Primary Navigation...

HomeLaw Notes- Criminal Law- Latest Laws and AmendmentsPH Elections- 2016Case
Digests- 2017- 2016- 2015- 2014Games- Pokemon Revolution OnlineMubi Rebyu- Pinoy Movies Rebyu-
Netflix Original Film Rebyu- Foreign Movies Rebyu- Asian Movies RebyuToys
LAW TECH WORLD

Law, Technology and the World

CIVIL LAW BAR EXAM ANSWERS: SUCCESSION
Published by adminC on May 7, 2013 | Leave a response
Amount of Successional Rights (2004)
Mr.  XT  and  Mrs.  YT  have  been  married  for  20  years. Suppose the wife, YT, died childless, survived
only by her husband, XT. What would be the share of XT from her estate as inheritance? Why? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the Civil Code, the widow or widower is a legal and compulsory heir of the deceased spouse. If the
widow is the only surviving heir, there being no legitimate ascendants, descendants, brothers, and sisters,
nephews and nieces, she gets the entire estate.
Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate relatives (1993)
A is the acknowledged natural child of B who died when A was already 22 years old. When B’s full blood
brother, C, died he (C) was survived by his widow and four children of his other brother D. Claiming that he
is entitled to inherit from his father’s brother C. A brought suit to obtain his share in the estate of C.
Will his action prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the action of A will not prosper. On the premise that B, C and D are legitimate brothers, as an
illegitimate child of B, A cannot inherit in intestacy from C who is a legitimate brother of B. Only the wife of
C in her own right and the legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the children of D as C’s legitimate nephews
inheriting as collateral relatives) can inherit in intestacy. (Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975, Civil Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action of A will not prosper. Being an illegitimate, he is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from
inheriting ab intestato from the legitimate relatives of his father.
Barrier between illegitimate & legitimate relatives (1996)
Cristina the illegitimate daughter of Jose and Maria, died intestate, without any descendant or ascendant.
Her valuable estate is being claimed by Ana, the legitimate daughter of Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate
son of Maria.
Is  either,  both,  or  neither  of  them  entitled  to  inherit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Neither  Ana  nor  Eduardo  is  entitled  to  inherit  of  ab intestato from Cristina. Both are legitimate
relatives of Cristina’s illegitimate parents and therefore they fall under the prohibition prescribed by Art.
992, NCC  (Manuel v. Ferrer, 242 SCRA 477; Diaz v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 427).
Collation (1993)
Joaquin Reyes bought from Julio Cruz a residential lot
of 300 square meters in Quezon City for which Joaquin paid Julio the amount of P300,000.00, When the
deed was about to be prepared Joaquin told Julio that it be drawn in the name of Joaquina Roxas, his
acknowledged natural child. Thus, the deed was so prepared and executed by Julio. Joaquina then built a
house on the lot where she, her husband and children resided. Upon Joaquin’s death, his legitimate
children sought to recover possession and ownership of the lot, claiming that Joaquina Roxas was but a
trustee of their father.
Will the action against Joaquina Roxas prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes,  because  there  is  a  presumed  donation  in  favor  of Joaquina under Art. 1448 of the Civil
Code (Delos  Santos v. Reyes, 27 January 1992, 206 SCRA 437). However, the donation should be collated
to the hereditary estate and the legitime of the other heirs should be preserved.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the action against Joaquina Roxas will prosper, but only to  the  extent  of  the  aliquot  hereditary
rights  of  the legitimate  children  as  heirs.  Joaquina  will  be  entitled  to retain her own share as an
illegitimate child, (Arts. 1440 and 1453. Civil Code; Art. 176, F. C.)
Disinheritance vs.Preterition (1993)
Maria, to spite her husband Jorge, whom she suspected was having an affair with another woman,
executed a will, unknown to him, bequeathing  all  the  properties  she inherited from her parents, to her
sister Miguela. Upon her death, the will was presented for probate. Jorge opposed probate of the will on
the ground that the will was executed by his wife without his knowledge, much less consent, and that it
deprived him of his legitime. After all, he had given her no cause for disinheritance, added Jorge in his
opposition.
How will you rule on Jorge’s opposition to the probate of Maria’s will. If you were the Judge?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge’s opposition should be sustained in part and denied in part. Jorge’s
omission as spouse of Maria is not preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line. Hence, Art. 854 of the
Civil Code does not apply, and the institution of Miguela as heir is valid, but only to the extent of the free
portion of one-half. Jorge is still entitled to one-half of the estate as his legitime  (Art. 1001, Civil Code).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
a) As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge’s opposition should be sustained in part and denied in part. This is
a case of ineffective disinheritance under Art, 918 of the Civil Code, because the omission of the
compulsory heir Jorge by Maria was intentional. Consequently, the institution of Miguela as heir  is  void 
only  insofar  as  the  legitime  of  Jorge  is prejudiced. Accordingly, Jorge is entitled to his legitime of one-
half of the estate, and Miguela gets the other half.
b)  As Judge, I shall rule as follows:    Jorge’s opposition should be sustained. This is a case of preterition
under Article 854 Civil Code, the result of the omission of Jorge as compulsory heir having the same right
equivalent to a legitimate child “in the direct line” is that total intestacy will arise, and Jorge will inherit the
entire estate.
c)  As Judge, I shall rule as follows:  the opposition should be denied since it is predicated upon causes not
recognized by law as grounds for disallowance of a wll, to wit:
1.    that the will was made without his knowledge;
2.    that the will was made without his consent; and
3.   that  it  has  the  effect  of  depriving  him  of  his legitime, which is a ground that goes into the intrinsic
validity of the will and need not be resolved  during  the  probate  proceedings. However, the opposition
may be entertained for, the purpose of securing to the husband his right to the legitime on the theory that
the will constitutes an ineffective disinheritance under Art. 918 of the Civil Code,
d)   As Judge, I shall rule as follows:   Jorge is entitled to receive his legitime from the estate of his wife.  He
was not disinherited in the will even assuming that he gave ground for disinheritance, hence, he is still
entitled to his legitime. Jorge, however, cannot receive anything from the free portion. He cannot claim
preterition as he is not a compulsory heir in the direct line.   There being no preterition, the institution of
the sister was valid and the only right of Jorge is to claim his legitime.
Disinheritance; Ineffective (1999)
Mr. Palma, widower, has three daughters D, D-l and D-2. He executes a Will disinheriting D because she ma
rried a man he did not like, and instituting daughters D-1 and D-2 as his heirs to his entire estate of P
1,000,000.00, Upon Mr, Palma’s death, how should his estate be divided? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
This is a case of ineffective disinheritance because marrying a man that the father did not approve of is not
a ground for disinheriting D. Therefore, the institution of D-l and D-2 shall be annulled insofar as it
prejudices the legitime of D, and the institution of D-l and D-2 shall only apply on the free portion in the
amount of P500,000.00. Therefore, D, D-l and D-2 will get their legitimes of P500.000.00 divided into three
equal parts and D-l and D-2 will get a reduced testamentary disposition of P250,000.00 each. Hence, the
shares will be:
D             P166,666.66
D-l          P166,666.66 + P250.000.00
D-2         P166,666.66 + P250,000.00
Disinheritance; Ineffective; Preterition (2000)
In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1) disinherits his daughter Wilma because “she is disrespectful
towards me and raises her voice talking to me”, 2) omits entirely his spouse Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of
P100,000.00 to his mistress Rosa and P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4) institutes his son Baldo as his
sole heir. How will you distribute his estate of P1,000,000.00?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective because the ground relied upon by the testator does not
constitute maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code. Hence, the testamentary provisions in
the will shall be annulled but only to the extent that her legitime was impaired.
The total omission of Elvira does not constitute preterition because she is not a compulsory heir in the
direct line. Only compulsory heirs in the direct line may be the subject of preterition. Not having been
preterited, she will be entitled only to her legitime.
The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article 1028 for being in consideration of her adulterous relation
with the testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the legacy of 100,000 pesos. The legacy of
50,000 pesos in favor of Ernie  is  not  inofficious  not  having  exceeded  the  free portion. Hence, he shall
be entitled to receive it.
The institution of Baldo, which applies only to the free portion, shall be respected. In sum, the estate of
Lamberto will be distributed as follows:

