1. Disposition; Mortis Causa vs.

Intervivos;

she can inherit only by testamentary succession.

Corpse (2009)

Since Raymond executed a will in the case at bar,

TRUE or FALSE. A person can dispose of his corpse

Scarlet may inherit from Raymond.

through an act intervivos. (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. A persons cannot

3.

Heirs;

Intestate

dispose of his corpse through an act inter vivos, i.e.,

Computation (2010)

an act to take effect during his lifetime. Before his

The spouses Peter and Paula had three (3) children.

death there is no corpse to dispose. But he is allowed

Paula

to do so through an act mortis causa, i.e., an act to

marriage. Their absolute community of property

take effect upon his death.

having been dissolved, they delivered P1 million to

later

obtained

Succession;

judgment

of

Legitime;

nullity

of

each of their 3 children as their presumptive

2. Heirs; Fideicommissary Substitution (2008)

legitimes. Peter later re-married and had two (2)

Raymond, single, named his sister Ruffa in his will as

children by his second wife Marie. Peter and Marie,

a devisee of a parcel of land which he owned. The

having successfully engaged in business, acquired

will imposed upon Ruffa the obligation of preserving

real properties. Peter later died intestate.

the land and transferring it, upon her death, to her

illegitimate daughter Scarlet who was then only one

(A). Who are Peters legal heirs and how will his

year old. Raymond later died, leaving behind his

estate be divided among them? (5%)

widowed mother, Ruffa and Scarlet.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The legal heirs of Peter are

his children by the first and second marriages and his

(A). Is the condition imposed upon Ruffa, to preserve

surviving second wife.

the property and to transmit it upon her death to

Their shares in the estate of Peter will

Scarlet, valid? (1%)

depend, however, on the cause of the nullity of the

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the condition imposed

first marriage. If the nullity of the first marriage was

upon Ruffa to preserve the property and to transmit

psychological incapacity of one or both spouses, the

it upon her death to Scarlet is valid because it is

three children of that void marriage are legitimate

tantamount to fideicommissary substitution under

and all of the legal heirs shall share the estate of

Art. 863 of the Civil Code.

Peter in equal shares. If the judgment of nullity was

for other causes, the three children are illegitimate

(B). If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, who inherits the

and the estate shall be distributed such that an

property? (2%)

illegitimate child of the first marriage shall receive

SUGGESTED

the

half of the share of a legitimate child of the second

property as Scarlet's heir. Scarlet acquires a right to

ANSWER:

Ruffa

will

inherit

marriage, and the second wife will inherit a share

the succession from the time of Raymond's death,

equal to that of a legitimate child. In no case may the

even though she should predecease Ruffa (Art. 866,

two legitimate children of the second marriage

Civil Code).

receive a share less than one-half of the estate which

is their legitime. When the estate is not sufficient to

(C). If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, can Scarlet

pay all the legitimes of the compulsory heirs, the

inherit the property directly from Raymond? (2%)

legitime

SUGGESTED
Raymond,

ANSWER:

Raymond's

If

Ruffa

widowed

predeceases

mother

will

of

the

spouse

is

preferred

and

the

illegitimate children suffer the reduction.

be

entitled to the inheritance. Scarlet, an illegitimate

Computation:

child,

(A) If the ground of nullity is psychological incapacity:

cannot

inherit

the property

succession from Raymond

by

intestate

who is a legitimate

relative of Ruffa (Art. 992, Civil Code). Moreover,

Scarlet is not a compulsory heir of Raymond, hence

children

marriage

by

first

1/6 of the estate for

each

2 children by second

1/6 of the estate for

father, Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel correct?

marriage

each

Why? (5%)

1/6 of the estate

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, his opposition is not

Surviving

second

spouse

correct. Arnel cannot inherit from Ricky in the

(B) If the ground of nullity is not psychological

representation of his father Franco. In representation,

capacity:

the representative must not only be a legal heir of

2 legitimate children

Surviving

second

of the estate for

the person he is representing, he must also be a

each

legal heir of the decedent he seeks to inherit from.

