only
of Eugenio. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that 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.
Page 7 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
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 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
consanguinity and who belong to the family of Mr. Luna, the line where the The heirs are B, W, C and D. A inherits nothing because of his renunciation.
property came from. 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
When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived by her parents as her only heirs. A's renunciation. W gets a legitime equivalent to one-half (1/2) that of B
Her parents will inherit her estate consisting of the 5 Million she inherited amounting to P45,000. C and D each gets a legitime equivalent to one-half
from Mr. Luna. The other 5 Million she inherited from her child will be (1/2) that of B amounting to P45,000.00 each. But since the total exceeds
delivered to the parents of Mr. Luna as beneficiaries of the reserved the entire estate, their legitimes would have to be reduced corresponding
property. In sum, 5 Million Pesos of Mr. Luna's estate will go to the parents to P22,500.00 each (Art. 895. CC). The total of all of these amounts to
of Mrs. Luna, while the other 5 Million Pesos will go to the parents of Mr. P180,000.00.
Luna as reservatarios.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: INTESTATE SUCCESSION ESTATE: P180,000.00
If the child had an intra-uterine life of not less than 7 months, it inherited W- (widow gets 1/2 share) P90.000.00 (Art. 998)
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 A- (son who repudiated his inheritance) None (Art. 977)
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 B - (Granddaughter) None
relatives belonging to the paternal line and who are within 3 degrees from C - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45.000.00 (Art.998)
the child. The parents of Mr, Luna are entitled to the reserved portion D - (Acknowledged illegitimate child) P45,000.00 (Art. 998)
which is 5M as they are 2 degrees related from child. The 5M inherited by The acknowledged illegitimate child gets 1/2 of the share of each
Mrs. Luna from Mr. Luna will be inherited from her by her parents. legitimate child.

However, if the child had intra-uterine life of less than 7 months, half of the Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2003)
estate of Mr. Luna, or 5M, will be inherited by the widow (Mrs. Luna), while Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two illegitimate children, his
the other half, or 5M, will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna. Upon parents, and two brothers. He left an estate of P1 million. Who are the
the death of Mrs. Luna, her estate of 5M will be inherited by her own compulsory heirs of Luis, how much is the legitime of each, and how much
parents. is the free portion of his estate, if any?

Legitime (1997) SUGGESTED ANSWER:


"X", the decedent, was survived by W (his widow). A (his son), B (a The compulsory heirs are the two legitimate children and the two
granddaughter, being the daughter of A) and C and D (the two illegitimate children. The parents are excluded by the legitimate children,
acknowledged illegitimate children of the decedent). "X" died this year while the brothers are not compulsory heirs at all. Their respective
(1997) leaving a net estate of P180,000.00. All were willing to succeed, legitimate are:
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.
Page 8 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
a) The legitime of the two (2) legitimate children is one half (1/2) of the instituted heir. (Art. 914, Civil Code) If so given by the decedent, Ramon
estate (P500,000.00) to be divided between them equally, or P250,000.00 would receive a total of P400,000.00.
each.
Preterition (2001)
b) The legitimate of each illegitimate child is one-half (1/2) the legitime of Because her eldest son Juan had been pestering her for capital to start a
each legitimate child or P125,000.00. 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
c) Since the total legitime of the compulsory heirs is P750,000.00, the children as her sole heirs. At the time of her death, her only properly left
balance of P250,000.00 is the free portion. 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
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs vs. Secondary Compulsory Heirs (2005) briefly the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)
Emil, the testator, has three legitimate children, Tom, Henry and Warlito; a
wife named Adette; parents named Pepe and Pilar; an illegitimate child, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ramon; brother, Mark; and a sister, Nanette. Since his wife Adette is well- There was no preterition of the oldest son because the testatrix donated
off, he wants to leave to his illegitimate child as much of his estate as he 100,000 pesos to him. This donation is considered an advance on the son's
can legally do. His estate has an aggregate net amount of P1,200,000.00, inheritance. There being no preterition, the institutions in the will shall be
and all the above-named relatives are still living. Emil now comes to you respected but the legitime of the oldest son has to be completed if he
for advice in making a will. How will you distribute his estate according to received less. After collating the donation of P100,000 to the remaining
his wishes without violating the law on testamentary succession? (5%) 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 the legitimate children and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: it follows that the legitime of one legitimate child is P100,000. The legitime,
P600,000.00 — legitime to be divided equally between Tom, Henry and therefore, of the oldest son is P100,000. However, since the donation given
Warlito as the legitimate children. Each will be entitled to P200,000.00. him was P100,000, he has already received in full his legitime and he will
(Art. 888, Civil Code) 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
P100,000.00 -- share of Ramon the illegitimate child. Equivalent to 1/2 of be divided equally among them. Each will receive P225,000.
the share of each legitimate child. (Art. 176, Family Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
P200,000.00 — Adette the wife. Her share is equivalent to the share of one Assuming that the donation is valid as to form and substance, Juan cannot
legitimate child. (Art. 892, par. 2, Civil Code) 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
Pepe and Pilar, the parents are only secondary compulsory heirs and they a completion of his legitime under Art. 906 of the Civil Code. The estate
cannot inherit if the primary compulsory heirs (legitimate children) are should be divided equally among the five children who will each receive
alive. (Art. 887, par. 2, Civil Code) Brother Mark and sister Nanette are not P225,000.00 because the total hereditary estate, after collating the
compulsory heirs since they are not included in the enumeration under donation to Juan (Art. 1061, CC), would be P1 million. In the actual
Article 887 of the Civil Code. The remaining balance of P300,000.00 is the distribution of the net estate, Juan gets nothing while his siblings will get
free portion which can be given to the illegitimate child Ramon as an P225,000.00 each.

Page 9 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
Preterition; Compulsory Heir (1999) ADIL’s sisters in Pakistan want the proceedings held in Lahore before a
(a) Mr. Cruz, widower, has three legitimate children, A, B and C. He Pakistani court. Which court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue for
executed a Will instituting as his heirs to his estate of One Million the intestate proceedings? The law of which country shall govern
(P1,000,000.00) Pesos his two children A and B, and his friend F. Upon his succession to his estate? (5%)
death, how should Mr. Cruz's estate be divided? Explain. (3%)
(b) In the preceding question, suppose Mr. Cruz instituted his two children SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A and B as his heirs in his Will, but gave a legacy of P 100,000.00 to his In so far as the properties of the decedent located in the Philippines are
friend F. How should the estate of Mr. Cruz be divided upon his death? concerned, they are governed by Philippine law (Article 16, Civil Code).
Explain. (2%) 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
SUGGESTED ANSWER: last resided in Cebu City, that is the proper venue for the intestate
(a) Assuming that the institution of A, B and F were to the entire estate, settlement of his estate. However, the successional rights to the estate of
there was preterition of C since C is a compulsory heir in the direct line. ADIL are governed by Pakistani law, his national law, under Article 16 of
The preterition will result in the total annulment of the institution of heirs. the Civil Code.
Therefore, the institution of A, B and F will be set aside and Mr. Cruz's
estate will be divided, as in intestacy, equally among A, B and C as follows: Succession; Death; Presumptive Legitime (1991)
a) For purposes of succession, when is death deemed to occur or take
A P333,333.33 place?
B P333,333.33 b) May succession be conferred by contracts or acts inter vivos? Illustrate.
C P333,333.33 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
(b) On the same assumption as letter (a), there was preterition of C. instances?
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 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
remainder of P900,000.00 will be divided equally among A, B and C. 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
Proceedings; Intestate Proceedings; Jurisdiction (2004) Civil Code. The time of death is presumed to be at the expiration of the
In his lifetime, a Pakistani citizen, ADIL, married three times under Pakistani 10-year period as prescribed by Article 390 and at the moment of
law. When he died an old widower, he left behind six children, two sisters, disappearance under Article 391.
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 b) Under Art. 84 of the Family Code amending Art 130 of the Civil
had a mansion and where two of his youngest children now live and work. Code, contractual succession is no longer possible since the law now
Two of his oldest children are farmers in Sulu, while the two middle-aged requires that donations of future property be governed by the provisions
children are employees in Zamboanga City. Finding that the deceased left on the testamentary succession and formalities of wills.
no will, the youngest son wanted to file intestate proceedings before the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Two other siblings objected, arguing that ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
it should be in Jolo before a Shari’a court since his lands are in Sulu. But b) In the case of Coronado vs.CA(191 SCRA81), it was ruled that no
property passes under a will without its being probated, but may, under
Page 10 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
Article 1058 of the Civil Code of 1898, be sustained as a partition by an
act inter vivos (Many-Oy vs. CA 144SCRA33). The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way
prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the
And in the case of Chavez vs. IAC (1191 SCRA211), it was ruled that while death of either or both of the parents; but the value of the properties
the law prohibits contracts upon future inheritance, the partition by the already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be
parent, as provided in Art. 1080 is a case expressly authorized by law. A considered as advances on their legitime.
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 Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage,
partition must be executed in accordance with the provisions of the law on the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, and the
wills; if by an act inter vivos, such partition may even be oral or written, and delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the
need not be in the form of a will, provided the legitime is not prejudiced. appropriate civil registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same
shall not affect third persons.
"Where several sisters execute deeds of sale over their 1/6 undivided share
of the paraphernal property of their mother, in favor of another sister, with Wills; Codicil; Institution of Heirs; Substitution of Heirs (2002)
their mother not only giving her authority thereto but even signing said By virtue of a Codicil appended to his will, Theodore devised to Divino a
deeds, there is a valid partition inter vivos between the mother and her tract of sugar land, with the obligation on the part of Divino or his heirs to
children which cannot be revoked by the mother. Said deeds of sale are deliver to Betina a specified volume of sugar per harvest during Betina’s
not contracts entered into with respect to future inheritance.” 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
"It would be unjust for the mother to revoke the sales to a son and to latter’s heirs and turn it over to Theodore’s compulsory heirs. Divino failed
execute a simulated sale in favor of a daughter who already benefited by to fulfill the obligation under the Codicil. Betina brings suit against Divino
the partition." for the reversion of the tract of land.
a) Distinguish between modal institution and substitution of heirs. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) Distinguish between simple and fideicommissary substitution of heirs.
c) Yes, under Arts. 51 and 52 of the New Family Code. In case of legal (2%)
separation, annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and c) Does Betina have a cause of action against Divino? Explain (5%)
the automatic termination of a subsequent marriage by the reappearance
of the absent spouse, the common or community property of the spouses SUGGESTED ANSWER:
shall be dissolved and liquidated. 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
Art.51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all appointment of another heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in
common children, computed as of the date of the final judgment of the default of the heir originality instituted. (Art. 857, NCC).
trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless
the parties, by mutual agreement, judicially approved, had already b). In a SIMPLE SUBSTITUTION of heirs, the testator designates one or
provided for such matters. more persons to substitute the heirs instituted in case such heir or heirs
The children of their guardian, or the trustee of their property, may ask for should die before him, or should not wish or should be incapacitated to
the enforcement of the judgment. accept the inheritance. In a FIDEICOMMISSARY SUBSTITUTION, the testator
institutes a first heir and charges him to preserve and transmit the whole or
Page 11 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
part of the inheritance to a second heir. In a simple substitution, only one POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
heir inherits. In a fideicommissary substitution, both the first and second a. In the case of a Filipino citizen, Philippine law shall govern substantive
heirs inherit. (Art. 859 and 869, NCC) validity whether he executes his will in the Philippines or in a foreign
country.
c). Betina has a cause of action against Divino. This is a case of a b. In the case of a foreigner, his national law shall govern substantive
testamentary disposition subject to a mode and the will itself provides for validity whether he executes his will in the Philippines or in a foreign
the consequence if the mode is not complied with. To enforce the mode, country.
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 Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions & Cancellations (1996)
113725, 29 June 2000). Vanessa died on April 14, 1980, leaving behind a holographic will which is
entirely written, dated and signed in her own handwriting. However, it
Wills; Formalities (1990) contains insertions and cancellations which are not authenticated by her
(1) If a will is executed by a testator who is a Filipino citizen, what law will signature. For this reason, the probate of Vanessa's will was opposed by
govern if the will is executed in the Philippines? What law will govern if the her relatives who stood to inherit by her intestacy. May Vanessa's
will is executed in another country? Explain your answers. holographic will be probated? Explain.
(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 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Philippines? And what law will govern if the will is executed in Japan, or Yes, the will as originally written may be probated. The insertions and
some other country, for instance, the U.S.A.? Explain your answers. alterations were void since they were not authenticated by the full
signature of Vanessa, under Art. 814, NCC. The original will, however,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: remains valid because a holographic will is not invalidated by the
(1) a. If the testator who is a Filipino citizen executes his will in the unauthenticated insertions or alterations (Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 468).
Philippines, Philippine law will govern the formalities.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
b. If said Filipino testator executes his will in another country, the law of the It depends. As a rule, a holographic will is not adversely affected by
country where he maybe or Philippine law will govern the formalities. insertions or cancellations which were not authenticated by the full
(Article 815, Civil Code) signature of the testator (Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 468).