Baldo—————– 450,000

Wilma————— 250,000

Elvira—————– 250,000

Ernie—————–   50,000

1,000,000

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The   disinheritance   of   Wilma   was   effective   because disrespect of, and raising of voice to, her father
constitute maltreatment under Article 919(6) of the New Civil Code. She is, therefore, not entitled to
inherit anything. Her inheritance  will  go  to  the  other  legal  heirs.  The  total omission of Elvira is not
preterition because she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line. She will receive only her legitime. The
legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article
1028 for being in consideration of her adulterous relation with the testator. She is, therefore, disqualified
to receive the legacy. Ernie will receive the legacy in his favor because it is not inofficious. The institution of
Baldo, which applies only to the free portion, will be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto shall be
distributed as follows:
 Heir                   Legitime                Legacy                  Institution              TOTAL

Baldo 500,000 200.000 700,000

Elvira 250,000 250,000

Ernie 50,000 50,000

TOTAL 750,000 50,000 200,000 1,000,000

ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Same answer as the first Alternative Answer except as to distribution. Justice Jurado solved this problem
differently. In his opinion, the legitime of the heir who was disinherited is distributed among the other
compulsory heirs in proportion to their respective legitimes, while his share in the intestate portion. If any,
is distributed among the other legal heirs by accretion under Article 1018 of the NCC in proportion to their
respective intestate shares. In sum the distribution shall be as follows:
 Heir                     Legitime             Distributionof Wilma’s
                                                              Legitime     Legacy           Institution        TOTAL

Baldo 250,000 125,00 200,00 575,000

0 0 0

Wilm (250.000
a )

Elvira 250,000 125.00 375.000

0

Ernie 50,00 50.000

0

TOTA 500,000 250,00 50,00 200,00 1,000,00

L 0 0 0 0

Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Reserva Troncal (1995)