of

second

marriage

While Arnel is a legal heir of Franco, he is not a legal

of the estate

heir of Ricky because under Art 992 of the NCC, an

illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato

spouse
3 illegitimate children

1/12 of estate for each

from the legitimate children and relatives of his

of first marriage

father or mother. Arnel is disqualified to inherit from

Ricky because Arnel is an illegitimate child of Franco

Note: The legitime of an illegitimate child is supposed

and Ricky is a legitimate relative of Franco.

to be the legitime of a legitimate child or 1/8 of the

estate. But the estate will not be sufficient to pay the

5. Heirs; Reserva Troncal (2009)

said legitime of the 3 illegitimate children, because

TRUE or FALSE. In reservatroncal, all reservatarios

only of the estate is left after paying the legitime

(reservees) inherit as a class and in equal shares

of the surviving spouse which is preferred. Hence,

regardless of their proximity in degree to the

the remaining of the estate shall be divided among

prepositus. (1%)

the 3 illegitimate children.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: FALSE. Not all the relatives

within the third degree will inherit as reservatario ,

(B). What is the effect of the receipt by Peters 3

and not all those who are entitled to inherit will

children by his first marriage of their presumptive

inherit in the equal shares . The applicable laws of

legitimes on their right to inherit following Peters

intestate succession will determine who among the

death? (5%)

relatives will inherit as reservatarios and what shares

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In the distribution of

they will tak, i.e., the direct line excludes the

Peters estate, of the presumptive received by the

collateral, the descending direct line excludes the

3 children of the first marriage shall be collated to

ascending, the nearer excludes the more remote, the

Peters estate and shall be imputed as an advance of

nephews and nieces exclude the uncles and the

their respective inheritance from Peter. Only half of

aunts, and half blood relatives inherit half the share

the presumptive legitime is collated to the estate of

of fullblooded relatives.

Peter because the other half shall be collated to the

estate of his first wife.

6. Intestate Succession (2008)

Ramon Mayaman died intestate, leaving a net estate

4.

Heirs;

Representation;

Iron-Curtain

Rule

(2012)

of P10,000,000.00. Determine how much each heir

will receive from the estate:

Ricky and Arlene are married. They begot Franco

during

their

marriage.

Franco

had

an

illicit

(A). If Ramon is survived by his wife, three full-blood

relationship with Audrey and out of which, they begot

brothers, two half-brothers, and one nephew (the son

Arnel. Frnaco predeceased Ricky, Arlene and Arnel.

of a deceased full-blood brother)? Explain. (3%)

Before Ricky died, he executed a will which when

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Having died intestate, the

submitted to probate was opposed by Arnel on the

estate of Ramon shall be inherited by his wife and his

ground that he should be given the share of his

full

and

half-blood

siblings

or

their

respective

representatives. In intestacy, if the wife concurs with

no one but the siblings of the husband, all of them

the signatures, at the bottom thereof, of the 3

are the intestate heirs of the deceased husband. The

instrumental witnesses which included Lambert, the

wife will receive half of the intestate estate, while the

driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and Attorney

siblings or their respective representatives, will

Zorba, the lawyer who prepared the will. There was a

inherit the other half to be divided among them

3rd page, but this only contained the notarial

equally. If some siblings are of the full-blood and the

acknowledgement. The attestation clause stated the

other of the half blood, a half blood sibling will

will was signed on the same occasion by Arthur and

receive half the share of a full-blood sibling.

his instrumental witnesses who all signed in the

(1). The wife of Ramon will, therefore, receive one

presence of each other, and the notary public who

half

notarized the will. There are no marginal signatures

()

of

the

estate

or

the

amount

of

P5,000,000.00.

or pagination appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon

(2). The three full-blood brothers, will, therefore,

his death, it was discovered that apart from the

receive P1,000,000.00 each.

house and lot, he had a P 1 million account deposited

(3). The nephew will receive P1,000,000.00 by right

with ABC bank.

of representation.
(4).

The

two

(2)

half-brothers

will

receive

P500,000.00 each.