SUGGESTED ANSWER: However, when the insertion or cancellation amounts to revocation of the
(2) a. If the testator is a foreigner residing in the Philippines and he will, Art.814 of the NCC does not apply but Art. 830. NCC. Art. 830 of
executes his will in the Philippines, the law of the country of which he is a the NCC does not require the testator to authenticate his cancellation for
citizen or Philippine law will govern the formalities. the effectivity of a revocation effected through such cancellation (Kalaw v.
Relova, 132 SCRA 237).
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 In the Kalaw case, the original holographic will designated only one heir as
citizen or the law of the place of execution, or Philippine law will govern the only substantial provision which was altered by substituting the
the formalities (Articles 17. 816. 817. Civil Code). original heir with another heir. Hence, if the unauthenticated cancellation

Page 12 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
amounted to a revocation of the will, the will may not be probated declared void under Article 819, The prohibition should apply even to the
because it had already been revoked. 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
Wills; Holographic Wills; Witnesses (1994) as to the other.
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 Wills; Probate; Intrinsic Validity (1990)
street brawl which caught Comelio's attention, prompting him to look out H died leaving a last will and testament wherein it is stated that he was
the window. Cornelio did not see Vicente sign a will. Is the will valid? 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
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: which he gave to X who was living with him at the time of his death. In said
a) Yes, The will is valid. The law does not require a witness to actually see will he explained that he had been estranged from his wife W for more
the testator sign the will. It is sufficient if the witness could have seen the than 20 years and he has been living with X as man and wife since his
act of signing had he chosen to do so by casting his eyes to the proper separation from his legitimate family. In the probate proceedings, X asked
direction. 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.
b) Yes, the will is valid. Applying the "test of position", although Comelio (a) Should the will be admitted in said probate proceedings?
did not actually see Vicente sign the will, Cornelio was in the proper (b) Is the said devise to X valid?
position to see Vicente sign if Cornelio so wished. (c) Was it proper for the trial court to consider the intrinsic validity of the
provisions of said will? Explain your answers
Wills; Joint Wills (2000)
Manuel, a Filipino, and his American wife Eleanor, executed a Joint Will in SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Boston, Massachusetts when they were residing in said city. The law of (a) Yes, the will may be probated if executed according to the formalities
Massachusetts allows the execution of joint wills. Shortly thereafter, prescribed by law.
Eleanor died. Can the said Will be probated in the Philippines for the
settlement of her estate? (3%) (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
SUGGESTED ANSWER: testamentary dispositions (Article 1028, Civil Code), Among donations
Yes, the will may be probated in the Philippines insofar as the estate of which are considered void are those made between persons who were
Eleanor is concerned. While the Civil Code prohibits the execution of Joint guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation.
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 (c) As a general rule, the will should be admitted in probate proceedings if
with respect to Eleanor. Under Article 819, it is void with respect to all the necessary requirements for its extrinsic validity have been met and
Manuel whose joint will remains void in the Philippines despite being valid the court should not consider the intrinsic validity of the provisions of said
where executed. will. However, the exception arises when the will in effect contains only one
testamentary disposition. In effect, the only testamentary disposition under
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: the will is the giving of the free portion to X, since legitimes are provided
The will cannot be probated in the Philippines, even though valid where by law. Hence, the trial court may consider the intrinsic validity of the
executed, because it is prohibited under Article 818 of the Civil Code and
Page 13 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
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). 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
Wills; Probate; Notarial and Holographic Wills (1997) and distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible witnesses. Hence, if we
Johnny, with no known living relatives, executed a notarial will giving all his abide strictly by the two-witness rule to prove a lost or destroyed will, the
estate to his sweetheart. One day, he had a serious altercation with his holographic will which Johnny allegedly mistakenly burned, cannot be
sweetheart. A few days later, he was introduced to a charming lady who probated, since there is only one witness, Eduardo, who can be called to
later became a dear friend. Soon after, he executed a holographic will testify as to the existence of the will. If the holographic will, which
expressly revoking the notarial will and so designating his new friend as purportedly, revoked the earlier notarial will cannot be proved because of
sole heir. One day when he was clearing up his desk, Johnny mistakenly the absence of the required witness, then the petition for the probate of
burned, along with other papers, the only copy of his holographic will. His the notarial will should prosper.
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 Wills; Revocation of Wills; Dependent Relative Revocation (2003)
burning incident, Johnny died. Both wills were sought to be probated in Mr. Reyes executed a will completely valid as to form. A week later,
two separate petitions. Will either or both petitions prosper? 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
SUGGESTED ANSWER: second will was presented for probate by his heirs, but it was denied
The probate of the notarial will will prosper. The holographic will cannot be probate due to formal defects. Assuming that a copy of the first will is
admitted to probate because a holographic will can only be probated upon available, may it now be admitted to probate and given effect? Why?
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 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
probated and therefore the notarial will will be admitted to probate Yes, the first will may be admitted to probate and given effect. When the
because there is no revoking will. testator tore the 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
ADDITIONAL ANSWERS: he known that the second will is not valid. The revocation by destruction
1. In the case of Gan vs. Yap (104 Phil 509), the execution and the contents therefore is dependent on the validity of the second will. Since it turned
of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare out that the second will was invalid, the tearing of the first will did not
testimony of witnesses who have seen or read such will. The will itself must produce the effect of revocation. This is known as the doctrine of
be presented otherwise it shall produce no effect. The law regards the dependent relative revocation (Molo v. Molo, 90 Phil 37)
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 ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
be valid and executed with the formalities required for the making of a will. No, the first will cannot be admitted to probate. While it is true that the
The latter should possess all the requisites of a valid will whether it be first will was successfully revoked by the second will because the second
ordinary or a holographic will, and should be probated in order that the will was later denied probate, the first will was, nevertheless, revoked when
revocatory clause thereof may produce effect. In the case at bar, since the the testator destroyed it after executing the second invalid will. (Diaz v. De
holographic will itself cannot be presented, it cannot therefore be Leon, 43 Phil 413 [1922]).
probated. Since it cannot be probated, it cannot revoke the notarial will
previously written by the decedent.
Page 14 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
Wills; Testamentary Disposition (2006) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Don died after executing a Last Will and Testament leaving his estate Jayson will still be entitled to the entire P12 Million as the father, brother
valued at P12 Million to his common-law wife Roshelle. He is survived by and sister will be excluded by a legitimate son of the decedent (Art. 887,
his brother Ronie and his half-sister Michelle. New Civil Code). This follows the principle that the descendants exclude
(1) Was Don's testamentary disposition of his estate in accordance with the the ascendants from inheritance.
law on succession? Whether you agree or not, explain your answer. Explain.
Wills; Testamentary Intent (1996)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Alfonso, a bachelor without any descendant or ascendant, wrote a last will
Yes, Don's testamentary disposition of his estate is in accordance with the and testament in which he devised "all the properties of which I may be
law on succession. Don has no compulsory heirs not having ascendants, possessed at the time of my death" to his favorite brother Manuel. At the
descendants nor a spouse (Art. 887, New Civil Code). Brothers and sisters time he wrote the will, he owned only one parcel of land. But by the time
are not compulsory heirs. Thus, he can bequeath his entire estate to he died, he owned twenty parcels of land. His other brothers and sisters
anyone who is not otherwise incapacitated to inherit from him. A common- insist that his will should pass only the parcel of land he owned at the time
law wife is not incapacitated under the law, as Don is not married to it was written, and did not cover his properties acquired, which should be
anyone. by intestate succession. Manuel claims otherwise. Who is correct? Explain.