Isidro  and  Irma,  Filipinos,  both  18  years  of  age,  were passengers of Flight No. 317 of Oriental Airlines.
The plane they  boarded  was  of  Philippine  registry.  While  en  route from Manila to Greece some
passengers hijacked the plane, held the chief pilot hostage at the cockpit and ordered him to fly instead to
Libya. During the hijacking Isidro suffered a heart attack and was on the verge of death. Since Irma was
already eight months pregnant by Isidro, she pleaded to the hijackers to allow the assistant pilot to
solemnize her marriage  with  Isidro.  Soon  after  the  marriage,  Isidro expired. As the plane landed in
Libya Irma gave birth. However, the baby died a few minutes after complete delivery.
Back in the Philippines Irma Immediately filed a claim for inheritance. The parents of Isidro opposed her
claim contending that the marriage between her and Isidro was void ab initio on the following grounds: (a)
they had not given their consent to the marriage of their son; (b) there was no marriage license; (c) the
solemnizing officer had no authority to perform the marriage; and, (d) the solemnizing officer did not file
an affidavit of marriage with the proper civil registrar.
2. Does Irma have any successional rights at all? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2.   Irma succeeded to the estate of Isidro as his surviving spouse to the estate of her legitimate child.
When Isidro died, he was succeeded by his surviving wife Irma, and his legitimate unborn child. They
divided the estate equally between them, the child excluding the parents of Isidro. An unborn child is
considered born for all purposes favorable to it provided it is born later. The child was considered born
because, having an intra-uterine life of more than seven months,  it  lived  for  a  few  minutes  after  its
complete delivery. It was legitimate because it was born within the valid marriage of the parents.
Succession is favorable to it. When the child died, Irma inherited the share of the child. However, the share
of the child in the hands of Irma is subject to reserva troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the child
within the third degree of consanguinity and who belong to the line of Isidro.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the marriage is void. Irma has no successional rights with respect to Isidro but she would have
successional rights with respect to the child.
Heirs; Intestate Heirs; Shares (2003)
Luis   was   survived   by   two   legitimate   children,   two illegitimate children, his parents, and two
brothers. He left an estate of P1 million. Luis died intestate. Who are his intestate heirs, and how much is
the share of each in his estate?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The intestate heirs are the two (2) legitimate children and the two (2) illegitimate children. In intestacy the
estate of the decedent is divided among the legitimate and illegitimate children such that the share of each
illegitimate child is  one – half the share of each legitimate child. Their share are :
For each legitimate child – P333,333.33
For each illegitimate child – P166,666.66
(Article 983, New Civil Code; Article 176, Family Code)
Intestate Succession (1992)
F had three (3) legitimate children: A, B, and C. B has one (1) legitimate child X. C has two (2) legitimate
children: Y and Z.
F and A rode together in a car and perished together at the same time in a vehicular accident, F and A died,
each of them leaving substantial estates in intestacy.
a)  Who are the intestate heirs of F? What are their respective fractional shares?
b) Who  are  the  intestate  heirs  of A? What are their respective fractional shares?
c) If B and C both predeceased F, who are F’s intestate heirs? What are their respective fractional shares?
Do they inherit in their own right or by representation? Explain your answer.
d) If B and C both repudiated their shares in the estate of F who are F’s intestate heirs? What are their
respective fractional shares? Do they inherit in their own right or by representation? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)  B = 1/2
(b)  B = 1/2               Z = 1/4 by representation of C       C= 1/2
Article 982 of the Civil Code provides that grandchildren inherit by right of representation.
(c)  X = 1/2 by representation of B       C=l/2                   Y = 1/4 by representation of C
(d) X – 1/3 in his own right Y- 1/3 in his own right 2 – 1/3 in his own right
Article  977  of  the  Civil  Code  provides  that  heirs  who repudiate their share cannot be represented.
Intestate Succession (1997)
“T” died intestate on 1 September 1997. He was survived by M (his mother), W (his widow), A and B (his
legitimate children), C (his grandson, being the legitimate son of B), D (his  other  grandson,  being  the
son  of  E  who  was  a legitimate son of, and who predeceased, “T”), and F (his grandson, being the son of
G, a legitimate son who repudiated the inheritance from “T”). His distributable net estate is P120.000.00.
How should this amount be shared in intestacy among the surviving heirs?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The legal heirs are A, B, D, and W. C is excluded by B who is still alive. D inherits in representation of E who
predeceased. F is excluded because of the repudiation of G, the predecessor. M is excluded by the
legitimate children of T.  The  answer  may  be  premised  on  two  theories:  the Theory of Exclusion and
the Theory of Concurrence.
Under the Theory of Exclusion the legitimes of the heirs are accorded them and the free portion will be
given exclusively to the legitimate descendants. Hence under the Exclusion Theory:
A will get P20.000.00. and P 13.333.33 (1/3 of the free portion) B will get P 20,000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3
of the free portion) D will get P20.000.00. and P13. 333.33 (1/3 of the free portion) W, the widow is limited
to the legitime of P20.000.00
Under the Theory of Concurrence. In addition to their legitimes, the heirs of A, B, D and W will be given
equal shares in the free portions:
A:  P20.000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1 /4 of the free portion)
B: P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (l/4 of the free portlon) C:  P20,000.00 plus P10.000.00 (1/4 of the free
portion) W:  P20,000.00 plus P10,000.00 (l/4 of the free portion) Alternative Answer: Shares in Intestacy
T – decedent                        Estate: P120.000.00
Survived by:
M – Mother……………………….None
W – Widow………………………..P 30,000.00
A – Son……………………………P 30,000.00
B – Son……………………………P30.000.00
C – Grandson (son of B)………….None
D – Grandson (son of E who predeceased T)…………….P 30,000.00
F  –  Grandson  (son  of  G  who  repudiated  the  Inheritance
from “T”)…………………..None
Explanation:
a)    The mother  (M) cannot inherit from T because under Art.  985  the  ascendants  shall  inherit  in
default  of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased.
b)   The widow’s share is P30.000.00 because under
Art. 996  it  states  that  if  the  widow  or  widower  and legitimate children or descendants are left, the
surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the children,
c)   C has no share because his father is still alive hence succession by representation shall not apply (Art.
975).
d)   D inherits P30.000 which is the share of his father E who predeceased T by virtue of Art. 981 on the
right of representation.
e)   F has no share because his father G repudiated the inheritance. Under Article 977 heirs who repudiate
their share may not be represented.
Intestate Succession (1998)
Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary estate of P1.2 million. He is survived by his widow, three legitimate
children, two legitimate grandchildren sired by a legitimate child who predeceased him, and two
recognized illegitimate children. Distribute the estate in intestacy.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the theory of Concurrence, the shares are as follows: A (legitimate child) = P200,000
