Disposition; Mortis Causa vs.

Intervivos; Corpse (2009) Raymond executed a will in the case at bar, Scarlet may inherit from
No. XI. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the Raymond.
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences.

(E). A person can dispose of his corpse through an act intervivos. (1%) Heirs; Intestate Succession; Legitime; Computation (2010)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No.XI. The spouses Peter and Paula had three (3) children. Paula later obtained a
False. A persons cannot dispose of his corpse through an act inter vivos,
judgment of nullity of marriage. Their absolute community of property having been
i.e., an act to take effect during his lifetime. Before his death there is no
dissolved, they delivered P1 million to each of their 3 children as their presumptive
corpse to dispose. But he is allowed to do so through an act mortis causa,
i.e., an act to take effect upon his death. legitimes.

Peter later re-married and had two (2) children by his second wife Marie. Peter and
Heirs; Fideicommissary Substitution (2008) Marie, having successfully engaged in business, acquired real properties. Peter later
died intestate.
No. XIII. Raymond, single, named his sister Ruffa in his will as a devisee of a parcel of
land which he owned. The will imposed upon Ruffa the obligation of preseving the (A). Who are Peter’s legal heirs and how will his estate be divided among them? (5%)
land and transferring it, upon her death, to her illegitimate daughter Scarlet who was SUGGESTED ANSWER:
then only one year old. Raymond later died, leaving behind his widowed mother,
Ruffa and Scarlet. The legal heirs of Peter are his children by the first and second marriages
and his surviving second wife.
(A). Is the condition imposed upon Ruffa, to preserve the property and to transmit it
upon her death to Scarlet, valid? (1%) Their shares in the estate of Peter will depend, however, on the cause of
the nullity of the first marriage. If the nullity of the first marriage was
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
psychological incapacity of one or both spouses, the three children of that
Yes, the condition imposed upon Ruffa to preserve the property and to void marriage are legitimate and all of the legal heirs shall share the
transmit it upon her death to Scarlet is valid because it is tantamount to estate of Peter in equal shares. If the judgment of nullity was for other
fideicommissary substitution under Art. 863 of the Civil Code. causes, the three children are illegitimate and the estate shall be
distributed such that an illegitimate child of the first marriage shall
(B). If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, who inherits the property? (2%) receive half of the share of a legitimate child of the second marriage, and
the second wife will inherit a share equal to that of a legitimate child. In
SUGGESTED ANSWER: no case may the two legitimate children of the second marriage receive a
share less than one-half of the estate which is their legitime. When the
Ruffa will inherit the property as Scarlet's heir. Scarlet acquires a right to
estate is not sufficient to pay all the legitimes of the compulsory heirs, the
the succession from the time of Raymond's death, even though she should
legitime of the spouse is preferred and the illegitimate children suffer the
predecease Ruffa (Art. 866, Civil Code).
reduction.
(C). If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, can Scarlet inherit the property directly from
Computation:
Raymond? (2%)
(A) If the ground of nullity is psychological incapacity:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3 children by first marriage 1/6 of the estate for each
If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, Raymond's widowed mother will be
2 children by second marriage 1/6 of the estate for each
entitled to the inheritance. Scarlet, an illegitimate child, cannot inherit Surviving second spouse 1/6 of the estate
the property by intestate succession from Raymond who is a legitimate
relative of Ruffa (Art. 992, Civil Code). Moreover, Scarlet is not a
compulsory heir of Raymond, hence she can inherit only by testamentary (B) If the ground of nullity is not psychological capacity:
succession. Since
2 legitimate children ¼ of the estate for each of
Page 1 of second marriage
12
 Surviving second spouse ¼ of the estate Heirs; Reserva Troncal (2009)
3 illegitimate children 1/12 of estate for each of first
marriage No. I. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences.