(2) If Don failed to execute a will during his lifetime, as his lawyer, how will SUGGESTED ANSWER:
you distribute his estate? Explain. (2.5%) 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
SUGGESTED ANSWER: possessed it at the time of making the will, should it expressly appear by
After paying the legal obligations of the estate, I will give Ronie, as full- the will that such was his intention. Since Alfonso's intention to devise all
blood brother of Don, 2/3 of the net estate, twice the share of Michelle, the properties he owned at the time of his death expressly appears on the will,
half-sister who shall receive 1/3. Roshelle will not receive anything as she is then all the 20 parcels of land are included in the devise.
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%)

Page 15 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
PART II SUGGESTEDANSWERS TO BAR EXAM QUESTIONS (C). If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, can Scarlet inherit the property directly
YEARS 2007-2013 from Raymond? (2%)

Disposition; Mortis Causa vs. Inter vivos; Corpse (2009) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, Raymond's widowed mother will be
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. entitled to the inheritance. Scarlet, an illegitimate child, cannot inherit the
property by intestate succession from Raymond who is a legitimate relative
A person can dispose of his corpse through an act inter vivos. (1%) of Ruffa (Art. 992, Civil Code). Moreover, Scarlet is not a compulsory heir
of Raymond, hence she can inherit only by testamentary succession. Since
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Raymond executed a will in the case at bar, Scarlet may inherit from
False. A person cannot dispose of his corpse through an act inter vivos, Raymond.
i.e., an act to take effect during his lifetime. Before his death there is no
corpse to dispose. But he is allowed to do so through an act mortis causa, Heirs; Intestate Succession; Legitime; Computation (2010)
i.e., an act to take effect upon his death. The spouses Peter and Paula had three (3) children. Paula later obtained a
judgment of nullity of marriage. Their absolute community of property
Heirs; Fideicommissary Substitution (2008) having been dissolved, they delivered P1 million to each of their 3 children
Raymond, single, named his sister Ruffa in his will as a devisee of a parcel as their presumptive legitimes.
of land which he owned. The will imposed upon Ruffa the obligation of
preserving the land and transferring it, upon her death, to her illegitimate Peter later re-married and had two (2) children by his second wife Marie.
daughter Scarlet who was then only one year old. Raymond later died, Peter and Marie, having successfully engaged in business, acquired real
leaving behind his widowed mother, Ruffa and Scarlet. properties. Peter later died intestate.

(A. Is the condition imposed upon Ruffa, to preserve the property and to (A). Who are Peter’s legal heirs and how will his estate be divided among
transmit it upon her death to Scarlet, valid? (1%) them? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Yes, the condition imposed upon Ruffa to preserve the property and to The legal heirs of Peter are his children by the first and second marriages
transmit it upon her death to Scarlet is valid because it is tantamount to and his surviving second wife.
fideicommissary substitution under Art. 863 of the Civil Code.
Their shares in the estate of Peter will depend, however, on the cause of
(B). If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, who inherits the property? (2%) the nullity of the first marriage. If the nullity of the first marriage was
psychological incapacity of one or both spouses, the three children of that
SUGGESTED ANSWER: void marriage are legitimate and all of the legal heirs shall share the estate
Ruffa will inherit the property as Scarlet's heir. Scarlet acquires a right to of Peter in equal shares. If the judgment of nullity was for other causes, the
the succession from the time of Raymond's death, even though she should three children are illegitimate and the estate shall be distributed such that
predecease Ruffa (Art. 866, Civil Code). an illegitimate child of the first marriage shall receive half of the share of a
legitimate child of the second marriage, and the second wife will inherit a
share equal to that of a legitimate child. In no case may the two legitimate
Page 16 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
children of the second marriage receive a share less than one-half of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
estate which is their legitime. When the estate is not sufficient to pay all In the distribution of Peter’s estate, ½ of the presumptive legitimes
the legitimes of the compulsory heirs, the legitime of the spouse is received by the 3 children of the first marriage shall be collated to Peter’s
preferred and the illegitimate children suffer the reduction. estate and shall be imputed as an advance of their respective inheritance
from Peter. Only half of the presumptive legitime is collated to the estate
Computation: of Peter because the other half shall be collated to the estate of his first
(A) If the ground of nullity is psychological incapacity: wife.

3 children by first marriage Heirs; Representation; Iron-Curtain Rule (2012)


1/6 of the estate for each Ricky and Arlene are married. They begot Franco during their marriage.
2 children by second marriage Franco had an illicit relationship with Audrey and out of which, they begot
1/6 of the estate for each surviving second spouse Arnel. Franco predeceased Ricky, Arlene and Arnel. Before Ricky died, he
executed a will which when submitted to probate was opposed by Arnel on
1/6 of the estate the ground that he should be given the share of his father, Franco. Is the
opposition of Arnel correct? Why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(B) If the ground of nullity is not psychological capacity: No, his opposition is not correct. Arnel cannot inherit from Ricky in the
representation of his father Franco. In representation, the representative
2 legitimate children must not only be a legal heir of the person he is representing, he must also
¼ of the estate for each of second marriage surviving second spouse be a legal heir of the decedent he seeks to inherit from.
¼ of the estate
While Arnel is a legal heir of Franco, he is not a legal heir of Ricky because
3 illegitimate children
under Art. 992 of the NCC, an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
1/12 of estate for each of first marriage
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother.
Arnel is disqualified to inherit from Ricky because Arnel is an illegitimate
Note: The legitime of an illegitimate child is supposed to be ½ the legitime
child of Franco and Ricky is a legitimate relative of Franco.
of a legitimate child or 1/8 of the estate. But the estate will not be
sufficient to pay the said legitime of the 3 illegitimate children, because
Heirs; Reserva Troncal (2009)
only ¼ of the estate is left after paying the legitime of the surviving spouse
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
which is preferred.
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences.

Hence, the remaining ¼ of the estate shall be divided among the 3


In reserva troncal, all reservatarios (reservees) inherit as a class and in equal
illegitimate children.
shares regardless of their proximity in degree to the propositus. (1%)

(B). What is the effect of the receipt by Peter’s 3 children by his first
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
marriage of their presumptive legitimes on their right to inherit following
FALSE. Not all the relatives within the third degree will inherit as
Peter’s death? (5%)
reservatario , and not all those who are entitled to inherit will inherit in the
Page 17 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
equal shares . The applicable laws of intestate succession will determine three children, and (2) the half-sister. They will divide the other half
who among the relatives will inherit as reservatarios and what shares they between them such that the share of the half-sister is just half the share of
will take, i.e., the direct line excludes the collateral, the descending direct the full-blood brother. The share of the full-blood brother shall in turn be
line excludes the ascending, the nearer excludes the more remote, the inherited by the three nephews in equal shares by right of presentation.
nephews and nieces exclude the uncles and the aunts, and half blood Therefore, the three (3) nephews will receive P1,111,111.10 each the half-
relatives inherit half the share of full-blooded relatives. sister will receive the sum of P1,666,666.60.

Intestate Succession (2008) Intestate Succession (2008)