B (legitimate child) = P200,000
C (legitimate child) = P200,000
D (legitimate child) = O (predeceased]
E (legitimate child of D) = P100,000 – by right of representation
F (legitimate child of D) = P100,000 – by right of representation
G (illegitimate child) = P100,000 – 1/2 share of the legitimate child H (illegitimate child) = P100,000 – 1/2
share of the legitimate child W (Widow) = P200.000 – same share as legitimate child
ANOTHER ANSWER:
Under the theory of Exclusion the free portion (P300,000) is  distributed  only  among  the  legitimate
children  and  is given  to  them  in  addition  to  their  legitime.  All  other Intestate heirs are entitled only
to their respective legitimes. The distribution is as follows:
Legitime                      Free Portion                      Total
A [legitimate child)           P150.000   +   P 75,000         – P225.000
B {legitimate child)           P150.000   +   P150.000       – P225.000
C (legitimate child)           P150.000   +   P 75.000          – P225.000
D (legitimate child)                0                   0                           0
E (legitimate child of D)     P 75,000   +   P35.500         – P112,500
F (legitimate child of D)      P 75.000   +   P 37.500        – P112,500
G (illegitimate child)           P 75.000             0                -P 75,500
H (illegitimate child)          P 75.000             0                – P 75,500
W (Widow)                       P150,000               0                -P150.000
Intestate Succession (1998)
Tessie died survived by her husband Mario, and two nieces, Michelle and Jorelle, who are the legitimate
children of an elder sister who had predeceased her. The only property she left behind was a house and lot
worth two million pesos, which Tessie and her husband had acquired with the use of Mario’s savings from
his income as a doctor. How much of the property or its value, if any, may Michelle and Jorelle claim as
their hereditary shares?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides, “Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the
widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or
their children to the other half.”
Tessie’s gross estate consists of a house and lot acquired during her marriage, making it part of the
community property. Thus, one-half of the said property would have to be set aside as Mario’s conjugal
share from the community property. The other half, amounting to one million pesos, is her conjugal share
(net estate), and should be distributed to her intestate heirs. Applying the above provision of law, Michelle
and Jorelle, Tessie’s nieces, are entitled to one-half of her conjugal share worth one million pesos, or
500,000 pesos, while the other one-half amounting to P500,000 will go to Mario, Tessie’s surviving spouse.
Michelle and Jorelle are then entitled to P250,000 pesos each as their hereditary share.
Intestate Succession (1999)
Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are childless, met with a serious motor vehicle accident with Mr. Cruz at the wheel
and Mrs. Cruz seated beside him, resulting in the instant death of Mr. Cruz. Mrs. Cruz was still alive when
help came but she also died on the way to the hospital. The couple acquired properties worth One Million
(P1,000,000.00) Pesos during their marriage, which are being claimed by the parents of both spouses in
equal shares. Is the claim of both sets of parents valid and why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No, the claim of both parents is not valid. When Mr. Cruz died, he was succeeded by his wife and his
parents as his intestate heirs who will share his estate equally.     His estate was 0.5 Million pesos which is
his half share in the absolute community amounting to 1 Million Pesos. His wife, will, therefore, inherit
O.25 Million Pesos and his parents will inherit 0.25 Million Pesos.
When Mrs. Cruz died, she was succeeded by her parents as her intestate heirs. They will inherit all of her
estate consisting of her 0.5 Million half share in the absolute community and her 0.25 Million inheritance
from her husband, or a total of 0.750 Million Pesos.
In sum, the parents of Mr. Cruz will inherit 250,000 Pesos while the parents of Mrs. Cruz will inherit
750,000 Pesos.
Intestate Succession (2000)
Eugenio died without issue, leaving several parcels of land in  Bataan.  He  was survived by Antonio, his
legitimate brother; Martina, the only daughter of his predeceased sister Mercedes; and five legitimate
children of Joaquin, another predeceased brother. Shortly after Eugenio’s death, Antonio also died, leaving
three legitimate children. Subsequently, Martina,  the  children  of  Joaquin  and  the  children  of Antonio
executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Eugenio,  dividing  it  among  themselves.  The
succeeding year, a petition to annul the extrajudicial settlement was filed by Antero, an illegitimate son of
Antonio, who claims he is entitled to share in the estate of Eugenio. The defendants filed  a motion to 
dismiss  on the  ground that  Antero  is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting from the 
legitimate  brother of  his  father. How  will  you resolve the motion?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss should be granted. Article 992 does not apply. Antero is not claiming any inheritance
from Eugenio. He is claiming his share in the inheritance of his father consisting of his father’s share in the
inheritance of Eugenio (Dela Merced v. Dela Merced, G.R. No. 126707, 25 February 1999).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It depends. If Antero was not acknowledged by Antonio, the motion to dismiss should be granted because
Antero is not a legal heir of Antonio. If Antero was acknowledged, the motion should be denied because
Article 992 is not applicable. This is because Antero is claiming his inheritance from his illegitimate father,
not from Eugenio.
Intestate Succession; Reserva Troncal (1999)
Mr.  Luna  died,  leaving  an  estate  of  Ten  Million  (P10,000,000.00) Pesos. His widow gave birth to a child
four months after Mr. Luna’s death, but the child died five hours after birth. Two days after the child’s
death, the widow of Mr. Luna also died because she had suffered from difficult childbirth. The estate of Mr.
Luna is now being claimed by his parents, and the parents of his widow. Who is entitled to Mr. Luna’a
estate and why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna as their inheritance from Mrs. Luna, while
the other half will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna as the reservatarios  of  the  reserved  property
inherited  by  Mrs. Luna from her child.
When Mr. Luna died, his heirs were his wife and the unborn child. The unborn child inherited because the
inheritance was favorable to it and it was born alive later though it lived only  for  five  hours.  Mrs.  Luna
inherited  half  of  the  10 Million estate while the unborn child inherited the other half. When the child
died, it was survived by its mother, Mrs. Luna. As the only heir, Mrs. Luna inherited, by operation of law,
the estate of the child consisting of its 5 Million inheritance from Mr. Luna. In the hands of Mrs.
Luna, what she inherited from her child was subject to reserva troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the
child within the third degree of consanguinity and who belong to the family of Mr. Luna, the line where the
property came from.
When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived by her parents as her only heirs. Her parents will inherit her estate
consisting of the 5 Million she inherited from Mr. Luna. The other
5 Million she inherited from her child will be delivered to the parents  of  Mr.  Luna  as  beneficiaries  of 
the  reserved property.
In sum, 5 Million Pesos of Mr. Luna’s estate will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna, while the other 5 Million