Note: The legitime of an illegitimate child is supposed to be ½ the legitime (B).In reservatroncal, all reservatarios (reser vees) inherit as a class and in equal
of a legitimate child or 1/8 of the estate. But the estate will not be shares regardless of their proximity in degree to the prepositus. (1%)
sufficient to pay the said legitime of the 3 illegitimate children, because
only ¼ of the estate is left after paying the legitime of the surviving spouse SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FALSE. Not all the relatives within the third degree will inherit as
which is preferred.
reservatario , and not all those who are entitled to inherit will inherit in
Hence, the remaining ¼ of the estate shall be divided among the 3 the equal shares . The applicable laws of intestate succession will
illegitimate children. determine who among the relatives will inherit as reservatarios and what
shares they will tak, i.e., the direct line excludes the collateral, the
(B). What is the effect of the receipt by Peter’s 3 children by his first marriage of their descending direct line excludes the ascending ,the nearer excludes the
presumptive legitimes on their right to inherit following Peter’s death? (5%) more remote, the nephews and nieces exclude the uncles and the aunts,
and half blood relatives inherit half the share of full-blooded relatives.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In the distribution of Peter’s estate, ½ of the presumptive received by the Intestate Succession (2008)
3 children of the first marriage shall be collated to Peter’s estate and shall
No. VII. Ramon Mayaman died intestate, leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00.
be imputed as an advance of their respective inheritance from Peter. Only
Determine how much each heir will receive from the estate:
half of the presumptive legitime is collated to the estate of Peter because
the other half shall be collated to the estate of his first wife. (A). If Ramon is survived by his wife, three full-blood brothers, two half-brothers, and
one nephew (the son of a deceased fullblood brother)? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Heirs; Representation; Iron-Curtain Rule (2012)
Having died intestate, the estate of Ramon shall be inherited by his wife
No.VIII.a) Ricky and Arlene are married. They begot Franco during their marriage. and his full and half blood siblings or their respective representatives. In
Franco had an illicit relationship with Audrey and out of which, they begot Arnel. intestacy, if the wife concurs with no one but the siblings of the husband,
all of them are the intestate heirs of the deceased husband. The wife will
Frnaco predeceased Ricky, Arlene and Arnel. Before Ricky died, he executed a will
receive half of the intestate estate, while the siblings or their respective
which when submitted to probate was opposed by Arnel on the ground that he should
representatives, will inherit the other half to be divided among them
be given the share of his father, Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel correct? Why? (5%)
equally. If some siblings are of the full-blood and the other of the half
SUGGESTED ANSWER: blood, a half blood sibling will receive half the share of a full-blood
sibling. (1). The wife of Ramon will, therefore, receive one half (½) of the
No, his opposition is not correct. Arnel cannot inherit from Ricky in the estate or the amount of P5,000,000.00. (2). The three (3) full-blood
representation of his father Franco. In representation, the representative brothers, will, therefore, receive P1,000,000.00 each. (3). The nephew
must not only be a legal heir of the person he is representing, he must will receive P1,000,000.00 by right of representation. (4). The two (2)
also be a legal heir of the decedent he seeks to inherit from. half-brothers will receive P500,000.00 each.

While Arnel is a legal heir of Franco, he is not a legal heir of Ricky (B). If Ramon is survived by his wife, a halfsister, and three nephews (sons of a
because under Art 992 of the NCC, an illegitimate child has no right to deceased full-blood brother)? Explain. (3%)
inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father SUGGESTED ANSWER:
or mother. Arnel is disqualified to inherit from Ricky because Arnel is an The wife will receive one half (1/2) of the estate or P5,000,000.00. The
illegitimate child of Franco and Ricky is a legitimate relative of Franco. other half shall be inherited by (1) the full-blood brother, represented by
his three children, and (2) the half-sister. They will divide the other half
between them such that the share of the half-sister is just half the share of

Page 2 of
12
the full-blood brother. The share of the full-blood brother shall in turn be accident. In 2007, Ramon died. Who may inherit from Ramon and who may not?
inherited by the three nephews in equal shares by right of presentation.
Give your reason briefly. (10%)
Therefore, the three (3) nephews will receive P1,111,111.10 each the
halfsister will receive the sum of P1,666,666.60. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The following may inherit from Ramon:

