1.
YES, the Paranaque property is subject to collation.
Under the law on succession, there shall be a collation of properties that are subject to the
transmission in favor of compulsory heirs for the purpose of equity in dividing their respective
shares.
In this case, since Paranaque property is bought by making use of the proceeds of Valenzuela
property, the former therefore become an estate that needs to be divided equally by compulsory
heirs. Hence, the property will be subject to collation.
2.
NO, the Release and Waiver of Claim is not a valid renunciation.
The Civil Code provides that for minor to validly renounce their successional rights, it must be
with the guidance of the parents, upon the approval of the Court.
Here, the said Release and Waiver of Claim doesn’t stipulate any concurrence with the parents of
the minors. Hence, it is not a valid renunciation.
3.
NO, the legitimate heirs of Hilario are incorrect.
In the case of Aquino vs Aquino, the Supreme Court abandoned the doctrine of iron curtain rule,
and further decided that the illegitimate children may inherit the estate of their illegitimate
grandparents by right of representation to their deceased parents.
Here, Enrico and Euriz may inherit by right of representation as illegitimate children of Rocky,
subject to the compliance of proving their filiation in the Court of law.
4.
Under the law, the will, distribution of estate and qualifications of heirs must be governed by the
national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. Hence, since Primo is a French
national, the law thereof shall be applicable.
Furthermore, under Article 18 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, with regards to the formalities
of Primo’s holographic will, it will be governed by the laws of the country to which the said will
is executed.
5.
a. The intestate heirs of F, are B and C. Since A predeceased together with F, the share of A will
accrue to B and C. Hence, B and C will have ½ each of the intestate shares.
b. The intestate heirs of A, are B and C, the collaterals. They shall have ½ each of the intestate
shares.
c. If B and C both predecease F, then the intestate heirs of F are X, Y, and Z. In this case, X will
get ½ of the shares, and Y and Z will get ¼ each of the shares. Furthermore, they shall inherit in
their own right and not by right of representation.
d. If B and C repudiates their shares in the estate of F, then X, Y and Z will become the heirs in
their own right and not by right of representation because a person who repudiates his shares will
disqualify him to be represented by his descendants. Their respective share is: X will get ½; Y and
Z will get ¼ each.
6.
NO, the dispositions of Lennon’s will are not void.
Under the law on succession, a testator may dispose his estates to a specific classification of
persons, given that these persons must be identified, and it must be executed by an administrator.
In this case, the dispositions of Lennon’s will are not void for it is in compliance with the form
prescribed by law. Addendum to that, the siblings of Lennon cannot oppose to the said probate of
the will because they are not compulsory heirs. Hence, they have no any rights or reservation to
the estate of Lennon.
7.
YES, the will is revoked.
Under the relevant law and jurisprudence, in revocation of will through burning, one of the
essential requisites thereof is that the testator must have the intention to revoke the will.
In this case, the overt act of the testator of throwing the will on a stove clearly shows an intention
for him to revoke the said will. A slight burning of the will is enough, and the recovery of one of
the heirs will be ineffectual.
8.
a. NO, the will cannot be admitted to probate.
The Civil Code provides that in the alteration of holographic will, it must be dated and
authenticated by the testator himself. Hence, it cannot be admitted to probate.
b. YES, my answer will be the same. The will cannot be admitted to probate.
Similarly, the substantial alteration, under the law, must be dated and authenticated by the testator
himself. Therefore, the erasure of this without any authentication and date will render it invalid.
9.
NO, A’s action will not prosper.
Under the rule of proximity, the relatives in nearest degree shall exclude the relatives in farthest
degree.
In this case, A is excluded from the estate of C because he is farthest in degree in comparison to
the surviving spouse and the other brother, D. Hence, he cannot inherit the estate of C and the
action will not prosper.
10.
YES, the adopted child may represent his adoptive father in the inheritance of his adoptive father’s
ascendants.
Under the relevant law, the right of representation of adopted child has been amended, and adopted
children are already declared as qualified to inherit by right of representation of their adoptive
father, in consideration of the estate of his adoptive father’s ascendants.
11.
YES, Wensceslao is correct.
The law on succession provides that a surviving spouse is considered a compulsory heir, hence,
his or her share shall not be in any manner disturb.
In this case, the last will, giving all of the testator’s exclusive properties to her niece, Alma is
invalid because the ½ of the legitime of the testator is disturbed. Hence, the surviving spouse has
been deprived of his rights to the said legitime and the will shall be disallowed to probate.
12.
a. YES, A is bound to reserve said property.
In reserva troncal, a donated property by a relative to other relative, such as in this case B, shall
be in turn given to the relative in nearest degree and must be reserved in favor of the other relatives
not exceeding 3rd degree.
b. NO, the sale is not valid because the said property is reserva troncal. Hence, under the law, it
must be reserved to be transferred by inheritance to the other relatives in case of the death of the
holder.
13.
No, the property is still invalid to be alienated.
The law on succession provides that in fideicommissary substitute, the condition imposed by the
testator must be complied with.
Here, there is a condition that the property shall not be alienated for 20 years, and in this case,
the time interval is still in 15 years. Hence, the property shall not be alienated.
14.
Under the relevant law and jurisprudence, after giving to the legitimate children their respective
shares, the order of payment in the disposable free portion in this case is first, the satisfaction of
remuneration for past services, second is support that needs to be rendered, third for education in
favor of someone, and lastly the ordinary legacy in favor of stranger.
15.
The cousins W, B, C, D shall inherit from A.
The Civil Code provides that an heir is disinherited from succeeding if the latter has committed
adultery or concubinage.
In this case, the surviving spouse W committed and convicted of adultery with the brother B.
Hence, they are considered as disinherited from succeeding further from the estate of A.
Therefore, the remaining cousins shall inherit intestacy from the decedent.
16.
A’s share will accrue in favor of B, C, and D.
Under the Rule of Accression on law on succession, a share of the partner who renounces his rights
shall accrue in favor of the other heirs in the same degree.
Here, A, B, C and D are all in the same degree since they are all nephews of the testator, hence,
the share of A by virtue of his renouncement shall accrue in favor of B, C and D, divided equally
among themselves.
17.
a. In following the right of representation under the law on succession, the right of A and B on
their shares shall be represented by their respective children by virtue of right of representation,
given that A predeceased X, and B has been disinherited or incapacitated to succeed.
Whereas, the right of C on his shares shall accrue to A and B, and to their respective representative,
since a repudiation of C to his shares results into disqualification of his children to inherit by right
of representation.
b. In this case X heirs are D, E, F, G, H, I by right of representation.
Here, D, E, F, G will divide their share per stirpes based on the share of A since they are of the
same degree. Hence, they shall divide equally the share of A, including the accrued share of C.
Similarly, H and I will divide their share per stirpes based on the share of B since they are of the
same degree. Hence, they shall likewise divide equally the share of B, including the accrued share
of C.
18.
Under the law, in order for a nephew to inherit from a decedent who died intestate, the following
circumstances must occur:
1. The nephews’ parents must predecease the said decedent who died intestate and whose
estate is under consideration;
2. The nephews must live together or concur with at least one brother or sister of their
predeceased parents.