Pesos will go to the parents of Mr. Luna as reservatarios.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the child had an intra-uterine life of not less than 7 months, it inherited from the father. In which case,
the estate of 10M will be divided equally between the child and the widow as legal heirs. Upon the death
of the child, its share of 5M shall go by operation of law to the mother, which shall be subject to reserva
troncal. Under Art. 891, the reserva is in favor of relatives belonging to the paternal line  and  who  are
within  3  degrees  from  the  child.  The parents of Mr, Luna are entitled to the reserved portion which is
5M as they are 2 degrees related from child. The 5M inherited by Mrs. Luna from Mr. Luna will be inherited
from her by her parents.
However, if the child had intra-uterine life of less than 7 months,  half of  the  estate of  Mr.  Luna, or 5M, 
will be inherited by the widow (Mrs. Luna), while the other half,
or 5M, will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna. Upon the death of Mrs. Luna, her estate of 5M will be
inherited by her own parents.
Legitime (1997)
“X”, the decedent, was survived by W (his widow). A (his son), B (a granddaughter, being the daughter of
A) and C and D (the two acknowledged illegitimate children of the decedent). “X” died this year (1997)
leaving a net estate of P180,000.00.  All  were  willing to  succeed,  except  A  who repudiated the
inheritance from his father, and they seek your legal advice on how much each can expect to receive as
their respective shares in the distribution of the estate. Give your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The heirs are B, W, C and D. A inherits nothing because of his renunciation. B inherits a legitime of
P90.000.00 as the nearest and only legitimate descendant, inheriting in his own right not by representation
because of A’s renunciation. W gets  a  legitime equivalent  to one-half  (1  /  2)  that  of  B amounting to
P45.000. C and D each gets a legitime equivalent to one-half (1/2) that of B amounting to P45.000.00  each.
But  since  the  total  exceeds  the  entire estate, their legitimes would have to be reduced corresponding
to P22.500.00 each (Art. 895. CC). The total of all of these amounts to P180.000.00.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
INTESTATE SUCCESSION
ESTATE: P180,000.00
W- (widow gets 1/2 share)           P90.000.00   (Art. 998)
A- (son who repudiated his inheritance)        None  ( Art. 977)
B – (Granddaughter)                       None
C – (Acknowledged illegitimate child)         P45.000.00   (Art.998)
D – (Acknowledged illegitimate child)         P45,000.00   (Art. 998)
The acknowledged illegitimate child gets 1/2 of the share of each legitimate child.
Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2003)
Luis   was   survived   by   two   legitimate   children,   two illegitimate children, his parents, and two
brothers. He left an estate of P1 million. Who are the compulsory heirs of Luis, how much is the legitime of
each, and how much is the free portion of his estate,  if any?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The compulsory heirs are the two legitimate children and the two illegitimate children. The parents are
excluded by the   legitimate   children,   while   the   brothers   are   not compulsory heirs at all.
Their respective legitimate are:
a)    The legitime of the two (2) legitimate children is one half  (1/2)  of  the  estate (P500,000.00) to be
divided between them equally, or P250,000.00 each.
b)      The  legitimate  of  each  illegitimate  child  is  one-half (1/2)   the   legitime   of   each   legitimate   
child   or P125,000.00.
c)   Since the total legitime of the compulsory heirs is P750,000.00, the balance of P250,000.00 is the free
portion.
Legitime;  Compulsory  Heirs  vs. Secondary  Compulsory Heirs (2005)
Emil, the testator, has three legitimate children, Tom, Henry and Warlito; a wife named Adette; parents
named Pepe and Pilar; an illegitimate child,  Ramon;  brother,  Mark;  and a sister, Nanette. Since his wife
Adette is well-off, he wants to leave to his illegitimate child as much of his estate as he can legally  do.  His
estate  has  an  aggregate  net  amount  of Pl,200,000.00,  and  all  the  above-named  relatives  are  still
living. Emil now comes to you for advice in making a will. How will you distribute his estate according to his
wishes without violating the law on testamentary succession?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
P600,000.00 — legitime to be divided equally between Tom, Henry and Warlito as the legitimate children.
Each will be entitled to P200,000.00. (Art. 888, Civil Code)
P100,000.00 — share of Ramon the illegitimate child. Equivalent to 1/2 of the share of each legitimate
child. (Art. 176, Family Code)
P200,000.00 — Adette the wife. Her share is equivalent to the share of one legitimate child. (Art. 892, par.
2, Civil Code)
Pepe and Pilar, the parents are only secondary compulsory heirs  and  they  cannot  inherit  if  the  primary 
compulsory heirs (legitimate children) are alive. (Art. 887, par. 2, Civil Code)
Brother Mark and sister Nanette are not compulsory heirs since they are not included in the enumeration
under Article 887 of the Civil Code.
The remaining balance of P300,000.00 is the free portion which can be given to the illegitimate child
Ramon as an instituted heir. (Art. 914, Civil Code) If so given by the decedent, Ramon would receive a total
of P400,000.00.
Preterition (2001)
Because her eldest son Juan had been pestering her for capital to start a business, Josefa gave him
P100,000. Five years later, Josefa died, leaving a last will and testament in which she instituted only her
four younger children as her sole heirs. At the time of her death, her only properly left was P900,000.00 in
a bank. Juan opposed the will on the ground of preterition. How should Josefa’s estate be divided among
her heirs? State briefly the reason(s) for your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was no preterition of the oldest son because the testatrix donated 100,000 pesos to him. This
donation is considered an advance on the son’s inheritance. There being no preterition, the institutions in
the will shall be respected but the legitime of the oldest son has to be completed if he received less.
After collating the donation of P100.000 to the remaining property   of   P900,000,   the   estate   of   the   
testatrix   is P1,000,000. Of this amount, one-half or P500,000, is the legitime of the legitimate children and
it follows that the legitime of one legitimate child is P100,000. The legitime, therefore, of the oldest son is
P100,000. However, since the donation given him was P100,000, he has already received in full his legitime
and he will not receive anything anymore from the decedent. The remaining P900,000, therefore, shall go
to the four younger children by institution in the will, to be divided equally among them. Each will receive
P225,000.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Assuming  that  the  donation  is  valid  as  to  form  and substance,  Juan  cannot  invoke  preterition 
because  he actually  had  received  a  donation  inter  vivos  from  the testatrix (III Tolentino 188,1992 ed.).
He would only have a right to a completion of his legitime under Art. 906 of the Civil Code. The estate
should be divided equally among the five children who will each receive P225,000.00 because the total
hereditary estate, after collating the donation to Juan (Art. 1061, CC), would be P1 million. In the actual
distribution of the net estate, Juan gets nothing while his siblings will get P225,000.00 each.
Preterition; Compulsory Heir (1999)
(a)     Mr, Cruz, widower, has three legitimate children, A, B and C. He executed a Will instituting as his heirs
to his estate  of  One  Million  (P1,000,000.00)  Pesos  his  two children A and B, and his friend F. Upon his
death, how should Mr. Cruz’s estate be divided? Explain.