(A). How should the house and lot, and the cash be
distributed? (1%)

(B). If Ramon is survived by his wife, a half-sister, and

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Since the probate of the will

three

cannot be allowed, the rules on intestate succession

nephews

(sons

of

deceased

full-blood

brother)? Explain. (3%)

apply. Under Art. 996 of the Civil Code, if a widow or

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The wife will receive one

widower and legitimate children or descendants are

half (1/2) of the estate or P5,000,000.00. The other

left, the surviving spouse has the same share as of

half shall be inherited by:

the children. Thus, ownership over the house and lot

(1) the full-blood brother, represented by his three

will be created among wife Erica and her children

children, and (2) the half-sister. They will divide the

Bernice, Connie and Dora. Similarly, the amount of P

other half between them such that the share of the

1 million will be equally divided among them.

half-sister is just half the share of the full-blood

brother. The share of the full-blood brother shall in

8.

turn be inherited by the three nephews in equal

Representation:

Intestate

Succession;

shares by right of presentation. Therefore, the three

Iron Curtain Rule (2007)

nephews will receive P1,111,111.10 each the half-

For purpose of this question, assume all formalities

sister will receive the sum of P1,666,666.60.

and procedural requirements have been complied

Illegitimate,

Rights
Adopted

of
Child;

with.
7. Intestate Succession (2008)

In 1970, Ramon and Dessa got married. Prior to their

Arthur executed a will which contained only: (i) a

marriage, Ramon had a child, Anna. In 1971 and

provision

for

1972, Ramon and Dessa legally adopted Cherry and

running off with a married man, and (ii) a provision

disinheriting

his

daughter

Bernica

Michelle respectively. In 1973, Dessa died while

disposing of his share in the family house and lot in

giving birth to Larry Anna had a child, Lia. Anna

favor of his other children Connie and Dora. He did

never married. Cherry, on the other hand, legally

not make any provisions in favor of his wife Erica,

adopted Shelly. Larry had twins, Hans and Gretel,

because as the will stated, she would anyway get

with his girlfriend, Fiona. In 2005, Anna, Larry and

of the house and lot as her conjugal share. The will

Cherry died in a car accident. In 2007, Ramon died.

was very brief and straightforward and both the

Who may inherit from Ramon and who may not? Give

above provisions were contained in page 1, which

your reason briefly. (10%)

Arthur and his instrumental witness, signed at the

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The following may inherit

bottom. Page 2 contained the attestation clause and

from Ramon:

(1). Michelle, as an adopted child of Ramon, will

adopted child of Cherry. In representation, the

inherit as a legitimate child of Ramon. As an adopted

representative must not only be a legal heir of the

child, Michelle has all the rights of a legitimate child

person he is representing but also of the decedent

(Sec 18, Domestic Adoption Law).

from whom the represented person is supposed to

(2). Lia will inherit in representation of Anna.

inherit. In the case of Shelly, while she is a legal heir

Although Lia is an illegitimate child, she is not barred

of Cherry by virtue of adoption, she is not a legal heir

by Articles 992, because her mother Anna is an

of Ramon. Adoption creates a personal legal relation

illegitimate herself. She will represent Anna as

only between the adopting parent and the adopted

regards Anna's legitime under Art. 902, NCC and as

child (Teotico v. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406, 1965. Michelle

regards Anna's intestate share under Art. 990, NCC.

cannot

inherit

from

Ramon,

because

she

was

adopted not by Ramon but by Dessa. In the eyes of

The following may not inherit from Ramon:

the law, she is not related to Ramon at all. Hence,

(1). Shelly, being an adopted child, she cannot

she is not a legal heir of Ramon. Hans and Gretel are

represent Cherry. This is because adoption creates a

not entitled to inherit from Ramon, because they are

personal legal relation only between the adopter and

barred by Art. 992 NCC. Being illegitimate children of

the adopted. The law on representation requires the

Larry,

representative to be a legal heir of the person he is

relatives of their father Larry. Ramon is a legitimate

representing and also of the person from whom the

relative of Larry who is the legitimate father.

they

cannot

inherit

from

the

legitimate

person being represented was supposed to inherit.