Ramon Mayaman died intestate, leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00. Arthur executed a will which contained only: (i) a provision disinheriting his
Determine how much each heir will receive from the estate: daughter Bernica for running off with a married man, and (ii) a provision
disposing of his share in the family house and lot in favor of his other
(A). If Ramon is survived by his wife, three full-blood brothers, two half- children Connie and Dora. He did not make any provisions in favor of his
brothers, and one nephew (the son of a deceased full-blood brother)? wife Erica, because as the will stated, she would anyway get ½ of the house
Explain. (3%) and lot as her conjugal share. The will was very brief and straightforward
and both the above provisions were contained in page 1, which Arthur and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: his instrumental witness, signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained the
Having died intestate, the estate of Ramon shall be inherited by his wife attestation clause and the signatures, at the bottom thereof, of the 3
and his full and half blood siblings or their respective representatives. In instrumental witnesses which included Lambert, the driver of Arthur; Yoly,
intestacy, if the wife concurs with no one but the siblings of the husband, the family cook, and Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared the will.
all of them are the intestate heirs of the deceased husband. The wife will There was a 3rd page, but this only contained the notarial
receive half of the intestate estate, while the siblings or their respective acknowledgement. The attestation clause stated the will was signed on the
representatives, will inherit the other half to be divided among them same occasion by Arthur and his instrumental witnesses who all signed in
equally. If some siblings are of the full-blood and the other of the half the presence of each other, and the notary public who notarized the will.
blood, a half blood sibling will receive half the share of a full-blood sibling. There are no marginal signatures or pagination appearing on any of the 3
pages. Upon his death, it was discovered that apart from the house and lot,
(1). The wife of Ramon will, therefore, receive one half (½) of the estate or he had a P 1 million account deposited with ABC bank.
the amount of P5,000,000.00.
(2). The three (3) full-blood brothers, will, therefore, receive P1,000,000.00 How should the house and lot, and the cash be distributed? (1%)
each.
(3). The nephew will receive P1,000,000.00 by right of representation. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(4). The two (2) half-brothers will receive P500,000.00 each. Since the probate of the will cannot be allowed, the rules on intestate
succession apply. Under Art. 996 of the Civil Code, if a widow or widower
(B). If Ramon is survived by his wife, a half-sister, and three nephews (sons and legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse has
of a deceased full-blood brother)? Explain. (3%) the same share as of the children. Thus, ownership over the house and lot
will be created among wife Erica and her children Bernice, Connie and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dora. Similarly, the amount of P1million will be equally divided among
The wife will receive one half (1/2) of the estate or P5,000,000.00. The other them.
half shall be inherited by (1) the full-blood brother, represented by his
Page 18 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
Intestate Succession; Rights of Representation: Illegitimate, Adopted (2). Hans and Gretel are barred from inheriting from Ramon under Art.
Child; Iron Curtain Rule (2007) 992, NCC. Being illegitimate children, they cannot inherit ab intestao from
For purpose of this question, assume all formalities and procedural Ramon.
requirements have been complied with.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
In 1970, Ramon and Dessa got married. Prior to their marriage, Ramon had The problem expressly mentioned the dates of the adoption of Cherry and
a child, Anna. In 1971 and 1972, Ramon and Dessa legally adopted Cherry Michelle as 1971 and 1972. During that time, adoption was governed by
and Michelle respectively. In 1973, Dessa died while giving birth to Larry the New Civil Code. Under the New Civil Code, husband and wife were
Anna had a child, Lia. Anna never married. Cherry, on the other hand, allowed to adopt separately or not jointly with the other spouse. And since
legally adopted Shelly. Larry had twins, Hans and Gretel, with his girlfriend, the problem does not specifically and categorically state, it is possible to
Fiona. In 2005, Anna, Larry and Cherry died in a car accident. In 2007, construe the use of the word "respectively" in the problem as indicative of
Ramon died. Who may inherit from Ramon and who may not? Give your the situation that Cherry was adopted by Ramon alone and Michelle was
reason briefly. (10%) adopted by Dessa alone. In such case of separate adoption the alternative
answer to the problem will be as follows:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following may inherit from Ramon: Only Lia will inherit from Ramon in representation of Ramon's illegitimate
(1). Michelle, as an adopted child of Ramon, will inherit as a legitimate child daughter Anna. Although Lia is an illegitimate child, she is not barred from
of Ramon. As an adopted child, Michelle has all the rights of a legitimate inheriting from Ramon because her mother is herself illegitimate. Shelly
child (Sec 18, Domestic Adoption Law). cannot inherit in representation of Cherry because Shelly is just an adopted
child of Cherry. In representation, the representative must not only be a
(2). Lia will inherit in representation of Anna. Although Lia is an illegitimate legal heir of the person he is representing but also of the decedent from
child, she is not barred by Articles 992, because her mother Anna is an whom the represented person is supposed to inherit. In the case of Shelly,
illegitimate herself. She will represent Anna as regards Anna's legitime while she is a legal heir of Cherry by virtue of adoption, she is not a legal
under Art. 902, NCC and as regards Anna's intestate share under heir of Ramon. Adoption creates a personal legal relation only between the
Art.990, NCC. adopting parent and the adopted child ( Teotico v. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406,
1965).
The following may not inherit from Ramon:
(1). Shelly, being an adopted child, she cannot represent Cherry. This is Michelle cannot inherit from Ramon, because she was adopted not by
because adoption creates a personal legal relation only between the Ramon but by Dessa. In the eyes of the law, she is not related to Ramon at
adopter and the adopted. The law on representation requires the all. Hence, she is not a legal heir of Ramon. Hans and Gretel are not
representative to be a legal heir of the person he is representing and also entitled to inherit from Ramon, because they are barred by Art. 992 NCC.
of the person from whom the person being represented was supposed to Being illegitimate children of Larry, they cannot inherit from the legitimate
inherit. While Shelly is a legal heir of Cherry, Shelly is not a legal heir of relatives of their father Larry. Ramon is a legitimate relative of Larry who is
Ramon. Adoption created a purely personal legal relation only between the legitimate father.
Cherry and Shelly.

Page 19 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
and both the above provisions were contained in page 1, which Arthur and
Legitimes; Compulsory Heirs (2012) his instrumental witness, signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained the
How can RJP distribute his estate by will, if his heirs are JCP, his wife; HBR attestation clause and the signatures, at the bottom thereof, of the 3
and RVC, his parents; and an illegitimate child, SGO? instrumental witnesses which included Lambert, the driver of Arthur; Yoly,
the family cook, and Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared the will.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: There was a 3rd page, but this only contained the notarial
A testator may dispose of by will the free portion of his estate. Since the acknowledgement.
legitime of JCP is 1/8 of the estate, SGO is ¼ of the estate and that of HBR The attestation clause stated the will was signed on the same occasion by
and RVC is ½ of the hereditary estate under Art 889 of the NCC, the Arthur and his instrumental witnesses who all signed in the presence of
remaining 1/8 of the estate is the free portion which the testator may each other, and the notary public who notarized the will. There are no
dispose of by will. marginal signatures or pagination appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon
his death, it was discovered that apart from the house and lot, he had a P 1
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2008) million account deposited with ABC bank.
Ernesto, an overseas Filipino worker, was coming home to the Philippines
after working for so many years in the Middle East. He had saved P100,000 (A). Was Erica preterited? (1%)
in his saving account in Manila which intended to use to start a business in
his home country. On his flight home, Ernesto had a fatal heart attack. He SUGGESTED ANSWER:
left behind his widowed mother, his common-law wife and their twins Erica cannot be preterited. Art. 854 of the Civil Code provides that only
sons. He left no will, no debts, no other relatives and no other properties compulsory heirs in the direct line can be preterited.
except the money in his saving account. Who are the heirs entitled to
inherit from him and how much should each receive? (3%) (B). What other defects of the will, if any, can cause denial of probate? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:


The mother and twin sons are entitled to inherit from Ernesto. Art. 991 of The other defects of the will that can cause its denial are as follows: (a)
the Civil Code, provides that if legitimate ascendants are left, the twin Atty. Zorba, the one who prepared the will was one of the three witnesses,
sons shall divide the inheritance with them taking one-half of the estate. violating the three-witnesses rule; (b) no marginal signature at the last
Thus, the widowed mother gets P50,000.00 while the twin sons shall page; (c) the attestation did not state the number of pages upon which the
receive P25,000.00 each. The common-law wife cannot inherit from him will is written; and, (d) no pagination appearing correlatively in letters on
because when the law speaks "widow or widower" as a compulsory heir, the upper part of the three pages ( Azuela v. C.A., G.R. No. 122880, 12 Apr
the law refers to a legitimate spouse (Art. 887, par 3, Civil Code). 2006 and cited cases therein, Art 805 and 806, Civil Code).

Preterition; Disinheritance (2008) (C). Was the disinheritance valid? (1%)