(b)      In  the  preceding  question,  suppose  Mr.  Cruz instituted his two children A and B as his heirs in his
Will, but gave a legacy of P 100,000.00 to his friend F. How should the estate of Mr, Cruz be divided upon
his death? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Assuming that the institution of A, B and F were to the entire estate, there was preterition of C since C
is a compulsory heir in the direct line. The preterition will result in the total annulment of the institution of
heirs. Therefore, the institution of A, B and F will be set aside and Mr. Cuz’s estate will be divided, as in
intestacy, equally among A, B and C as follows: A – P333,333.33; B – P333.333.33; and C – P333,333.33.
(b) On the same assumption as letter (a), there was preterition of C. Therefore, the institution of A and B is
annulled but the legacy of P100.000.00 to F shall be respected   for   not   being   inofficious.   Therefore,  
the remainder of P900.000.00 will be divided equally among A, B and C.
Proceedings; Intestate Proceedings; Jurisdiction (2004)
In  his  lifetime,  a  Pakistani  citizen,  ADIL,  married  three times under Pakistani law.  When he died an old
widower, he left behind six children, two sisters, three homes, and an estate worth at least 30 million
pesos in the Philippines.  He was born in Lahore but last resided in Cebu City, where he had a mansion and
where two of his youngest children now live and work.   Two of his oldest children are farmers in Sulu,
while the two middle-aged children are employees in Zamboanga City.  Finding that the deceased left no
will, the youngest son wanted to file intestate proceedings before the Regional  Trial Court  of  Cebu  City.    
Two other  siblings objected, arguing that it should be in Jolo before a Shari’a court since his lands are in
Sulu.   But Adil’s sisters in Pakistan want the proceedings held in Lahore before a Pakistani court.
Which court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue for the intestate proceedings?   The law of which
country shall govern succession to his estate?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In so far as the properties of the decedent located in the Philippines are concerned, they are governed by
Philippine law  (Article  16,  Civil  Code).  Under  Philippine  law,  the proper venue for the settlement of the
estate is the domicile of the decedent at the time of his death. Since the decedent last resided in Cebu City,
that is the proper venue for the intestate settlement of his estate.
However, the successional rights to the estate of ADIL are governed by Pakistani law, his national law,
under Article 16 of the Civil Code.
Succession; Death; Presumptive Legitime (1991)
a)    For purposes of succession, when is death deemed to occur or take place?
b)    May succession be conferred by contracts or acts inter vivos? Illustrate.
c)  Is   there   any   law   which   allows   the   delivery   to compulsory heirs of their presumptive legitimes
during the lifetime of their parents? If so, in what instances?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A.    Death as a fact is deemed to occur when it actually takes place. Death is presumed to take place in the
circumstances under Arts. 390-391 of the Civil Code. The time of death is presumed to be at the expiration
of the 10- year period as prescribed by Article 390 and at the moment of disappearance under Article 391.
B.   Under Art. 84 of the Family Code amending Art  130 of the Civil Code, contractual succession is no
longer possible since the law now requires that donations of future property be governed by the provisions
on the testamentary succession and formalities of wills.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
B. In the case of Coronado vs. CA (l91 SCRA 81),it was ruled that no property passes under a will without
its being probated, but may under Article 1058 of the Civil Code
of 1898,  be  sustained  as  a  partition  by  an  act  inter  vivos (Many-Oy vs. CA 144 SCRA 33).
And in the case of Chavez vs. IAC 1191 SCRA 211), it was ruled that  while  the  law prohibits  contracts 
upon future inheritance, the partition by the parent, as provided in
Art. 1080 is a case expressly authorized by law. A person has two options in making a partition of his
estate: either by an act inter vivos or by will. If the partition is by will, it is imperative that such partition
must be executed in accordance with the provisions of the law on wills; if by an act inter vivos, such
partition may even be oral or written, and need not be in the form of a will, provided the legitime is not
prejudiced.
“Where several sisters execute deeds of sale over their 1 /6 undivided  share  of  the  paraphernal
property  of  their mother, in favor of another sister, with their mother not only  giving  her  authority 
thereto  but  even  signing  said deeds, there is a valid partition inter vivos between the mother and her
children which cannot be revoked by the mother. Said deeds of sale are not contracts entered into with
respect to future inheritance.
“It would be unjust for the mother to revoke the sales to a son and to execute a simulated sale in favor of a
daughter who already benefited by the partition.”
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. Yes, under Arts. 51 and 52 of the New Family Code. In case of legal separation, annulment of marriage,
declaration of nullity of marriage and the automatic termination of a subsequent marriage by the
reappearance of the absent spouse, the common or community property of the spouses shall be dissolved
and liquidated.
Art, 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as of
the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities,
unless the parties, by mutual agreement, judicially approved, had already provided for such matters.
The children of their guardian, or the trustee of their property, may ask for the enforcement of the
judgment.
The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate
successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either or both of the parents; but the value
of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as
advances on their legitime.
Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of
the properties of the spouses, and the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in
the appropriate civil registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons.
Wills;  Codicil;  Institution  of  Heirs;  Substitution  of  Heirs (2002)
By  virtue  of  a  Codicil  appended  to  his  will,  Theodore devised to Divino a tract of sugar land, with the
obligation on the part of Divino or his heirs to deliver to Betina a specified volume of sugar per harvest
during Betina’s 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 latter’s heirs and turn it over to Theodore’s
compulsory  heirs.  Divino failed  to fulfill  the obligation under the Codicil. Betina brings suit against Divino
for the reversion of the tract of land.
a)    Distinguish between modal institution and substation of heirs.
b)   Distinguish   between   simple   and   fideicommissary substitution of heirs.
c)   Does Betina have a cause of action against Divino? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A.          A MODAL INSTITUTION is the institution of an heir made for a certain purpose or cause (Arts. 871
and 882,   NCC).   SUBSTITUTION   is   the   appointment   of another heir so that he may enter into the
inheritance in default of the heir originality instituted. (Art. 857,  NCC).
B.        In  a  SIMPLE  SUBSTITUTION  of  heirs,  the testator designates one or more persons to substitute
the heirs instituted in case such heir or heirs should die before him,  or  should  not  wish  or  should  be 
incapacitated  to accept the inheritance. In a FIDEICOMMISSARY SUBSTITUTION, the testator institutes a
first heir and charges him to preserve and transmit the whole or part of the inheritance to a second heir. In
a simple substitution, only one heir inherits. In a fideicommissary substitution, both the first and second