While Shelly is a legal heir of Cherry, Shelly is not a

9. Legitimes; Compulsory Heirs (2012)

legal heir of Ramon. Adoption created a purely

How can RJP distribute his estate by will, if his heirs

personal legal relation only between Cherry and

are JCP, his wife; HBR and RVC, his parents; and an

Shelly.

illegitimate child, SGO?

(2). Hans and Gretel are barred from inheriting from

SUGGESTED ANSWER: A testator may dispose of

Ramon under Art. 992, NCC. Being illegitimate

by will the free portion of his estate. Since the

children, they cannot inherit ab intestao from Ramon.

legitime of JCP is 1/8 of the estate, SGO is of the

estate and that of HBR and RVC is of the

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

hereditary estate under Art 889 of the NCC, the

The problem expressly mentioned the dates of the

remaining 1/8 of the estate is the free portion which

adoption of Cherry and Michelle as 1971 and 1972.

the testator may dispose of by will.

During that time, adoption was governed by the New

Civil Code. Under the New Civil Code, husband and
wife were allowed to adopt separately or not jointly

10. Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2008)

with the other spouse. And since the problem does

Ernesto, an overseas Filipino worker, was coming

not specifically and categorically state, it is possible

home to the Philippines after working for so many

to construe the use of the word "respectively" in the

years in the Middle East. He had saved P100.000 in

problem as indicative of the situation that Cherry was

his saving account in Manila which intended to use to

adopted by Ramon alone and Michelle was adopted

start a business in his home country. On his flight

by Dessa alone. In such case of separate adoption

home, Ernesto had a fatal heart attack. He left

the alternative answer to the problem will be as

behind his widowed mother, his common-law wife

follows:

in

and their twins sons. He left no will, no debts, no

Only

representation

Lia
of

will

inherit

Ramon's

from

illegitimate

Ramon

daughter

other relatives and no other properties except the

Anna. Although Lia is an illegitimate child, she is not

money in his saving account. Who are the heirs

barred from inheriting from Ramon because her

entitled to inherint from him and how much should

mother is herself illegitimate. Shelly cannot inherit in

each receive? (3%)

representation of Cherry because Shelly is just an

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The mother and twin sons are entitled to inherit from

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The other defects of the will

Ernesto. Art. 991 of the Civil Code, provides that if

that can cause its denial are as follows: (a) Atty.

legitimate ascendants are left, the twin sons shall

Zorba, the one who prepared the will was one of the

divide the inheritance with them taking one-half of

three witnesses, violating the three-witnesses rule;

the

gets

(b) no marginal signature at the last page; (c ) the

estate.

P50,000.00

Thus,
while

the
the

widowed
twin

sons

mother

receive

attestation did not state the number of pages upon

P25,000.00 each. The common-law wife cannot

shall

which the will is written; and, (d) no pagination

inherit from him because when the law speaks

appearing correlatively in letters on the upper part of

"widow or widower" as a compulsory heir, the law

the three pages (Azuela v. C.A., G.R. No. 122880, 12

refers to a legitimate spouse (Art. 887, par 3, Civil

Apr 2006 and cited cases therein, Art 805 and 806,

Code).

Civil Code).

11. Preterition; Disinheritance (2008)

(C). Was the disinheritance valid? (1%)

Arthur executed a will which contained only: (i) a

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the disinheritance was

provision

for

valid. Art. 919, par 7, Civil Code provides that "when

running off with a married man, and (ii) a provision

a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or

disposing of his share in the family house and lot in

disgraceful life, like running off with a married man,

favor of his other children Connie and Dora. He did

there is sufficient cause for disinheritance."

disinheriting

his

daughter

Bernica

not make any provisions in favor of his wife Erica,

because as the will stated, she would anyway get

12.

of the house and lot as her conjugal share. The will

persons called to succeed each other (2008)

Succession;

Proof

of

Death

between

was very brief and straightforward and both the

At age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant.

above provisions were contained in page 1, which

She insured her own life and named her unborn child

Arthur and his instrumental witness, signed at the

as her sole beneficiary. When she was already due to

bottom. Page 2 contained the attestation clause and

give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the father of

the signatures, at the bottom thereof, of the 3

her unboarn child, were kidnapped in a resort in

instrumental witnesses which included Lambert, the

Bataan where they were vacationing. The military

driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and Attorney

gave chase and after one week, they were found in

Zorba, the lawyer who prepared the will. There was a

an abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were

3rd page, but this only contained the notarial

hacked with bolos. Marian and the baby delivered

acknowledgement. The attestation clause stated the

were both found dead, with the baby's umbilical cord

will was signed on the same occasion by Arthur and

already cut. Pietro survived.

his instrumental witnesses who all signed in the

presence of each other, and the notary public who

(A). Between Marian and the baby, who is presumed

notarized the will. There are no marginal signatures

to have died ahead? (1%)

or pagination appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Marian is presumed to have

his death, it was discovered that apart from the

died ahead of the baby. Art. 43 applies to persons

house and lot, he had a P 1 million account deposited

who are called to succeed each other. The proof of

with ABC bank.

death

(A). Was Erica preterited? (1%)

circumstantial evidence derived from facts. It can

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Erica cannot be preterited.

never be established from mere inference. In the

Art. 854 of the Civil Code provides that only

present case, it is very clear that only Marian and

compulsory heirs in the direct line can be preterited.

Pietro were hacked with bolos. There was no showing

must

be

established

by

positive

or

that the baby was also hacked to death. The baby's

(B). What other defects of the will, if any, can cause
denial of probate? (2%)

death could have been due to lack of nutrition.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The baby is presumed to

children of Dr. Lopez . Marilyn cannot represent her

have died ahead of Marian. Under Par. 5, rule 131,

husband Roberto because the right is not given by

Sec. 5 (KK) of the Rules of Court, if one is under 15 or

the law to a surviving spouse. As to the proceeds of

above 60 and the age of the other is in between 15

the insurance on the life of Dr. Lopez:

and 60, the latter is presumed to have survived. In

Since succession is not involved as regards the

the instant case, Marian was already 18 when she

insurance contract, the provisions of the Rules of

found out that she was pregnant. She could be of the

Court (Rule 131, Sec. 3 , [jj] [5] ) on survivorship shall

same age or maybe 19 years of age when she gave

apply. Under the Rules, Dr. Lopez, who was 70 years

birth.

old, is presumed to have died ahead of Roberto who

is presumably between the ages 15 and 60. Having

(B). Will Pietro, as surviving biological father of the

survived the insured, Roberto's right as a beneficiary

baby, be entitled to claim the proceeds of the life

became vested upon the death of Dr. Lopez. When

insurance on the life of Marian? (2%)

Roberto died after Dr. Lopez, his right to receive the

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Pietro, as the biological

insurance became part of his hereditary estate,

father of the baby, shall be entitled to claim the

which in turn was inherited in equal shares by his

proceeds of life insurance of the Marian because he

legal

is a compulsory heir of his child.

Therefore, Roberto's children and his spouse are

heirs,

namely,

his

spouse

and

children.

entitled to Roberto's one-third share in the insurance

13. Succession; Rule on Survivorship (2009)

proceeds.

Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his son Roberto

both died in a fire that gutted their home while they

14.

were

Cancellations (2012)

sleeping

in

their

air-conditioned

rooms.

Wills;

Holographic

Wills;

Insertions

&

Robertos wife, Marilyn, and their two children were

a) Natividads holographic will, which had only one

spared because they were in the province at the

(1) substantial provision, as first written, named Rosa

time. Dr. Lopez left an estate worth P20M and a life

as her sole heir. However, when Gregorio presented

insurance policy in the amount of P1M with his three

it for probate, it already contained an alteration,

children

as

naming Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as sole heir, but

beneficiaries. Marilyn is now claiming for herself and

without authentication by Natividads signature. Rosa

her children her husbands share in the estate left by

opposes the probate alleging such lack of proper

Dr. Lopez, and her husbands share in the proceeds

authentication. She claims that the unaltered form of

of Dr. Lopezs life insurance policy. Rule on the

the will should be given effect. Whose claim should

validity of Marilyns claims with reasons. (4%)

be granted? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: As to the Estate of Dr.