Intestate Succession (2008)
(1). Michelle, as an adopted child of Ramon, will inherit as a legitimate
No.X. Arthur executed a will which contained only: (i) a provision disinheriting his child of Ramon. As an adopted child, Michelle has all the rights of a
daughter Bernica for running off with a married man, and (ii) a provision disposing of legitimate child (Sec 18, Domestic Adoption Law).
his share in the family house and lot in favor of his other children Connie and Dora.
He did not make any provisions in favor of his wife Erica, because as the will stated, (2). Lia will inherit in representation of Anna. Although Lia is an
she would anyway get ½ of the house and lot as her conjugal share. The will was very illegitimate child, she is not barred by Articles 992, because her mother
brief and straightforward and both the above provisions were contained in page 1, Anna is an illegitimate herself. She will represent Anna as regards Anna's
which Arthur and his instrumental witness, signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained legitime under Art. 902, NCC and as regards Anna's intestate share under
the attestation clause and the signatures, at the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental Art. 990, NCC.
witnesses which included Lambert, the driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and
Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared the will. There was a 3rd page, but this only The following may not inherit from Ramon:
contained the notarial acknowledgement. The attestation clause stated the will was
(1). Shelly, being an adopted child, she cannot represent Cherry. This is
signed on the same occasion by Arthur and his instrumental witnesses who all signed
because adoption creates a personal legal relation only between the
in the presence of each other, and the notary public who notarized the will. There are
adopter and the adopted. The law on representation requires the
no marginal signatures or pagination appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon his
representative to be a legal heir of the person he is representing and also
death, it was discovered that apart from the house and lot, he had a P 1 million
of the person from whom the person being represented was supposed to
account deposited with ABC bank.
inherit. While Shelly is a legal heir of Cherry, Shelly is not a legal heir of
(D). How should the house and lot, and the cash be distributed? (1%) Ramon. Adoption created a purely personal legal relation only between
Cherry and Shelly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the probate of the will cannot be allowed, the rules on intestate (2). Hans and Gretel are barred from inheriting from Ramon under Art.
succession apply. Under Art. 996 of the Civil Code, if a widow or widower 992, NCC. Being illegitimate children, they cannot inherit ab intestao
and legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse has from Ramon.
the same share as of the children. Thus, ownership over the house and lot
will be created among wife Erica and her children Bernice, Connie and ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Dora. Similarly, the amount of P 1 million will be equally divided among
them. The problem expressly mentioned the dates of the adoption of Cherry and
Michelle as 1971 and 1972. During that time, adoption was governed by the
New Civil Code. Under the New Civil Code, husband and wife were
Intestate Succession; Rights of Representation: Illegitimate, Adopted allowed to adopt separately or not jointly with the other spouse. And since
Child; Iron Curtain Rule (2007) the problem does not specifically and categorically state, it is possible to
construe the use of the word "respectively" in the problem as indicative of
No. X. For purpose of this question, assume all formalities and procedural the situation that Cherry was adopted by Ramon alone and Michelle was
requirements have been complied with. adopted by Dessa alone. In such case of separate adoption the alternative
In 1970, Ramon and Dessa got married. Prior to their marriage, Ramon had a child, answer to the problem will be as follows: Only Lia will inherit from
Anna. In 1971 and 1972, Ramon and Dessa legally adopted Cherry and Michelle Ramon in representation of Ramon's illegitimate daughter Anna.
respectively. In 1973, Dessa died while giving birth to Larry Anna had a child, Lia. Although Lia is an illegitimate child, she is not barred from inheriting
Anna never married. Cherry, on the other hand, legally adopted Shelly. Larry had from Ramon because her mother is herself illegitimate. Shelly cannot
twins, Hans and Gretel, with his girlfriend, Fiona. In 2005, Anna, Larry and Cherry inherit in representation of Cherry because Shelly is just an adopted child
died in a car of Cherry. In representation, the representative must not only be a legal

Page 3 of
12
heir of the person he is representing but also of the decedent from
whom the

Page 4 of
12
represented person is supposed to inherit. In the case of Shelly, while she
is a legal heir of Cherry by virtue of adoption, she is not a legal heir of
Ramon. Adoption creates a personal legal relation only between the Preterition; Disinheritance (2008)
adopting parent and the adopted child (Teotico v. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406,
1965. Michelle cannot inherit from Ramon, because she was adopted not No.X. Arthur executed a will which contained only: (i) a provision disinheriting his
by Ramon but by Dessa. In the eyes of the law, she is not related to Ramon daughter Bernica for running off with a married man, and (ii) a provision disposing of
at all. Hence, she is not a legal heir of Ramon. Hans and Gretel are not his share in the family house and lot in favor of his other children Connie and Dora.
entitled to inherit from Ramon, because they are barred by Art. 992 NCC. He did not make any provisions in favor of his wife Erica, because as the will stated,
Being illegitimate children of Larry, they cannot inherit from the legitimate she would anyway get ½ of the house and lot as her conjugal share. The will was very
relatives of their father Larry. Ramon is a legitimate relative of Larry who brief and straightforward and both the above provisions were contained in page 1,
is the legitimate father. which Arthur and his instrumental witness, signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained
the attestation clause and the signatures, at the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental
witnesses which included Lambert, the driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and
Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared the will. There was a 3rd page, but this only
Legitimes; Compulsory Heirs (2012) contained the notarial acknowledgement. The attestation clause stated the will was
No.VIII.b) How can RJP distribute his estate by will, if his heirs are JCP, his wife; signed on the same occasion by Arthur and his instrumental witnesses who all signed
HBR and RVC, his parents; and an illegitimate child, SGO? in the presence of each other, and the notary public who notarized the will. There are
no marginal signatures or pagination appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon his death,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: it was discovered that apart from the house and lot, he had a P 1 million account
deposited with ABC bank.
A testator may dispose of by will the free portion of his estate. Since the
legitime of JCP is 1/8 of the estate, SGO is ¼ of the estate and that of HBR (A). Was Erica preterited? (1%)
and RVC is ½ of the hereditary estate under Art 889 of the NCC, the
remaining 1/8 of the estate is the free portion which the testator may SUGGESTED ANSWER:
dispose of by will. Erica cannot be preterited. Art. 854 of the Civil Code provides that only
compulsory heirs in the direct line can be preterited.

Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2008) (B). What other defects of the will, if any, can cause denial of probate? (2%)

No. XII. Ernesto, an overseas Filipino worker, was coming home to the Philippines SUGGESTED ANSWER:
after working for so many years in the Middle East. He had saved P100.000 in his The other defects of the will that can cause its denial are as follows: (a)
saving account in Manila which intended to use to start a business in his home Atty. Zorba, the one who prepared the will was one of the three witnesses,
country. On his flight home, Ernesto had a fatal heart attack. He left behind his violating the three-witnesses rule; (b) no marginal signature at the last
widowed mother, his common-law wife and their twins sons. He left no will, no debts, page; (c ) the attestation did not state the number of pages upon which the
no other relatives and no other properties except the money in his saving account. will is written; and, (d) no pagination appearing correlatively in letters on
Who are the heirs entitled to inherint from him and how much should each receive? the upper part of the three pages (Azuela v. C.A., G.R No. 122880, 12 Apr
(3%) 2006 and cited cases therein, Art 805 and 806, Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (C). Was the disinheritance valid? (1%)
The mother and twin sons are entitled to inherit from Ernesto. Art. 991 of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the Civil Code, provides that if legitimate ascendants are left, the twin
sons shall divide the inheritance with them taking one-half of the estate. Yes, the disinheritance was valid. Art. 919, par 7, Civil Code provides that
Thus, the widowed mother gets P50,000.00 while the twin sons shall "when a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life, like
receive P25,000.00 each. The common-law wife cannot inherit from him running off with a married man, there is sufficient cause for
because when the law speaks "widow or widower" as a compulsory heir, disinheritance."
the law refers to a legitimate spouse (Art. 887, par 3, Civil Code).
Page 5 of
12
 the time. Dr. Lopez left an estate worth P20M and a life insurance policy in the
amount of P1M with his three children --- one of whom is Roberto --- as beneficiaries.
Succession; Proof of Death between persons called to succeed each other
(2008) Marilyn is now claiming for herself and her children her husband’s share in the estate
left by Dr. Lopez, and her husband’s share in the proceeds of Dr. Lopez’s life
No. II. At age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She insured her own life insurance policy. Rule on the validity of Marilyn’s claims with reasons. (4%)
and named her unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she was already due to give
birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her unboarn child, were kidnapped in SUGGESTED ANSWER :
a resort in Bataan where they were vacationing. The military gave chase and after one
week, they were found in an abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were hacked As to the Estate of Dr. Lopez: Marilyn is not entitled to a share in the
with bolos. Marian and the baby delivered were both found dead, with the baby's estate of Dr. Lopez. For purpose of succession, Dr. Lopez and his son
umbilical cord already cut. Pietro survived. Roberto are presumed to have died at the same time, there being no
evidence to prove otherwise, and there shall be no transmission of rights
(B). Between Marian and the baby, who is presumed to have died ahead? (1%) from one to the other (Article 43, NCC). Hence, Roberto, inherited
nothing from his father that Marilyn would in turn inherit from Roberto
SUGGESTED ANSWER: .The children of Roberto, however, will succeed their grandfather, Dr.
Lopez ,in representation of their father Roberto and together Roberto will
Marian is presumed to have died ahead of the baby. Art. 43 applies to
receive 1/3 of the estate of Dr. Lopez since their father Roberto was one of
persons who are called to succeed each other. The proof of death must be
the three children of Dr. Lopez . Marilyn cannot represent her husband
established by positive or circumstantial evidence derived from facts. It
Roberto because the right is not given by the law to a surviving spouse.
can never be established from mere inference. In the present case, it is
very clear that only Marian and Pietro were hacked with bolos. There was As to the proceeds of the insurance on the life of Dr. Lopez:
no showing that the baby was also hacked to death. The baby's death could
have been due to lack of nutrition. Since succession is not involved as regards the insurance contract, the
provisions of the Rules of Court (Rule 131, Sec. 3 , [jj] [5] ) on survivorship
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: shall apply. Under the Rules, Dr. Lopez, who was 70 years old, is
presumed to have died ahead of Roberto who is presumably between the
The baby is presumed to have died ahead of Marian. Under Par. 5, rule
ages 15 and
131, Sec. 5 (KK) of the Rules of Court, if one is under 15 or above 60 and
60. Having survived the insured, Roberto's right as a beneficiary became
the age of the other is in between 15 and 60, the latter is presumed to have
vested upon the death of Dr. Lopez. When Roberto died after Dr. Lopez,
survived. In the instant case, Marian was already 18 when she found out
his right to receive the insurance became part of his hereditary estate,
that she was pregnant. She could be of the same age or maybe 19 years of
which in turn was inherited in equal shares by his legal heirs, namely, his
age when she gave birth.
spouse and children. Therefore, Roberto's children and his spouse are
(C). Will Pietro, as surviving biological father of the baby, be entitled to claim the entitled to Roberto's one-third share in the insurance proceeds.
proceeds of the life insurance on the life of Marian? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions & Cancellations (2012)
Pietro, as the biological father of the baby, shall be entitled to claim the
No.VII.a) Natividad’s holographic will, which had only one (1) substantial provision,
proceeds of life insurance of the Marian because he is a compulsory heir
as first written, named Rosa as her sole heir. However, when Gregorio presented it for
of his child.
probate, it already contained an alteration, naming Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as sole
heir, but without authentication by Natividad’s signature. Rosa opposes the probate
alleging such lack of proper authentication. She claims that the unaltered form of the
Succession; Rule on Survivorship (2009) will should be given effect. Whose claim should be granted? Explain. (5%)
No. II. Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his son Roberto both died in a fire that SUGGESTED ANSWER:
gutted their home while they were sleeping in their air-conditioned rooms. Roberto’s
wife, Marilyn, and their two children were spared because they were in the province at It depends. If the cancellation of Rosa’s name in the will was done by the
Page 6 of
12
testator himself, Rosa’s claimed that the holographic will in its
original