heirs inherit. (Art. 859 and 869, NCC)
C.     Betina has a cause of action against Divino. This is a case of a testamentary disposition subject to a
mode and the will itself provides for the consequence if the mode is not complied with. To enforce the
mode, the will itself gives Betina the right to compel the return of the property to the heirs of
Theodore. (Rabadilla v. Conscoluella, 334 SCRA 522 [2000] G.R. No. 113725, 29 June 2000).
Wills; Formalities (1990)
(1)  If  a will  is  executed  by a testator who is 
a Filipino citizen, what law will govern if the will is executed in the Philippines? What law will govern if the
will is executed in another country? Explain your answers.
(2)  If  a  will  is  executed  by  a  foreigner,  for  instance,  a Japanese, residing in the Philippines, what law
will govern if the will is executed in the Philippines? And what law will govern  if  the  will  is  executed  in
Japan,  or  some  other country, for instance, the U.S.A.? Explain your answers.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) a. If the testator who is a Filipino citizen executes his will in the Philippines, Philippine law will govern
the formalities.
b. If said Filipino testator executes his will in another country,  the  law  of  the  country  where  he  maybe
or Philippine law will govern the formalities. (Article 815, Civil Code)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2) a. If the testator is a foreigner residing in the Philippines and he executes his will in the Philippines, the
law of the country  of  which  he  is  a  citizen  or  Philippine  law  will govern the formalities.
b. If the testator is a foreigner and executes his will in a foreign country, the law of his place of residence or
the law of the country of which he is a citizen or the law of the place of execution, or Philippine law will
govern the formalities (Articles 17, 816, 817, Civil Code).
POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
a.  In the case of a Filipino citizen, Philippine law shall govern substantive validity whether he executes his
will in the Philippines or in a foreign country.
b. In the case of a foreigner, his national law shall govern substantive validity whether he executes his will
in the Philippines or in a foreign country.
Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions &Cancellations (1996)
Vanessa   died   on   April   14,   1980,   leaving   behind   a holographic will which is entirely written, dated
and signed in her own handwriting. However, it contains insertions and cancellations which are not
authenticated by her signature. For this reason, the probate of Vanessa’s will was opposed by her relatives
who stood to inherit by her intestacy.
May  Vanessa’s  holographic  will  be  probated?  Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the will as originally written may be probated. The insertions  and alterations  were  void since they 
were  not authenticated by the full signature of Vanessa, under Art.
814, NCC. The original will, however, remains valid because a holographic will is not invalidated by the
unauthenticated insertions or alterations (Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 468).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It depends. As a rule, a holographic will is not adversely affected by Insertions or cancellations which were
not authenticated by the full signature of the testator (Ajero v.CA, 236 SCRA 468).However, when the
insertion or cancellation amounts to revocation of the will, Art.814 of the NCC does not apply but Art. 830.
NCC. Art. 830 of the NCC does not require the testator to authenticate his cancellation for the effectivity of
a revocation effected through such cancellation (Kalaw v. Relova, 132    SCRA 237). In the Kalaw case, the
original holographic will designated only one heir as the only substantial provision which was altered by
substituting the original heir with another heir. Hence, if the unauthenticated cancellation amounted to a
revocation of the will, the will may not be probated because it had already been revoked.
Wills; Holographic Wills; Witnesses (1994)
On his deathbed, Vicente was executing a will. In the room were Carissa, Carmela, Comelio and Atty.
Cimpo, a notary public.  Suddenly,  there  was a  street  brawl  which  caught Comelio’s  attention, 
prompting  him  to  look  out  the window. Cornelio did not see Vicente sign a will. Is the will valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a)   Yes, The will is valid. The law does not require a witness to actually see the testator sign the will.    It is
sufficient if the  witness  could  have  seen  the  act  of  signing  had  he chosen to do so by casting his eyes
to the proper direction.
b)   Yes, the will is valid. Applying the “test of position”, although Comelio did not actually see Vicente sign
the will, Cornelio was in the proper position to see Vicente sign if Cornelio so wished.
Wills; Joint Wills (2000)
Manuel, a Filipino, and his American wife Eleanor, executed a Joint Will in Boston, Massachusetts when
they were residing in said city. The law of Massachusetts allows the execution of   joint  wills.  Shortly 
thereafter,  Eleanor died. Can the said Will be probated in the Philippines for the settlement of her estate?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the will may be probated in the Philippines insofar as the estate of Eleanor is concerned. While the
Civil Code prohibits the execution of Joint wills here and abroad, such prohibition applies only to Filipinos.
Hence, the joint will which is valid where executed is valid in the Philippines but only with respect to
Eleanor. Under Article 819, it is void with respect to Manuel whose joint will remains void in the Philippines
despite being valid where executed.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The will cannot be probated in the Philippines, even though valid where executed, because it is prohibited
under Article 818 of the Civil Code and declared void under Article 819. The prohibition should apply even
to the American wife because   the   Joint   will   is   offensive   to   public   policy. Moreover, it is a single
juridical act which cannot be valid as to one testator and void as to the other.
Wills; Probate; Intrinsic Validity (1990)
H died leaving a last will and testament wherein it is stated that he was legally married to W by whom he
had two legitimate children A and B. H devised to his said forced heirs the entire estate except the free
portion which he gave to X who was living with him at the time of his death.
In said will he explained that he had been estranged from his wife W for more than 20 years and he has
been living with X as man and wife since his separation from his legitimate family.
In the probate proceedings, X asked for the issuance of letters testamentary in accordance with the will
wherein she is named sole executor. This was opposed by W and her children.
(a)  Should the will be admitted in said probate proceedings? (b)  Is the said devise to X valid?
(c)  Was it proper for the trial court to consider the intrinsic validity of the provisions of said will? Explain
your answers.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)  Yes, the will may be probated if executed according to the formalities prescribed by law.
(b)   The institution giving X the free portion is not valid, because the prohibitions under Art. 739 of the Civil
Code on   donations   also   apply   to   testamentary   dispositions (Article 1028, Civil Code), Among
donations which are considered void are those made between persons who were guilty  of  adultery  or 
concubinage  at  the  time  of  the donation.
(c)   As a general rule, the will should be admitted in probate proceedings if all the necessary requirements
for its extrinsic validity have been met and the court should not consider the intrinsic validity of the
provisions of said will. However, the exception arises when the will in effect contains only one