Arthur executed a will which contained only: (i) a provision disinheriting his
daughter Bernica for running off with a married man, and (ii) a provision SUGGESTED ANSWER:
disposing of his share in the family house and lot in favor of his other Yes, the disinheritance was valid. Art. 919, par 7, Civil Code provides that
children Connie and Dora. He did not make any provisions in favor of his "when a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life, like
wife Erica, because as the will stated, she would anyway get ½ of the house running off with a married man, there is sufficient cause for disinheritance."
and lot as her conjugal share. The will was very brief and straightforward
Page 20 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
Succession; Proof of Death between persons called to succeed each Succession; Rule on Survivorship (2009)
other (2008) Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his son Roberto both died in a fire
At age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She insured her own that gutted their home while they were sleeping in their air-conditioned
life and named her unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she was rooms. Roberto’s wife, Marilyn, and their two children were spared because
already due to give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her they were in the province at the time. Dr. Lopez left an estate worth P20M
unborn child, were kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they were and a life insurance policy in the amount of P1M with his three children—
vacationing. The military gave chase and after one week, they were found one of whom is Roberto—as beneficiaries.
in an abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were hacked with bolos. Marilyn is now claiming for herself and her children her husband’s share in
Marian and the baby delivered were both found dead, with the baby's the estate left by Dr. Lopez, and her husband’s share in the proceeds of Dr.
umbilical cord already cut. Pietro survived. Lopez’s life insurance policy. Rule on the validity of Marilyn’s claims with
reasons. (4%)
Between Marian and the baby, who is presumed to have died ahead? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
SUGGESTED ANSWER: As to the Estate of Dr. Lopez:
Marian is presumed to have died ahead of the baby. Art. 43 applies to Marilyn is not entitled to a share in the estate of Dr. Lopez. For purpose of
persons who are called to succeed each other. The proof of death must be succession, Dr. Lopez and his son Roberto are presumed to have died at
established by positive or circumstantial evidence derived from facts. It can the same time, there being no evidence to prove otherwise, and there shall
never be established from mere inference. In the present case, it is very be no transmission of rights from one to the other (Article 43, NCC).
clear that only Marian and Pietro were hacked with bolos. There was no Hence, Roberto, inherited nothing from his father that Marilyn would in
showing that the baby was also hacked to death. The baby's death could turn inherit from Roberto .The children of Roberto, however, will succeed
have been due to lack of nutrition. their grandfather, Dr.Lopez, in representation of their father Roberto and
together Roberto will receive 1/3 of the estate of Dr. Lopez since their
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: father Roberto was one of the three children of Dr. Lopez. Marilyn cannot
The baby is presumed to have died ahead of Marian. Under Par. 5, rule represent her husband Roberto because the right is not given by the law to
131, Sec. 5 (KK) of the Rules of Court, if one is under 15 or above 60 and a surviving spouse.
the age of the other is in between 15 and 60, the latter is presumed to
have survived. In the instant case, Marian was already 18 when she found As to the proceeds of the insurance on the life of Dr. Lopez:
out that she was pregnant. She could be of the same age or maybe 19 Since succession is not involved as regards the insurance contract, the
years of age when she gave birth. provisions of the Rules of Court (Rule 131, Sec. 3 , [jj] [5]) on survivorship
shall apply. Under the Rules, Dr. Lopez, who was 70 years old, is presumed
Will Pietro, as surviving biological father of the baby, be entitled to claim to have died ahead of Roberto who is presumably between the ages 15
the proceeds of the life insurance on the life of Marian? (2%) and 60. Having survived the insured, Roberto's right as a beneficiary
became vested upon the death of Dr. Lopez. When Roberto died after Dr.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Lopez, his right to receive the insurance became part of his hereditary
Pietro, as the biological father of the baby, shall be entitled to claim the estate, which in turn was inherited in equal shares by his legal heirs,
proceeds of life insurance of the Marian because he is a compulsory heir of namely, his spouse and children. Therefore, Roberto's children and his
his child. spouse are entitled to Roberto's one-third share in the insurance proceeds.
Page 21 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
(A). Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes be admitted to probate in the
Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions & Cancellations (2012) Philippines? Why or why not? (3%)
Natividad’s holographic will, which had only one (1) substantial provision,
as first written, named Rosa as her sole heir. However, when Gregorio SUGGESTED ANSWER:
presented it for probate, it already contained an alteration, naming Yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes may be admitted to probate in the
Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as sole heir, but without authentication by Philippines because there is no public policy violated by such probate. The
Natividad’s signature. Rosa opposes the probate alleging such lack of only issue at probate is the due execution of the will which includes the
proper authentication. She claims that the unaltered form of the will formal validity of the will. As regards formal validity, the only issue the
should be given effect. Whose claim should be granted? Explain. (5%) court will resolve at probate is whether or not the will was executed in
accordance with the form prescribed by the law observed by the testator in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the execution of his will.
It depends. If the cancellation of Rosa’s name in the will was done by the
testator himself, Rosa’s claimed that the holographic will in its original For purposes of probate in the Philippines, an alien testator may observe
tenor should be given effect must be denied. The said cancellation has the law of the place where the will was executed (Art 17, NCC), or the
revoked the entire will as nothing remains of the will after the name of formalities of the law of the place where he resides, or according to the
Rosa was cancelled. Such cancellation is valid revocation of the will and formalities of the law of his own country, or in accordance with the
does not require authentication by the full signature of the testator to be Philippine Civil Code (Art. 816, NCC).
effective.
Since Dr. Fuentes executed his will in accordance with the Philippine law,
However, if the cancellation of Rosa’s name was not done by the testator the Philippine court shall apply the New Civil Code in determining the
himself, such cancellation shall not be effective and the will in its original formal validity of the holographic will. The subsequent change in the
tenor shall remain valid. The effectively of the holographic will cannot be citizenship of Dr. Fuentes did not affect the law governing the validity of
left to the mercy of unscrupulous third parties. his will. Under the new Civil Code, which was the law used by Dr. Fuentes,
the law enforced at the time of execution of the will shall govern the
The writing of Gregorio’s name as sole heir was ineffective, even though formal validity of the will (Art. 795, NCC).
written by the testator himself, because such is an alteration that requires
authentication by the full signature of the testator to be valid and effective. (B). Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can Jay validly
Not having an authenticated, the designation of Gregorio as an heir was insist that he be given his legitime? Why or why not? (3%)
ineffective, (Kalaw v. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207, Sept 28, 1984).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Wills; Holographic Wills; Probate (2009) No, Jay cannot insist because under New York law he is not a compulsory
On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes executed a holographic will, heir entitled to a legitime.
wherein he gave nothing to his recognized illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. Fuentes
left for the United States, passed the New York medical licensure The national law of the testator determines who his heirs are, the order
examinations, resided therein, and became a naturalized American citizen. that they succeed, how much their successional rights are, and whether or
He died in New York in 2007. The laws of New York do not recognize not a testamentary disposition in his will is valid (Art 16, NCC). Since, Dr.
holographic wills or compulsory heirs. Fuentes was a US citizen, the laws of the New York determines who his

Page 22 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
heirs are. And since the New York law does not recognize the concept of Wills; Joint Wills; Probate (2012)
compulsory heirs, Jay is not a compulsory heir of Dr. Fuentes entitled to a John Sagun and Maria Carla Camua, British citizens at birth, acquired
legitime. Philippine citizenship by naturalization after their marriage. During their
marriage, the couple acquired substantial landholdings in London and in
Wills; Joint Wills (2008) Makati. Maria begot three (3) children, Jorge, Luisito, and Joshur. In one of
John and Paula, British citizens at birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by their trips to London, the couple executed a joint will appointing each
naturalization after their marriage. During their marriage the couple other as their heirs and providing that upon the death of the survivor
acquired substantial landholdings in London and in Makati. Paula bore between them, the entire estate would go to Jorge and Luisito only but the
John three children, Peter, Paul and Mary. In one of their trips to London, two (2) could not dispose of nor divide the London estate as long as they
the couple executed a joint will appointing each other as their heirs and live. John and Maria died tragically in the London subway terrorist attack in
providing that upon the death of the survivor between them the entire 2005. Jorge and Luisito filed a petition for probate of their parents’ will
estate would go to Peter and Paul only but the two could not dispose of before a Makati Regional Trial Court. Joshur vehemently objected because
nor divide the London estate as long as they live. John and Paul died he was preterited.
tragically in the London Subway terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul
filed a petition for probate of their parent's will before a Makati Regional (1) Should the will be admitted to probate? Explain. (2%)
Trial Court.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(A). Should the will be admitted to probate? (2%) No, the will should not be admitted to probate. Since the couples are both
Filipino citizens, Art 818 and 819 of the NCC shall apply. Said articles
SUGGESTED ANSWER: prohibits the execution of joint wills and make them void, even though
No. The will cannot be admitted to probate because a joint will is expressly authorized of the country where they were executed.
prohibited under Art. 818 of the Civil Code. This provision applies John
and Paula became Filipino citizens after their marriage. (2) Are the testamentary dispositions valid? Explain. (2%)

(B). Are the testamentary dispositions valid? (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Since the joint will is void, all the testamentary disposition written therein
SUGGESTED ANSWER: are also void. However, if the will is valid, the institutions of the heirs shall
No. The testamentary dispositions are not valid because: be annulled because Joshur was preterited. He was preterited because he
(a) omission of Mary, a legitimate child, is tantamount to preterition which will receive nothing from the will, will receive nothing in testacy, and the
shall annul the institution of Peter and Paul as heirs (Art. 854, Civil Code); facts do not show that he received anything as an advance on his
and, inheritance. He was totally excluded from the inheritance of his parents.

(b) The disposition that Peter and Paul could not dispose of nor divide the (3) Is the testamentary prohibition against the division of the London
London estate for more than 20 years is void (Art. 870, Civil Code). estate valid? Explain. (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Assuming the will of John and Maria was valid, the testamentary
prohibition on the division of the London estate shall be valid but only for
Page 23 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
20 years. Under Arts 1083 and 494 of the NCC, a testamentary (B). Act as a witness to a will? (1%)
disposition of the testator cannot forbid the partition of all or part of the
estate for a period longer than twenty (20) years. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Stevie cannot be a witness to a will. Art. 820 of the Civil Code provides
Wills; Prohibition to Partition of a Co-owned Property (2010) that "any person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or more,
True or False. and not blind, deaf or dumb, and able to read and write, may be a witness
to the execution of a will.
X, a widower, died leaving a will stating that the house and lot where he
lived cannot be partitioned for as long as the youngest of his four children (C). In either of the above instances, must the will be read to him? (1%)
desires to stay there. As co-heirs and co-owners, the other three may
demand partition anytime. (1%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Stevie makes a will, the will must be read to him twice, once by one of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom
FALSE. The other three co-heirs may not anytime demand the partition of the will is acknowledged (Art. 808, Civil Code).
the house and lot since it was expressly provided by the decedent in his
will that the same cannot be partitioned while his youngest child desires to Wills; Testamentary Disposition; Period to Prohibit Partition (2008)
stay there. Article 1083 of the New Civil Code allows a decedent to John and Paula, British citizens at birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by
prohibit, by will, the partition of a property and his estate for a period not naturalization after their marriage. During their marriage the couple
longer than 20 years no matter what his reason maybe. Hence, the three acquired substantial landholdings in London and in Makati. Paula bore
co-heirs cannot demand its partition at any time but only after 20 years John three children, Peter, Paul and Mary. In one of their trips to London,
from the death of their father. Even if the deceased parent did not leave a the couple executed a joint will appointing each other as their heirs and
will, if the house and lot constituted their family home, Article 159 of the providing that upon the death of the survivor between them the entire
Family Code prohibits its partition for a period of ten (10) years, or for as estate would go to Peter and Paul only but the two could not dispose of
long as there is a minor beneficiary living in the family home. nor divide the London estate as long as they live. John and Paul died
tragically in the London Subway terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul
Wills; Notarial Wills; Blind Testator; Requisites (2008) filed a petition for probate of their parent's will before a Makati Regional
No. XIV. Stevie was born blind. He went to school for the blind, and Trial Court.
learned to read in Braille Language. He Speaks English fluently. Can he:
(C). Is the testamentary prohibition against the division of the London
(A). Make a will? (1%) estate valid? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Assuming that he is of legal age (Art. 797, Civil Code) and of sound mind No. the testamentary prohibition against the division of the London estate
at the time of execution of the will (Art. 798, Civil Code), Stevie, a blind is void (Art. 870, Civil Code). A testator, however, may prohibit partition
person, can make a notarial will, subject to compliance with the "two- for a period which shall not exceed twenty (20) years (Art. 870 in relation
reading rule" (Art. 808, Civil Code) and the provisions of Arts. 804, 805 to Art. 494, par 3, Civil Code).
and 806 of the Civil Code.