SUGGESTED

Lopez:

cancellation of Rosas name in the will was done by

Marilyn is not entitled to a share in the estate of Dr.

the

Lopez. For purpose of succession, Dr. Lopez and his

holographic will in its original tenor should be given

son Roberto are presumed to have died at the same

effect must be denied. The said cancellation has

time, there being no evidence to prove otherwise,

revoked the entire will as nothing remains of the will

and there shall be no transmission of rights from one

after

to the other (Article 43, NCC). Hence, Roberto,

cancellation is valid revocation of the will and does

inherited nothing from his father that Marilyn would

not require authentication by the full signature of the

in turn inherit from Roberto .The children of Roberto,

testator to be effective. However, if the cancellation

however, will succeed their grandfather, Dr. Lopez ,in

of Rosas name was not done by the testator himself,

representation of their father Roberto and together

such cancellation shall not be effective and the will in

Roberto will receive 1/3 of the estate of Dr. Lopez

its original tenor shall remain valid. The effectively of

since their father Roberto was one of the three

the holographic will cannot be left to the mercy of

---

one

of

whom

is

Roberto

---

testator

the

ANSWER:
himself,

name

of

It

Rosas

Rosa

depends.
claimed

was

If
that

cancelled.

the
the

Such

unscrupulous third parties. The writing of Gregorios

of execution of the will shall govern the formal

name as sole heir was ineffective, even though

validity of the will (Art. 795, NCC).

written by the testator himself, because such is an

alteration that requires authentication by the full

(B). Assuming that the will is probated in the

signature of the testator to be valid and effective.

Philippines, can Jay validly insist that he be given his

Not having an authenticated, the designation of

legitime? Why or why not? (3%)

Gregorio as an heir was ineffective, (Kalaw v. Relova,

SUGGESTED

G.R. No. L-40207, Sept 28, 1984).

because under New York law he is not a compulsory

ANSWER:

No,

Jay

cannot

insist

heir entitled to a legitime. The national law of the

15. Wills; Holographic Wills; Probate (2009)

testator determines who his heirs are, the order that

On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes executed a

they succeed, how much their successional rights

holographic will, wherein he gave nothing to his

are, and whether or not a testamentary disposition in

recognized illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. Fuentes left for

his will is valid (Art 16, NCC). Since, Dr. Fuentes was

the United States, passed the New York medical

a US citizen, the laws of the New York determines

licensure examinations, resided therein, and became

who his heirs are. And since the New York law does

a naturalized American citizen. He died in New York

not recognize the concept of compulsory heirs, Jay is

in 2007. The laws of New York do not recognize

not a compulsory heir of Dr. Fuentes entitled to a

holographic wills or compulsory heirs.

legitime.

(A). Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes be

16. Wills; Joint Wills (2008)

admitted to probate in the Philippines? Why or why

John and Paula, British citizens at birth, acquired

not? (3%)

Philippine citizenship by naturalization after their

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

marriage. During their marriage the couple acquired

Yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes may be

substanial landholdings in London and in Makati.

admitted to probate in the Philippines because there

Paula bore John three children, Peter, Paul and Mary.

is no public policy violated by such probate. The only

In one of their trips to London, the couple executed a

issue at probate is the due execution of the will

joint will appointing each other as their heirs and

which includes the formal validity of the will. As

providing that upon the death of the survivor

regards formal validity, the only issue the court will

between them the entire estate would go to Peter

resolve at probate is whether or not the will was

and Paul only but the two could not dispose of nor

executed in accordance with the form prescribed by

divide the London estate as long as they live. John

the law observed by the testator in the execution of

and Paul died tragically in the London Subway

his will. For purposes of probate in the Philippines, an

terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul filed a petition

alien testator may observe the law of the place

for probate of their parent's will before a Makati

where the will was executed (Art 17, NCC), or the

Regional Trial Court.

formalities of the law of the place where he resides,

or according to the formalities of the law of his own

(A). Should the will be admitted to probate? (2%)

country, or in accordance with the Philippine Civil

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The will cannot be

Code (Art. 816, NCC). Since Dr. Fuentes executed his

admitted to probate because a joint will is expressly

will in accordance with the Philippine law, the

prohibited under Art. 818 of the Civil Code. This

Philippine court shall apply the New Civil Code in

provision applies John and Paula became Filipino

determining the formal validity of the holographic

citizens after their marriage.

will. The subsequent change in the citizenship of Dr.

Fuentes did not affect the law governing the validity

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

of his will. Under the new Civil Code, which was the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

law used by Dr. Fuentes, the law enforced at the time

No. The testamentary dispositions are not valid

because (a) omission of Mary, a legitimate child, is

(3) Is the testamentary prohibition against the

tantamount to preterition which shall annul the

division of the London estate valid? Explain. (1%)

institution of Peter and Paul as heirs (Art. 854, Civil

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Code); and, (b) the disposition that Peter and Paul

Assuming the will of John and Maria was valid, the

could not dispose of nor divide the London estate for

testamentary prohibition on the division of the

more than 20 years is void (Art. 870, Civil Code).

London estate shall be valid but only for 20 years.

Under Arts 1083 and 494 of the NCC, a testamentary

17. Wills; Joint Wills; Probate (2012)

disposition of the testator cannot forbid the partition

John Sagun and Maria Carla Camua, British citizens at

of all or part of the estate for a period longer than

birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by naturalization

twenty (20) years.

after their marriage. During their marriage, the

couple acquired substantial landholdings in London

18. Wills; Prohibition to Partition of a Co-

and in Makati. Maria begot three (3) children, Jorge,

Owned Property (2010)

Luisito, and Joshur. In one of their trips to London, the

True or False. X, a widower, died leaving a will stating

couple executed a joint will appointing each other as

that the house and lot where he lived cannot be

their heirs and providing that upon the death of the

partitioned for as long as the youngest of his four

survivor between them, the entire estate would go to

children desires to stay there. As coheirs and co-

Jorge and Luisito only but the two (2) could not

owners, the other three may demand partition

dispose of nor divide the London estate as long as

anytime. (1%)

they live. John and Maria died tragically in the

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

London subway terrorist attack in 2005. Jorge and

FALSE, The other three co heirs may not anytime

Luisito filed a petition for probate of their parents

demand the partition of the house and lot since it

will before a Makati Regional Trial Court. Joshur

was expressly provided by the decedent in his will

vehemently objected because he was preterited.

that the same cannot be partitioned while his

youngest child desires to stay there. Article 1083 of

(1) Should the will be admitted to probate? Explain.

the New Civil Code allows a decedent to prohibit, by

(2%)

will, the partition of a property and his estate for a

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the will should not be

period not longer than 20 years no matter what his

admitted to probate. Since the couples are both

reason maybe. Hence, the three co-heir cannot

Filipino citizens, Art 818 and 819 of the NCC shall

demand its partition at anytime but only after 20

apply. Said articles prohibits the execution of joint

years from the death of their father. Even if the

wills and make them void, even though authorized of

deceased parent did not leave a will, if the house and

the country where they were executed.

lot constituted their family home, Article 159 of the

Family Code prohibits its partition for a period of ten

(2) Are the testamentary dispositions valid? Explain.

(10) years, or for as long as there is a minor

(2%)

beneficiary living in the family home.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Since the joint will is void,

all the testamentary disposition written therein are

19.

Wills;

Notarial

Wills;

Blind

Testator;

also void. However, if the will is valid, the institutions

Requisites (2008)

of the heirs shall be annulled because Joshur was

Stevie was born blind. He went to school for the

preterited. He was preterited because he will receive

blind, and learned to read in Baille Language. He

nothing from the will, will receive nothing in testacy,

Speaks English fluently. Can he:

and the facts do not show that he received anything

(A). Make a will? (1%)

as an advance on his inheritance. He was totally

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Assuming that he is of legal

excluded from the inheritance of his parents.

age (Art. 797, Civil Code) and of sound mind at the

time of execution of the will (Art. 798, Civil Code),

exceed twenty (20) years (Art. 870 in relation to Art.

Stevie, a blind person, can make a notarial will,

494, par 3, Civil Code).

subject to compliance with the "two-reading rule"

(Art. 808, Civil Code) and the provisions of Arts. 804,

21.

805 and 806 of the Civil Code.

required; Thumbmark as Signature (2007)

Wills;

Witnesses

to

Will,

Presence

Clara, thinking of her mortality, drafted a will and

(B). Act as a witness to a will? (1%)

asked Roberta, Hannah, Luisa and Benjamin to be

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Stevie cannot be a witness

witnesses. During the day of signing of her will, Clara

to a will. Art. 820 of the Civil Code provides that "any

fell down the stairs and broke her arms. Coming from

person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen

the hospital, Clara insisted on signing her will by

years or more, and not blind, deaf or dumb, and able

thumb mark and said that she can sign her full name

to read and write, may be a witness to the execution

later. While the will was being signed, Roberta

of a will.

experienced a stomach ache and kept going to the

restroom for long periods of time. Hannah, while

(C). In either of the above instances, must the will be

waiting for her turn to sign the will, was reading the

read to him? (1%)

7th Harry Potter book on the couch, beside the table

SUGGESTED ANSWER: If Stevie makes a will, the

on which everyone was signing. Benjamin, aside from

will must be read to him twice, once by one of the

witnessing the will, also offered to notarize it. A week

subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary

after, Clara was run over by a drunk driver while

public before whom the will is acknowledged (Art.

crossing the street in Greenbelt. May the will of Clara

808, Civil Code).

be admitted to probate? Give your reasons briefly.

(10%)

20. Wills; Testamentary Disposition; Period to

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Prohibit Partition (2008)

Probate should be denied. The requirement that the

John and Paula, British citizens at birth, acquired

testator and at least three (3) witnesses must sign all

Philippine citizenship by naturalization after their

in the "presence" of one another was not complied

marriage. During their marriage the couple acquired

with. Benjamin who notarized the will is disqualified

substanial landholdings in London and in Makati.

as a witness, hence he cannot be counted as one of

Paula bore John three children, Peter, Paul and Mary.

the three witnesses (Cruz v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 31,

In one of their trips to London, the couple executed a

1973). The testatrix and the other witnesses signed

joint will appointing each other as their heirs and

the will not in the presence of Roberta because she

providing that upon the death of the survivor

was in the restroom for extended periods of time.

between them the entire estate would go to Peter

Inside the restroom, Roberta could not have possibly

and Paul only but the two could not dispose of nor

seen the testatrix and the other witnesses sign the

divide the London estate as long as they live. John

will by merely casting her eyes in the proper

and Paul died tragically in the London Subway

direction (Jaboneta v. Gustilo, 5 Phil 541, 1906; Nera

terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul filed a petition

v. Rimando, 18 Phil 451, 1914). Therefore, the

for probate of their parent's will before a Makati

testatrix signed the will in the presence of only two

Regional Trial Court.

witnesses, and only two witnesses signed the will in

the presence of the testatrix and of one another. It is

(A). Is the testamentary prohibition against the

to be noted, however, that the thumb mark intended

division of the London estate valid? (2%)

by the testator to be his signature in executing his

SUGGESTED

testamentary

last will and testament is valid (Payad v. Tolentino, 62

prohibition against the division of the London estate

Phil 848, 1936; Matias v. Salud, L-104 Phil 1046, 23

is void (Art. 870, Civil Code). A testator, however,

June, 1958). The problem, however, states that Clara

may prohibit partition for a period which shall not

"said that she can sign her full name later;" Hence,

ANSWER:

No.

the

she did not consider her thumb mark as her

aware of her function and role as witness and was in

"complete" signature, and intended further action on

a position to see the testatrix and the other

her part. The testatrix and the other witness signed

witnesses sign by merely casting her eyes in the

the will in the presence of Hannah, because she was

proper direction.