testamentary  disposition.  In  effect,  the  only testamentary disposition under the will is the giving of the
free  portion  to  X,  since  legitimes  are  provided  by  law. Hence, the trial court may consider the intrinsic
validity of the provisions of said will. (Nuguid v.Nuguid, et
al., No.L- 23445, June 23, 1966, 17 SCRA; Nepomuceno v. CA, L-62952, 9 October 1985. 139 SCRA 206).
Wills; Probate; Notarial and Holographic Wills (1997)
Johnny, with no known living relatives, executed a notarial will giving all his estate to his sweetheart. One
day, he had a serious altercation with his sweetheart. A few days later, he was introduced to a charming
lady who later became a dear friend. Soon after, he executed a holographic will expressly revoking the
notarial will and so designating his new friend as sole heir. One day when he was clearing up his desk,
Johnny mistakenly burned, along with other papers, the only copy  of  his  holographic  will.  His  business 
associate, Eduardo  knew  well  the  contents  of  the  will  which  was shown to him by Johnny the day it
was executed. A few days  after  the  burning  incident,  Johnny  died.  Both  wills were sought to be
probated in two separate petitions.
Will either or both petitions prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The   probate   of   the   notarial   will   will   prosper.   The holographic will cannot be admitted to probate
because a holographic will can only be probated upon evidence of the will itself unless there is a
photographic copy. But since the holographic will was lost and there was no other copy, it cannot be
probated and therefore the notarial will will be admitted to probate because there is no revoking will.
ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
1. In the case of Ganvs.Yap (104 Phil 509),the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed
holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen or read such will.
The will itself must be presented otherwise it shall produce no effect. The law regards the document itself
as material proof of authenticity. Moreover, in order that a will may be revoked by a subsequent will, it is
necessary that the latter will be valid and executed with the formalities  required  for  the  making  of  a
will.  The  latter should possess all the requisites of a valid will whether it be ordinary or a holographic will,
and should be probated in order that the revocatory clause thereof may produce effect. In the case at bar,
since the holographic will itself cannot be presented, it cannot therefore be probated. Since it cannot be
probated, it cannot revoke the notarial will previously written by the decedent.
2. On the basis of the Rules of Court, Rule 76, Sec. 6, provides that no will shall be proved as a lost or
destroyed will unless its provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by at least two (2) credible witnesses.
Hence, if we abide strictly by the two-witness rule to prove a lost or destroyed will, the holographic will
which Johnny allegedly mistakenly burned, cannot  be  probated,  since  there  is  only  one  witness,
Eduardo, who can be called to testify as to the existence of the will. If the holographic will, which
purportedly, revoked the earlier notarial will cannot be proved because of the absence of the required
witness, then the petition for the probate of the notarial will should prosper.
Wills; Revocation of Wills; Dependent Relative Revocation (2003)
Mr. Reyes executed a will completely valid as to form. A week  later, however, he executed another will
which expressly revoked his first will, which he tore his first will to pieces. Upon the death of Mr. Reyes, his
second will was presented for probate by his heirs, but it was denied probate due to formal defects.
Assuming that a copy of the first will is available, may it now be admitted to probate and given effect?
Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the first will may be admitted to probate and given effect. When the testator tore first will, he was
under the mistaken belief that the second will was perfectly valid and he would not have destroyed the
first will had he known that  the  second  will  is  not  valid.  The  revocation  by destruction therefore is
dependent on the validity of the second will. Since it turned out that the second will was invalid, the
tearing of the first will did not produce the effect  of  revocation.  This  is  known  as  the  doctrine  of
dependent relative revocation (Molo v. Molo, 90 Phil 37).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
No, the first will cannot be admitted to probate. While it is true  that  the  first  will  was  successfully
revoked  by  the second  will  because  the  second  will  was  later  denied probate, the first will was,
nevertheless, revoked when the testator destroyed it after executing the second invalid
will. (Diaz v.De Leon, 43 Phil 413 [1922]).
Wills; Testamentary Disposition (2006)
Don died after executing a Last Will and Testament leaving his estate valued at P12 Million to his common-
law wife Roshelle. He is survived by his brother Ronie and his half- sister Michelle.
(1) Was Don’s testamentary disposition of his estate in accordance with the laws on succession? Whether
you agree or not, explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Don’s testamentary disposition of his estate is in accordance with the law on
succession. Don has no compulsory heirs not having ascendants, descendants nor a spouse [Art. 887, New
Civil Code]. Brothers and sisters are not compulsory heirs. Thus, he can bequeath his entire estate to
anyone who is not otherwise incapacitated to inherit from him. A common-law wife is not incapacitated
under the law, as Don is not married to anyone.
(2) If Don failed to execute a will during his lifetime, as his lawyer, how will you distribute his estate?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
After paying the legal obligations of the estate, I will give Ronie, as full-blood brother of Don, 2/3 of the net
estate, twice the share of Michelle, the half- sister who shall receive 1/3. Roshelle will not receive anything
as she is not a legal heir [Art. 1006 New Civil Code].
(3) Assuming he died intestate, survived by his brother Ronie, his half-sister Michelle, and his legitimate
son Jayson, how will you distribute his estate? Explain.
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.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jayson will still be entitled to the entire P12 Million as the father, brother and sister will be excluded by a
legitimate son of the decedent [Art. 887, New Civil Code]. This follows the principle that the descendants
exclude the ascendants from inheritance.
Wills; Testamentary Intent (1996)
Alfonso, a bachelor without any descendant or ascendant, wrote a last will and testament in which he
devised.” all the properties of which I may be possessed at the time of my death” to his favorite brother
Manuel. At the time he wrote the will, he owned only one parcel of land. But by the time he  died,  he 
owned  twenty  parcels  of  land.  His  other brothers and sisters insist that his will should pass only the
parcel of land he owned at the time it was written, and did not cover his properties acquired, which should
be by intestate succession. Manuel claims otherwise.
Who is correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Manuel is correct because under Art. 793, NCC, property acquired after the making of a will shall only pass
thereby, as if the testator had possessed it at the time of making the will, should it expressly appear by the
will that such was his intention. Since Alfonso’s intention to devise all properties he owned at the time of
his death expressly appears on the will,  then all  the  20  parcels  of land  are  included  in the devise.
From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in CIVIL LAW by the UP LAW COMPLEX
and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS.