JAMES C.

BERMUNDO- SUCCESSION

1.

A. It depends.
The law provides that if the person dies, the law at the time of his death shall govern.
In the case at hand, there was no specific date as to when Ann died. In one case decided by the Supreme
Court (Uson vs. Del Rosario), the court said, because the husband died before the new civil code took effect, it
should be the old civil code that should prevail and not the new civil code as contested by the common law wife
and the illegitimate children of the deceased. The court continued that the rights of the common law wife and
the illegitimate children under the new civil code to inherit cannot prejudice the vested rights of the wife,
despite the wife’s renunciation to inherit any future property that her husband may acquire. The court
continued that the rights of the wife to the succession should be made effective from moment her husband died
under Art. 777 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. And that for the determination of successional rights, the law
at the point of death should be applied.
Therefore, Ann’s death should be determined first as to what law should govern.

B. It depends.
The determination of successional rights is subject to the law that prevails on the time of decedent’s death.
In the case at bar, Ann’s death is undetermined as to whether the old civil code or the new civil code
governs.
In sum, Emmie’s successional right as a legatee, should be govern on the law that prevails upon Ann’s
death.

C. No, the executor cannot give the properties.

Under Art. 784 of the civil code, the making of a will is strictly personal act; it cannot be left in whole or in
part to the discretion of a third person, or accomplished through the instrumentality of an agent or attorney. In
addition, Art. 785 of the civil code states; the duration or efficacy of the designation of heirs, or legatees, or the
determination of the portions which they are to take, when referred to by name, cannot be left to the discretion
of a third person.
In the case at bar, the executor cannot give the properties to the heirs even to the proportion of their
shares, because the executor is expressly prohibited by law. The name of the heirs were also designated in the
will made by the testator and such act of the executor will violate Art. 785 -that when the names of particular
persons are given, it cannot be left to the discretion of a third person. The heirs has the right over the decision
as to which and who will received the undesignated properties left by the testator/decedent.
Therefore, the executor’s act is void.

D. No, the will is invalid.

The law is explicit on the matter under Art. 797 of the civil code which states that persons of either sex
under eighteen years of age cannot make a will.
In the case at hand, Ann executed her will at age 17 though the will was notarized when she was 18 years
old, still the will is void since the law expressly prohibits her from doing such act. Also, following the Spanish law
or concept, “that a person should have passed his 18th birthday before he/she can make a will for at this age he
is no longer subject to fraud, influence, or insidious machinations”.
In light of the foregoing facts, no doubt that Ann’s last will and testament is void for contravening the basic
concepts of law on last will and testament.

E. I will tell her that the limitations of her share to the inheritance is based upon the provision under Art. 774
of the civil code which states that succession is either a consequence of a will or by operation of law. In her case,
the share was based on the will made by Ann. She should be grateful for Ann was so considerate enough to give
her the house. As a compulsory heir she can also acquire the share for the remaining properties not stated in the
will.