Page 24 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
Wills; Witnesses to a Will, Presence required; Thumb mark as she was aware of her function and role as witness and was in a position to
Signature (2007) see the testatrix and the other witnesses sign by merely casting her eyes in
Clara, thinking of her mortality, drafted a will and asked Roberta, Hannah, the proper direction.
Luisa and Benjamin to be witnesses. During the day of signing of her will,
Clara fell down the stairs and broke her arms. Coming from the hospital,
Clara insisted on signing her will by thumb mark and said that she can sign
her full name later. While the will was being signed, Roberta experienced a
stomach ache and kept going to the restroom for long periods of time.
Hannah, while waiting for her turn to sign the will, was reading the 7th
Harry Potter book on the couch, beside the table on which everyone was
signing. Benjamin, aside from witnessing the will, also offered to notarize it.
A week after, Clara was run over by a drunk driver while crossing the street
in Greenbelt.

May the will of Clara be admitted to probate? Give your reasons briefly.
(10%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Probate should be denied. The requirement that the testator and at least
three (3) witnesses must sign all in the "presence" of one another was not
complied with. Benjamin who notarized the will is disqualified as a witness,
hence he cannot be counted as one of the three witnesses (Cruz v. Villasor,
54 SCRA 31, 1973). The testatrix and the other witnesses signed the will not
in the presence of Roberta because she was in the restroom for extended
periods of time. Inside the restroom, Roberta could not have possibly seen
the testatrix and the other witnesses sign the will by merely casting her
eyes in the proper direction (Jaboneta v. Gustilo, 5 Phil 541, 1906; Nera v.
Rimando, 18 Phil 451, 1914). Therefore, the testatrix signed the will in the
presence of only two witnesses, and only two witnesses signed the will in
the presence of the testatrix and of one another.

It is to be noted, however, that the thumb mark intended by the testator to


be his signature in executing his last will and testament is valid (Payad v.
Tolentino, 62 Phil 848, 1936; Matias v. Salud, L-104 Phil 1046, 23 June,
1958). The problem, however, states that Clara "said that she can sign her
full name later;" Hence, she did not consider her thumb mark as her
"complete" signature, and intended further action on her part. The testatrix
and the other witness signed the will in the presence of Hannah, because
Page 25 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
PART III SUGGESTEDANSWERS TO BAR EXAM QUESTIONS ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
YEARS 2014-2016 The provision is valid. Article 944 of the Civil Code provides in part that
“a legacy for education lasts until the legatee is of age, or beyond the age
Partition (2014) of majority in order that the legatee may finish some professional,
Crispin died testate and was survived by Alex and Josine, his children from vocational or general course, provided he pursues his course diligently.” In
his first wife; Rene and Ruby, his children from his second wife; and Allan, this case, the intention of the testator in transferring the property in the
Bea, and Cheska, his children from his third wife. name of Alex and Rene is not for the purpose of giving the property to
them as their inheritance, but for them to administer the same for the
One important provision in his will reads as follows: benefit of the descendants’ use in pursuit of their education. Thus, this
“Ang lupa at bahay sa lungsod ng Maynila ay ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan provision is a legacy for education, which lasts as long as the legatee/s
nila Alex at Rene hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang come of age or until such legatee/s finish their course.
pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at nang ang sinuman sa aking
mga anak, sampung aking mga apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa habang ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
panahon, ay may tutuluyan kung magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o sa The provision is not valid. Article 870 of the Civil Code provides that “the
kalapit na lungsod.” disposition of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for
more than twenty years are void.” In this case, the provision “habang
Is the provision valid? panahon” clearly provides for inalienability of the house for more than
twenty years; hence, it is void.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The provision imposing the in division of the property “habang panahon” SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
is invalid. In Santiago v. Santiago, (G.R. No. 179859, August 9. 2010), a The provision is valid. The institution of heir in this case is a modal
similar provision appears in the will of the testator. In that case, the Court institution under Article 882 of the Civil Code. In this type of institution,
ruled that it is clear that the testator intended the house and lot in Manila which is present in the case at bar, the ownership of the thing is passed on
be transferred in petitioners’ names for administration purposes only, and to the heir, except that there is a mode or charge imposed upon the heir.
that the property be owned by the heirs in common. However, the same In a modal institution, the testator states (1) the object of the institution,
case ruled that the condition set by the decedent on the property’s (2) the purpose or application of the property left by the testator, or (3) the
indivisibility is subject to a statutory limitation provided by Article 1083 of charge imposed by the testator upon the heir (Rabadilla v. Court of
the New Civil Code which states that the period of indivision imposed by Appeals, G.R. No. 113725. June 29, 2000).
a testator shall not exceed twenty years. Although the Civil Code is silent as
to the effect of the indivision of a property for more than twenty years, it Preterition (2014)
would be contrary to public policy to sanction co-ownership beyond the What is the effect of preterition? (1%)
period expressly mandated by the Civil Code. Thus the provision leaving (A) It annuls the devise and legacy
the administration of the house and lot in Manila to Alex and Rene is valid (B) It annuls the institution of heir
but the provision imposing the indivision of the property “habang (C) It reduces the devise and legacy
panahon” is invalid as to the excess beyond twenty years, it being contrary (D) It partially annuls the institution of heir
to Article 1083 limiting the period of indivision that may be imposed by a
testator to twenty years.

Page 26 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Donation to an unborn child (2014)
(B) It annuls the institution of heir Mario executed his last will and testament where he acknowledges the
child being conceived by his live-in partner Josie as his own child; and that
Reserva Troncal(2014) his house and lot in Baguio City be given to his unborn conceived child.
Esteban and Martha had four (4) children: Rolando, Jun, Mark and Hector. Are the acknowledgement and donation mortis causa valid? Why? (4%)
Rolando had a daughter; Edith, while Mark had a son, Philip. After the
death of Esteban and Martha, their three (3) parcels of land were SUGGESTED ANSWER:
adjudicated to Jun. After the death of Jun, the properties passed to his The acknowledgement of the unborn child is effective because a will may
surviving spouse Anita, and son Cesar. When Anita died, her share went to still constitute a document which contains an admission of illegitimate
her son Cesar. Ten (10) years after, Cesar died intestate without any issue. filiation. The donation to the conceived child is also valid provided that the
Peachy, Anita’s sister, adjudicated to herself the properties as the only child is born later on and that it will comply with the formalities required of
surviving heir of Anita and Cesar. Edith and Philip would like to recover the a will (Article 728, Civil Code). A fetus has a presumptive personality for
properties claiming that they should have been reserved by Peachy in their all purposes favorable to it provided it be born under the conditions
behalf and must now revert back to them. specified in Article 41. However, there has to be compliance with the
formal requisites for a valid last will and testament.
Is the contention of Edith and Philip valid? (4%)
Joint will (2015)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Alden and Stela were both former Filipino Citizens. They were married in
No, their contention is not valid as the property is not subject to reserva the Philippines but they later migrated to the United States where they
troncal. Under 891 of the Civil Code, the ascendant who inherits from his were naturalized as American citizens. In their union they were able to
descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous accumulate several real properties both in the US and in the Philippines.
title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve Unfortunately, they were not blessed with children. In the US, they
such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit executed a join will instituting as common heirs to divide their combined
of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line estate in equal shares, the five siblings of Alden and the seven siblings of
which the said property came. There is no reserva troncal here because Stela. Alden passed away in 2013 and a year later, Stela also died. The
Anita is not an ascendant or a brother or sister of Jun. Jun cannot qualify as siblings of Alden who were all citizens of the US instituted probate
a propositus, because the property which he inherited from his ascendant proceedings in a US court impleading the siblings of Stela who were all in
was not inherited by another ascendant by operation of law. the Philippines.

In Mendoza v. Policarpio, (G.R. No. 176422, March 20, 2013), the Court a.) Was the joint will executed by Alden and Stela who were both
ruled that the lineal character of the reservable property is reckoned from former Filipinos Valid? Explain with legal basis. (3%)
the ascendant from whom the propositus received the property by b.) Can the joint will produce legal effect in the Philippines with
gratuitous title. In this case, the ownership should me reckoned only from respect to the properties of Alden and Stela found here? If so,
Jun, as he is the ascendant from whom Cesar inherited the properties, how?
moreover, Article 891 of the Civil Code provides that the person obliged c.) Is the situation presented in Item 1 and example of depecage?
to reserve the property should be an ascendant, Peachy is not Cesar’s
ascendant but a mere collateral relative.

Page 27 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: applicable. Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that prohibitive
a.) The joint will shall be valid if it was executed in accordance with laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which
the US law. At the time of the will’s execution, Alden and Stela have for their object public order, public policy and good customs
were US citizens. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect shall not be rendered ineffective by laws of judgments
in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in
place of the law in which he resides, or according to the formalities a foreign country.
observed in his country. (Art. 816, Civil Code). Art. 819 of the
Civil Code does not apply as if refers specifically to the invalidity c.) No, the situation presented in Item 1 is not an example of
of joint wills “executed by Filipinos in a foreign country”. depecage. Depecage is a term used where different aspects of a
case involving a foreign element may be governed by different
b.) The joint will may produce legal effect in the Philippines if it was systems of law. In this case, only one system of laws governs, that
validly executed in accordance with the laws of the US. To be given of US law. Under Article 16 par(2) of the Civil Code, intestate and
legal effect in the Philippines, it must be probated in this country. testamentary succession, with respect the order of succession and
Since the will was executed abroad by aliens, it must comply with to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
Article 17 or Article 816 of the Civil Code. testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of
the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may
Under Article 17, the forms and solemnities of contracts, wills and be the nature of the property and regardless of the country
other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the wherein said property may be found. For the will to be probated, it
country in which they are executed. must also comply with US law under Articles 17 and 816 of the
Civil Code, as the US was the place of the will’s execution, the
Under Article 816, the will of an alien who is abroad produces residence of the spouses, and the country where they are
effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by nationals.
the place of the law in which he resides, or according to the
formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those Note: It is suggested that the examinees be given full credit for Ic.
which this code prescribes. as the terms depecage is not commonly taught in this jurisdiction.

Since Alden and Stela were both naturalized American citizens at Separation of Legitimate and Illegitimate Families (2016)
the time of the execution of the will, they are allowed to execute a Don Ricardo had 2 legitimate children- Tomas and Tristan. Tristan has 3
will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of children. Meanwhile, Tomas had a relationship with Nancy, who was also
their country, where they reside or Philippine law. Moreover, single and had the legal capacity to marry. Nancy became pregnant and
Article 16(2) requires a will to be intrinsically in accordance with gave birth to Tomas, Jr. After the birth of Tomas, Jr., his father, Tomas, died.
the national law of the testator, hence should also be in Later, Don Ricardo died without a will and Tristan opposed the motion of
accordance with US law. Tomas, Jr. to be declared an heir of the deceased since he is an illegitimate
child. Tomas, Jr. countered that Article 991 of the Civil Code is
However, Alden’s siblings are all US citizens. Insofar as the real unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection clause of the laws. He
properties situated in the Philippines, the prohibition regarding explained that an illegitimate child of illegitimate parent is allowed to
alien ownership of the Philippine land found in the Constitution is inherit under Articles 902, 982 and 990 of the Civil Code while he—an
illegitimate child of a legitimate father—cannot. Civil law commentator
Page 28 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
Arturo Tolentino opined that Article 992 created an absurdity and descendant (son) Pepito by legitime and intestacy (hence, by operation of
committed an injustice because while the illegitimate descendant of an law).
illegitimate child can represent, illegitimate descendant of a legitimate
child cannot. Decide the case and explain. (5%) The Reservatario is Princess, a relative of the Propositus Pepito within the
third degree and who belonged to the line of origin (the maternal line).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Line of origin is the maternal line because Onofre (the origin) and Pepito
I will deny the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be declared as an heir of the (the Propositus) are maternal half-blood siblings.
deceased. Tomas Jr., being an illegitimate child of the deceased legitimate
son, Tomas, cannot-inherit ab intestato from the deceased, Don Ricardo, When Mark (Reservista) died, the property passed to Princess as sole
because of the iron curtain rule under Article 992 of the Civil Code. reservatario, thus extinguishing the reserva troncal.

Tomas cannot argue that Article 992 is violative of the equal protection Upon Princess’s death, the property was transmitted ab intestate to her
clause because equal protection simply requires that all persons or things father Jojo. Transmission to Jojo is by the ordinary rules of compulsory and
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and intestate succession, not by reserva troncal, because the reserva was
responsibilities imposed (Inchong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 [May 31, extinguished upon the transmission of the property to Princess, this
1957]). It, however, does not require universal application of the laws to all making Princess the absolute owner of subject to no reserva.
persons or things without distinction. What is simply requires is equality
among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the
equal protection clause permits classification.

Reserva Troncal (2016)


Princess married Roberto and bore a son, Onofre. Roberto died in a plane
crash. Princess later married Mark and they also had a son—Pepito. Onofre
donated to Pepito, his half-brother, a lot in Makati City worth
P3,000,000.00. Pepito succumbed to an illness and died intestate. The lot
given to Pepito by Onofre was inherited by his father, Mark. Mark also died
intestate. Lonely, Princess followed Mark to the life beyond. The claimants
to the subject lot emerged—Jojo, the father of Princess; Victor, the father
of Mark; and Jerico, the father of Roberto.

Who among the three (3) ascendants is entitled to the lot? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jojo, Princess’ father, is entitled to the lot.

This is a clear case of reserva troncal. The Origin is Onofre. The Propositus
is Pepito. The mode of transmission from Onofre to Pepito is donation
(hence, by gratuitous title). The reservista is Mark, who acquired it from his
Page 29 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
PART IV SUGGESTEDANSWERS TO BAR EXAM QUESTIONS E. None of the above. There is no showing that Danny is an illegitimate
(MULTIPLE CHOICE Qs) half-blood brother of Armand. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the
YEARS 2007-2013 law presumes that the relationship is legitimate. Thus, Dante, an
illegitimate child of Danny, is barred from inheriting from Armand pursuant
Intestate succession to the “iron curtain rule” which disqualifies an illegitimate child from
Armand died intestate. His full-blood brothers, Bobby and Conrad, and inheriting ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his
half-blood brothers, Danny, Edward and Floro, all predeceased him. The father or mother, and vice versa (Art 992, Civil Code).
following are the surviving relatives:
1. Benny and Bonnie, legitimate children of Bobby; (3) How much is Ernie's share in the net estate. (1%)
2. Cesar, legitimate child of Conrad; (A) P 0.
3. Dante, illegitimate child of Danny; (B) P400,000.
4. Ernie, adopted child of Edward; and (C) P150,000.
5. Felix, grandson of Floro. (D) P200,000.
(E) None of the above.
The net value of Armand's estate is Pl,200,000.
(1) How much do Benny and Bonnie stand to inherit by right of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
representation? (1%) (A) 0 or (E) None of the above. The legal relationship created by adoption
(A) P200,000 is strictly between the adopter and the adopted. It does not extend to the
(B) P300,000 relatives of either party (Sayson v. CA, G.R. Nos. 89224-25, Jan 23, 1992).
(C) P400,000 (Note: “E. None of the above’” is another answer because Ernie has no
(D) P150,000 share at all in the net estate).
(E) None of the above.
(4) How much is Felix's share in the net estate? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (A) P400,000.
(E) None of the above. If all the brothers/sisters are disqualified to inherit, (B) P150,000.
the nephews/nieces inherit per capita, and not by right of representation (C) P300,000.
(Art 975, Civil Code) (D) P0.
(E) None of the above.
(2) How much is Dante's share in the net estate? (1%)
(A) P150,000. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(B) P200,000. (D) 0. Or (E) None of the above. In the collateral line, representation is
(C) P300,000. granted only to children of brother or sisters, Felix is a grandson of a
(D) P400,000. predeceased brother. (Note: “E. None of the above: is another answer
(E) None of the above.
because Felix has no share at all in the net estate)

Page 30 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
govern its testamentary provisions if the will is executed in China and the
Attestation Clause (2012) property being disposed is located in Indonesia?
Atty. BUKO, a Filipino, executed a will while he was in Spain. The attestation a) Chinese law
clause of the said will does not contain Buko’s signature. It is valid under b) Philippine law
Spanish law. At its probate in Manila, it is being opposed on the ground c) Indonesia law
that the attestation clause does not contain BUKO’s signature. Is the d) Japanese law
opposition correct? Choose the best answer.
a) Yes, because it is a fatal defect. Governing law
b) Yes, the will is not valid under Philippine law. Pedro (Filipino) and his wife Jane (American) executed a joint will in
c) No, attestation clause is not an act of the testator. Canada, where such joint will is valid. In case the joint will is probated in
d) No, the governing law is Spanish law. Japan, what law will govern the formalities of the joint will?
a) American law
Note: The facts do not state the Law observed by the testator in executing b) Philippine law
his will. He could have observed Spanish Law or Philippine Law (see c) Canadian law
comment of Tolentino to Art. 815 NCC in 3Tolentino117, 1992). If he d) Japanese law
observed Spanish Law, the opposition is not correct because the will is
valid under Spanish Law, hence choice (d) is the correct answer. If he Governing law
observed Philippine Law, the opposition is still not correct because A French national revokes his will in Japan where he is domiciled. He then
Philippine Law does not require the testator to sign the Attestation Clause changed his domicile to the Philippines where he died. The revocation of
of his will, said clause not being his act. In such case, choice (c) is the his will in Japan is valid under Japanese law but invalid under Philippine
correct answer). law. The affected heir is a Malaysian national residing in the Philippines.
What law will apply?
Revocation a) Japanese law
Ramon, a Filipino, executed a will in Manila, where he left his house and b) Philippine law
located in BP Homes Parañaque in favor of his Filipino son, Ramgen. c) French law
Ramon’s other children RJ and Ramona, both Turkish nationals, are d) Malaysian law
disputing the bequest to Ramgen. They plotted to kill Ramgen. Ramon
learned of the plot, so he tore his will in two pieces out of anger. Which Governing law
statement is most accurate? The will of a Filipino executed in a foreign country—
a) The mere act of Ramon Sr. is immaterial because the will is still readable. a) cannot be probated in the Philippines;
b) The mere act of tearing the will amounts to revocation. b) may be probated in the Philippines provided that properties in the
c) The tearing of the will may amount to revocation if coupled with intent estate are located in the Philippines;
of revoking it. c) cannot be probated before the death of the testator;
d) The act of tearing the will is material. d) may be probated in the Philippines provided it was executed in
accordance with the laws of the place where the will was executed.
Governing law
If a will is executed by a testator who was born a Filipino citizen but
became naturalized Japanese citizen at the time of his death, what law will
Page 31 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
Requisites of succession b) preterition
The requisites of succession are as follows, except: c) fideicommissary
a) Death of decedent d) disposicion captatoria
b) Transmissible estate
c) Existence and capacity of successor, designated by decedent or Disposicion captatoria
law Any disposition made upon the condition that the heir shall make some
d) Payment of Taxes provision in his will in favor of the testator or of any other person shall be
void. Here, both the condition and the disposition are void. What principle
Attestation clause is being referred to?
The attestation clause contains the following, except: a) reserva troncal
a) the number of pages used; b) preterition
b) that the testator signed or caused another to sign the will and c) fideicommissary
every page thereof in the presence of the instrumental witnesses; d) disposicion captatoria
c) notary public;
d) the instrumental witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all Institution of heirs
the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and one another. In his will, the testator designated X as a legatee to receive P2 million for
the purpose of buying an ambulance that the residents of his Barangay can
Holographic will use. What kind of institution is this?
The following are the formalities required in the execution of holographic (A) a fideicomissary institution.
will, except: (B) a modal institution.
a) Entirely written; (C) a conditional institution.
b) Dated; (D) a collective institution.
c) Signed by testator himself
d) Notarized by a notary public. Intestate succession
The decedent died intestate leaving an estate of P10 million. He left the
Disallowance of wills following heirs: a) Marlon, a legitimate child and b) Cecilia, the legal
The following are the grounds for disallowance of wills, except: spouse. Divide the estate.
a) The formalities required by law have not been complied with. (A) Marlon gets 1/4 and Cecilia gets 3/4.
b) The testator was insane or mentally incapable of making will. (B) Marlon gets 2/3 and Cecilia 1/3.
c) The will was executed through force or under duress, or influence (C) Marlon gets 1/2 and Cecilia gets 1/2.
of fear or threats. (D) Marlon gets 3/4 and Cecilia 1/4.
d) The will contains an attestation clause.
Prohibition from remarrying
Preterition Fernando executed a will, prohibiting his wife Marina from remarrying after
It is the omission in the testator’s will of one, some or all of the compulsory his death, at the pain of the legacy of P100 Million in her favor becoming a
heirs in direct line, whether living at the time of execution of the will or nullity. But a year after Fernando’s death, Marina was so overwhelmed with
born after the death of the testator. What principle is being referred to? love that she married another man. Is she entitled to the legacy, the
a) reserva troncal
Page 32 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
amount of which is well within the capacity of the disposable free portion Administration of property
of Fernando’s estate? A court declared Ricardo, an old bachelor, an absentee and appointed
(A) Yes, since the prohibition against remarrying is absolute, it is Cicero administrator of his property. After a year, it was discovered that
deemed not written. Ricardo had died abroad. What is the effect of the fact of his death on the
(B) Yes, because the prohibition is inhuman and oppressive and administration of his property?
violates Marina’s rights as a free woman. (A) With Ricardo no longer an absentee but a deceased person, Cicero
(C) No, because the nullity of the prohibition also nullifies the legacy. will cease to be administrator of his properties.
(D) No, since such prohibition is authorized by law and is not (B) The administration shall be given by the court having jurisdiction
repressive; she could remarry but must give up the money. over the intestate proceedings to a new administrator whom it will
appoint.
Testamentary disposition (C) Cicero automatically becomes administrator of Ricardo’s estate
The testator executed a will following the formalities required by the law until judicially relieved.
on succession without designating any heir. The only testamentary (D) Cicero’s alienations of Ricardo's property will be set aside.
disposition in the will is the recognition of the testator's illegitimate child
with a popular actress. Is the will valid? Intestate succession
(A) Yes, since in recognizing his illegitimate child, the testator has In the order of intestate succession where the decedent is legitimate, who
made him his heir. is the last intestate heirs or heir who will inherit if all heirs in the higher
(B) No, because the non-designation of heirs defeats the purpose of a level are disqualified or unable to inherit?
will. (A) Nephews and nieces.
(C) No, the will comes to life only when the proper heirs are instituted. (B) Brothers and sisters.
(D) Yes, the recognition of an illegitimate heir is an ample reason for a (C) State.
will. (D) Other collateral relatives up to the 5th degree of consanguinity.

Governing law Testate succession


An Australian living in the Philippines acquired shares of stock worth P10 Joanne married James, a person with no known relatives. Through James'
million in food manufacturing companies. He died in Manila, leaving a hard work, he and his wife Joane prospered. When James died, his estate
legal wife and a child in Australia and a live-in partner with whom he had alone amounted to P100 million. If, in his will, James designates Joanne as
two children in Manila. He also left a will, done according to Philippine his only heir, what will be the free portion of his estate.
laws, leaving all his properties to his live-in partner and their children. What (A) Joanne gets all; estate has no free portion left.
law will govern the validity of the disposition in the will? (B) Joanne gets 1/2; the other half is free portion.
(A) Australia law since his legal wife and legitimate child are (C) Joanne gets 1/3; the remaining 2/3 is free portion.
Australians and domiciled in Australia. (D) Joanne gets 1/4; the remaining 3/4 is free portion.
(B) Australian law since the intrinsic validity of the provisions of a will
is governed by the decedent’s national law.
(C) Philippine law since the decedent died in Manila and he executed
his will according to such law.
(D) Philippine law since the decedent’s properties are in the
Philippines.
Page 33 of 35 Test Bank in Wills
LSG AY 2017-2018
Joint wills Intestate succession
Ric and Josie, Filipinos, have been sweethearts for 5 years. While working in T died intestate, leaving an estate of P9,000,000. He left as heirs three
a European country where the execution of joint wills are allowed, the two legitimate children, namely, A, B, and C. A has two children, D and E. Before
of them executed a joint holographic will where they named each other as he died, A irrevocably repudiated his inheritance from T in a public
sole heir of the other in case either of them dies. Unfortunately, Ric died a instrument filed with the court. How much, if any, will D and E, as A’s
year later. Can Josie have the joint will successfully probated in the children, get from T’s estate?
Philippines? (A) Each of D and E will get P1,500,000 by right of representation since
(A) Yes, in the highest interest of comity of nations and to honor the their father repudiated his inheritance.
wishes of the deceased. (B) Each of D and E will get P2,225,000 because they will inherit from
(B) No, since Philippine law prohibits the execution of joint wills and the estate equally with B and C.
such law is binding on Ric and Josie even abroad. (C) D and E will get none because of the repudiation; "B" and "C" will
(C) Yes, since they executed their joint will out of mutual love and get A’s share by right of accretion.
care, values that the generally accepted principles of international (D) Each of D and E will get P2,000,000 because the law gives them
law accepts. some advantage due to the demise of "A".
(D) Yes, since it is valid in the country where it was executed, applying
the principle of "lex loci celebrationis." Legacy
X owed Y P1.5 million. In his will, X gave Y legacy of P1 million but the will
Waiver of inheritance provided that this legacy is to be set off against the P1.5 million X owed Y.
ML inherited from his father P5 million in legitime but he waived it in a After the set off, X still owed Y P500,000. Can Y still collect this amount?
public instrument in favor of his sister QY who accepted the waiver in (A) Yes, because the designation of Y as legatee created a new and
writing. But as it happened, ML borrowed P6 million from PF before the separate juridical relationship between them, that of testator-
waiver. PF objected to the waiver and filed an action for its rescission on legatee.
the ground that he had the right to ML’s P5million legitime as partial (B) It depends upon the discretion of the probate court if a claim is
settlement of what ML owed him since ML has proved to be insolvent. filed in the testate proceedings.
Does PF, as creditor, have the right to rescind the waiver? (C) No, because the intention of the testator in giving the legacy is to
(A) No, because the waiver in favor of his sister QY amounts to a abrogate his entire obligation to Y.
donation and she already accepted it. (D) No, because X had no instruction in his will to deliver more than
(B) Yes, because the waiver is prejudicial to the interest of a third the legacy of P1 million to Y.
person whose interest is recognized by law.
(C) No, PF must wait for ML to become solvent and, thereafter, sue
him for the unpaid loan.
(D) Yes, because a legitime cannot be waived in favor of a specific heir;
it must be divided among all the other heirs.

Page 34 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018
Notarization of will ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Pepito executed a will that he and 3 attesting witnesses signed following No. 2 .The will is valid and effective.
the formalities of law, except that the Notary Public failed to come. Two
days later, the Notary Public notarized the will in his law office where all Under Article 823(NCC), the legacy given in favor of the son of an
signatories to the will acknowledged that the testator signed the will in the instrumental witness to a will has no effect on the validity of the will.
presence of the witnesses and that the latter themselves signed the will in Hence, the will is valid and effective.
the presence of the testator and of one another. Was the will validly
notarized? ###
(A) No, since it was not notarized on the occasion when the
signatories affixed their signatures on the will.
(B) Yes, since the Notary Public has to be present only when the
signatories acknowledged the acts required of them in relation to
the will.
(C) Yes, but the defect in the mere notarization of the will is not fatal
to its execution.
(D) No, since the notary public did not require the signatories to sign
their respective attestations again.

Notarial will
A executed a 5-page notarial will before a notary public and three
witnesses. All of them signed each and every page of the will.
One of the witnesses was B, the father of one of the legatees to the will.
What is the effect of B being a witness to the will? (1%)
(A) (1). The will is invalidated
(B) (2). The will is valid and effective
(C) (3). The legacy given to B’s child is not valid

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. 3. The legacy given to B's child is not valid.

The validity of the will is not affected by the legacy in favor of the son of an
attesting witness to the will. However, the said legacy is void under Article
823 NCC.

Page 35 of 35 Test Bank in Wills


LSG AY 2017-2018