Page 7 of
12
tenor should be given effect must be denied. The said cancellation has enforced at the time
revoked the entire will as nothing remains of the will after the name of
Rosa was cancelled. Such cancellation is valid revocation of the will and
does not require authentication by the full signature of the testator to be
effective.

However, if the cancellation of Rosa’s name was not done by the testator
himself, such cancellation shall not be effective and the will in its original
tenor shall remain valid. The effectively of the holographic will cannot be
left to the mercy of unscrupulous third parties.

The writing of Gregorio’s name as sole heir was ineffective, even though
written by the testator himself, because such is an alteration that requires
authentication by the full signature of the testator to be valid and
effective. Not having an authenticated, the designation of Gregorio as an
heir was ineffective, (Kalaw v. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207, Sept 28, 1984).

Wills; Holographic Wills; Probate (2009)

No.VI. On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito Fuentes executed a holographic will,

wherein he gave nothing to his recognized illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. Fuentes left for
the United States, passed the New York medical licensure examinations, resided
therein, and became a naturalized American citizen. He died in New York in 2007.
The laws of New York do not recognize holographic wills or compulsory heirs.

(A). Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes be admitted to probate in the Philippines?
Why or why not? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes may be admitted to probate in the
Philippines because there is no public policy violated by such probate.
The only issue at probate is the due execution of the will which includes
the formal validity of the will. As regards formal validity, the only issue
the court will resolve at probate is whether or not the will was executed in
accordance with the form prescribed by the law observed by the testator
in the execution of his will. For purposes of probate in the Philippines, an
alien testator may observe the law of the place where the will was
executed (Art 17, NCC), or the formalities of the law of the place where he
resides, or according to the formalities of the law of his own country, or in
accordance with the Philippine Civil Code (Art. 816, NCC). Since Dr.
Fuentes executed his will in accordance with the Philippine law, the
Philippine court shall apply the New Civil Code in determining the formal
validity of the holographic will. The subsequent change in the citizenship
of Dr. Fuentes did not affect the law governing the validity of his will.
Under the new Civil Code, which was the law used by Dr. Fuentes, the law

Page 8 of
12
of execution of the will shall govern the formal validity of the will (Art. London estate for more than 20 years is void (Art. 870, Civil Code).
795, NCC).

(B). Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that
he be given his legitime? Why or why not? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Jay cannot insist because under New York law he is not a compulsory
heir entitled to a legitime.

The national law of the testator determines who his heirs are, the order
that they succeed, how much their successional rights are, and whether
or not a testamentary disposition in his will is valid (Art 16, NCC). Since,
Dr. Fuentes was a US citizen, the laws of the New York determines who
his heirs are. And since the New York law does not recognize the concept
of compulsory heirs, Jay is not a compulsory heir of Dr. Fuentes entitled
to a legitime.

Wills; Joint Wills (2008)

No. XI. John and Paula, British citizens at birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by
naturalization after their marriage. During their marriage the couple acquired
substanial landholdings in London and in Makati. Paula bore John three children,
Peter, Paul and Mary. In one of their trips to London, the couple executed a joint will
appointing each other as their heirs and providing that upon the death of the survivor
between them the entire estate would go to Peter and Paul only but the two could not
dispose of nor divide the London estate as long as they live. John and Paul died
tragically in the London Subway terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul filed a
petition for probate of their parent's will before a Makati Regional Trial Court.

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

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The will cannot be admitted to probate because a joint will is

expressly prohibited under Art. 818 of the Civil Code. This provision
applies John and Paula became Filipino citizens after their marriage.

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

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The testamentary dispositions are not valid because (a) omission of
Mary, a legitimate child, is tantamount to preterition which shall annul
the institution of Peter and Paul as heirs (Art. 854, Civil Code); and, (b)
the disposition that Peter and Paul could not dispose of nor divide the

Page 9 of
12
 Wills; Prohibition to Partition of a CoOwned Property (2010)

Wills; Joint Wills; Probate (2012)

No.VII.b) John Sagun and Maria Carla Camua, British citizens at birth, acquired
Philippine citizenship by naturalization after their marriage. During their marriage,
the couple acquired substantial landholdings in London and in Makati. Maria begot
three
(3) children, Jorge, Luisito, and Joshur. In one of their trips to London, the couple
executed a joint will appointing each other as their heirs and providing that upon the
death of the survivor between them, the entire estate would go to Jorge and Luisito
only but the two (2) could not dispose of nor divide the London estate as long as they
live. John and Maria died tragically in the London subway terrorist attack in 2005.
Jorge and Luisito filed a petition for probate of their parents’ will before a Makati
Regional Trial Court. Joshur vehemently objected because he was preterited.

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

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the will should not be admitted to probate. Since the couples are both
Filipino citizens, Art 818 and 819 of the NCC shall apply. Said articles
prohibits the execution of joint wills and make them void, even though
authorized of the country where they were executed.

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

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Since the joint will is void, all the testamentary disposition written
therein are also void. However, if the will is valid, the institutions of the
heirs shall be annulled because Joshur was preterited. He was preterited
because he will receive nothing from the will, will receive nothing in
testacy, and the facts do not show that he received anything as an advance
on his inheritance. He was totally excluded from the inheritance of his
parents.

(3) Is the testamentary prohibition against the division of the London estate valid?
Explain. (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Assuming the will of John and Maria was valid, the testamentary
prohibition on the division of the London estate shall be valid but only for
20 years. Under Arts 1083 and 494 of the NCC, a testamentary disposition
of the testator cannot forbid the partition of all or part of the estate for a
period longer than twenty (20) years.

Page 10 of
12
No.I. True or False.

(B) X, a widower, died leaving a will stating that the house and lot where he lived
cannot be partitioned for as long as the youngest of his four children desires to stay
there. As coheirs and co-owners, the other three may demand partition anytime. (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

FALSE, The other three co – heirs may not anytime demand the partition
of the house and lot since it was expressly provided by the decedent in his
will that the same cannot be partitioned while his youngest child desires
to stay there. Article 1083 of the New Civil Code allows a decedent to
prohibit, by will, the partition of a property and his estate for a period
not longer than 20 years no matter what his reason maybe. Hence, the
three co-heir cannot demand its partition at anytime but only after 20
years from the death of their father. Even if the deceased parent did not
leave a will, if the house and lot constituted their family home, Article
159 of the Family Code prohibits its partition for a period of ten (10)
years, or for as long as there is a minor beneficiary living in the family
home.

Wills; Notarial Wills; Blind Testator; Requisites (2008)

No. XIV. Stevie was born blind. He went to school for the blind, and learned to read
in Baille Language. He Speaks English fluently. Can he:

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

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Assuming that he is of legal age (Art. 797, Civil Code) and of sound mind
at the time of execution of the will (Art. 798, Civil Code), Stevie, a blind
person, can make a notarial will, subject to compliance with the "two-
reading rule" (Art. 808, Civil Code) and the provisions of Arts. 804, 805
and 806 of the Civil Code.

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

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Stevie cannot be a witness to a will. Art. 820 of the Civil Code provides
that "any person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or more,
and not blind, deaf or dumb, and able to read and write, may be a witness
to the execution of a will.

(C). In either of the above instances, must the will be read to him? (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 11 of
12
If Stevie makes a will, the will must be read to him twice, once by one of complied with. Benjamin who notarized the will is disqualified as a
the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom witness, hence he cannot be counted as one of the three witnesses (Cruz v.
the will is acknowledged (Art. 808, Civil Code). Villasor, 54 SCRA 31, 1973). The testatrix and the other witnesses signed
the will not in the presence of Roberta because she was in the restroom
for extended periods of time. Inside the restroom, Roberta could not have
Wills; Testamentary Disposition; Period to Prohibit Partition (2008) possibly seen the testatrix and the other witnesses sign the will by merely
casting her eyes in the proper direction (Jaboneta v. Gustilo, 5 Phil 541,
No. XI. John and Paula, British citizens at birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by 1906; Nera v. Rimando, 18 Phil 451, 1914). Therefore, the testatrix signed
naturalization after their marriage. During their marriage the couple acquired the will in the presence of only two witnesses, and only two witnesses
substanial landholdings in London and in Makati. Paula bore John three children, signed the will in the presence of the testatrix and of one another.
Peter, Paul and Mary. In one of their trips to London, the couple executed a joint will
appointing each other as their heirs and providing that upon the death of the survivor It is to be noted, however, that the thumb mark intended by the testator to
between them the entire estate would go to Peter and Paul only but the two could not be his signature in executing his last will and testament is valid (Payad v.
dispose of nor divide the London estate as long as they live. John and Paul died Tolentino, 62 Phil 848, 1936; Matias v. Salud, L-104 Phil 1046, 23 June,
tragically in the London Subway terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul filed a 1958). The problem, however, states that Clara "said that she can sign her
petition for probate of their parent's will before a Makati Regional Trial Court. full name later;" Hence, she did not consider her thumb mark as her
"complete" signature, and intended further action on her part. The
(C). Is the testamentary prohibition against the division of the London estate valid? testatrix and the other witness signed the will in the presence of Hannah,
(2%) because she was aware of her function and role as witness and was in a
position to see the testatrix and the other witnesses sign by merely casting
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
her eyes in the proper direction.
No. the testamentary prohibition against the division of the London estate
is void (Art. 870, Civil Code). A testator, however, may prohibit partition
for a period which shall not exceed twenty (20) years (Art. 870 in relation
to Art. 494, par 3, Civil Code).

Wills; Witnesses to a Will, Presence required; Thumbmark as Signature

(2007)

No.VI. Clara, thinking of her mortality, drafted a will and asked Roberta, Hannah,
Luisa and Benjamin to be witnesses. During the day of signing of her will, Clara fell
down the stairs and broke her arms. Coming from the hospital, Clara insisted on
signing her will by thumb mark and said that she can sign her full name later. While
the will was being signed, Roberta experienced a stomach ache and kept going to the
restroom for long periods of time. Hannah, while waiting for her turn to sign the will,
was reading the 7th Harry Potter book on the couch, beside the table on which
everyone was signing. Benjamin, aside from witnessing the will, also offered to
notarize it. A week after, Clara was run over by a drunk driver while crossing the street
in Greenbelt.

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

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Probate should be denied. The requirement that the testator and at least
three (3) witnesses must sign all in the "presence" of one another was not
Page 12 of
12