2007-2013 Civil Law Bar Questions (Dragged)

Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) hectorchristopher@yahoo.com dbaratbateladot@gmail.
com
the property. Their share is in Succession

proportion to their respective
contributions. In an ordinary co- Disposition; Mortis Causa vs. Intervivos;
ownership the care and maintenance of Corpse (2009)
the family is not recognized as a
valuable contribution for the acquisition No. XI. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if
of a property. In the Article 147 “special the statement is true, or FALSE if the
co-ownership” however, care and statement is false. Explain your answer in
maintenance is recognized as a valuable not more than two (2) sentences.
contribution which will entitle the
contributor to half of the property (E). A person can dispose of his corpse
acquired. through an act intervivos. (1%)
Having been acquired during their SUGGESTED ANSWER:

cohabitation, the residential lot is False. A persons cannot dispose of his
presumed acquired through their joint corpse through an act inter vivos, i.e.,
work and industr under Article 147, an act to take effect during his lifetime.
hence, B and G are co-owners of the said Before his death there is no corpse to
property in equal shares. dispose. But he is allowed to do so
through an act mortis causa, i.e., an act
Article 147 also provides that when a
to take effect upon his death.
party to the void marriage was in bad
faith, he forfeits his share in the co-
ownership in favor of the common
children or descendants, the default of Heirs; Fideicommissary Substitution
children or descendants, the forfeited (2008)
share shall belong to the innocent party.
In the foregoing problem, there is no No. XIII. Raymond, single, named his sister
showing that one party was in bad faith. Ruffa in his will as a devisee of a parcel of
Hence, both shall be presumed in good land which he owned. The will imposed
faith and no forfeiture shall take place. upon Ruffa the obligation of preseving the
land and transferring it, upon her death, to
her illegitimate daughter Scarlet who was
then only one year old. Raymond later died,
leaving behind his widowed mother, Ruffa
and Scarlet.
“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 46 of 180
Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) hectorchristopher@yahoo.com dbaratbateladot@gmail.com
(A). Is the condition imposed upon Ruffa, to Ruffa (Art. 992, Civil Code). Moreover,
preserve the property and to transmit it Scarlet is not a compulsory heir of
upon her death to Scarlet, valid? (1%) Raymond, hence she can inherit only by
testamentary succession. Since
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Raymond executed a will in the case at
bar, Scarlet may inherit from Raymond.
Yes, the condition imposed upon Ruffa
to preserve the property and to transmit
it upon her death to Scarlet is valid
because it is tantamount to Heirs; Intestate Succession; Legitime;
fideicommissary substitution under Art. Computation (2010)
863 of the Civil Code.
No.XI. The spouses Peter and Paula had
(B). If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, who three (3) children. Paula later obtained a
inherits the property? (2%) judgment of nullity of marriage. Their
absolute community of property having
SUGGESTED ANSWER: been dissolved, they delivered P1 million to
each of their 3 children as their
Ruffa will inherit the property as
presumptive legitimes.
Scarlet's heir. Scarlet acquires a right to
the succession from the time of Peter later re-married and had two (2)
Raymond's death, even though she children by his second wife Marie. Peter
should predecease Ruffa (Art. 866, Civil and Marie, having successfully engaged in
Code). business, acquired real properties. Peter
later died intestate.
(C). If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, can
Scarlet inherit the property directly from (A). Who are Peter’s legal heirs and how will
Raymond? (2%) his estate be divided among them? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, The legal heirs of Peter are his children
Raymond's widowed mother will be by the first and second marriages and
entitled to the inheritance. Scarlet, an his surviving second wife.
illegitimate child, cannot inherit the
Their shares in the estate of Peter will
property by intestate succession from
depend, however, on the cause of the
Raymond who is a legitimate relative of
Page 47 of 180
nullity of the first marriage. If the (B) If the ground of nullity is not
nullity of the first marriage was psychological capacity:
psychological incapacity of one or both 2 legitimate ¼ of the estate for
spouses, the three children of that void children each of second
marriage are legitimate and all of the marriage
legal heirs shall share the estate of Peter
Surviving ¼ of the estate
in equal shares. If the judgment of
second spouse
nullity was for other causes, the three
children are illegitimate and the estate 3 illegitimate 1/12 of estate for
shall be distributed such that an children each of first marriage
illegitimate child of the first marriage

shall receive half of the share of a
Note: The legitime of an illegitimate
legitimate child of the second marriage,
child is supposed to be ½ the legitime of
and the second wife will inherit a share
a legitimate child or 1/8 of the estate.
equal to that of a legitimate child. In no
But the estate will not be sufficient to
case may the two legitimate children of
pay the said legitime of the 3
the second marriage receive a share less
illegitimate children, because only ¼ of
than one-half of the estate which is their
the estate is left after paying the
legitime. When the estate is not
legitime of the surviving spouse which is
sufficient to pay all the legitimes of the
preferred.
compulsory heirs, the legitime of the
spouse is preferred and the illegitimate Hence, the remaining ¼ of the estate
children suffer the reduction. shall be divided among the 3 illegitimate
children.
Computation:
(A) If the ground of nullity is (B). What is the effect of the receipt by
psychological incapacity: Peter’s 3 children by his first marriage of

their presumptive legitimes on their right to
3 children by first 1/6 of the estate
inherit following Peter’s death? (5%)
marriage for each
2 children by second 1/6 of the estate SUGGESTED ANSWER:

marriage for each
In the distribution of Peter’s estate, ½ of
Surviving second 1/6 of the estate
the presumptive received by the 3
spouse
children of the first marriage shall be
collated to Peter’s estate and shall be
Page 48 of 180
imputed as an advance of their Art 992 of the NCC, an illegitimate child

respective inheritance from Peter. Only has no right to inherit ab intestato from
half of the presumptive legitime is the legitimate children and relatives of
collated to the estate of Peter because his father or mother. Arnel is
the other half shall be collated to the disqualified to inherit from Ricky
estate of his first wife. because Arnel is an illegitimate child of
Franco and Ricky is a legitimate relative
of Franco.
Heirs; Representation; Iron-Curtain Rule

(2012)
Heirs; Reserva Troncal (2009)
No.VIII.a) Ricky and Arlene are married.
They begot Franco during their marriage. No. I. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
Franco had an illicit relationship with statement is true, or FALSE if the
Audrey and out of which, they begot Arnel. statement is false. Explain your answer in
Frnaco predeceased Ricky, Arlene and not more than two (2) sentences.
Arnel. Before Ricky died, he executed a will
which when submitted to probate was (B).In reservatroncal, all reservatarios (reser
opposed by Arnel on the ground that he vees) inherit as a class and in equal shares
should be given the share of his father, regardless of their proximity in degree to
Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel correct? the prepositus. (1%)
Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: FALSE. Not all the relatives within the

third degree will inherit as reservatario ,
No, his opposition is not correct. Arnel and not all those who are entitled to
cannot inherit from Ricky in the inherit will inherit in the equal shares .
representation of his father Franco. In The applicable laws of intestate
representation, the representative must succession will determine who among
not only be a legal heir of the person he the relatives will inherit as reservatarios
is representing, he must also be a legal and what shares they will tak, i.e., the
heir of the decedent he seeks to inherit direct line excludes the collateral, the
from. descending direct line excludes the
ascending ,the nearer excludes the more
While Arnel is a legal heir of Franco, he
remote, the nephews and nieces exclude
is not a legal heir of Ricky because under
Page 49 of 180
the uncles and the aunts, and half blood (1). The wife of Ramon will, therefore,
relatives inherit half the share of receive one half (½) of the estate or the
full-blooded relatives. amount of P5,000,000.00.
(2). The three (3) full-blood brothers, will,
therefore, receive P1,000,000.00 each.
(3). The nephew will receive
Intestate Succession (2008)
P1,000,000.00 by right of
representation.
No. VII. Ramon Mayaman died intestate,
(4). The two (2) half-brothers will receive
leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00.
P500,000.00 each.
Determine how much each heir will receive
from the estate:
(B). If Ramon is survived by his wife, a half-
sister, and three nephews (sons of a
(A). If Ramon is survived by his wife, three
deceased full-blood brother)? Explain. (3%)
full-blood brothers, two half-brothers, and
one nephew (the son of a deceased full-
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
blood brother)? Explain. (3%)
The wife will receive one half (1/2) of the
estate or P5,000,000.00. The other half
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
shall be inherited by (1) the full-blood
Having died intestate, the estate of
brother, represented by his three
Ramon shall be inherited by his wife and
children, and (2) the half-sister. They
his full and half blood siblings or their
will divide the other half between them
respective representatives. In intestacy,
such that the share of the half-sister is
if the wife concurs with no one but the
just half the share of the full-blood
siblings of the husband, all of them are
brother. The share of the full-blood
the intestate heirs of the deceased
brother shall in turn be inherited by the
husband. The wife will receive half of the
three nephews in equal shares by right of
intestate estate, while the siblings or
presentation.
their respective representatives, will
inherit the other half to be divided
Therefore, the three (3) nephews will
among them equally. If some siblings are
receive P1,111,111.10 each the half-
of the full-blood and the other of the half
sister will receive the sum of
blood, a half blood sibling will receive
P1,666,666.60.
half the share of a full-blood sibling.
Page 50 of 180
Intestate Succession (2008) (D). How should the house and lot, and the
cash be distributed? (1%)
No.X. Arthur executed a will which
contained only: (i) a provision disinheriting SUGGESTED ANSWER:
his daughter Bernica for running off with a
married man, and (ii) a provision disposing Since the probate of the will cannot be
of his share in the family house and lot in allowed, the rules on intestate
favor of his other children Connie and Dora. succession apply. Under Art. 996 of the
He did not make any provisions in favor of Civil Code, if a widow or widower and
his wife Erica, because as the will stated, legitimate children or descendants are
she would anyway get ½ of the house and left, the surviving spouse has the same
lot as her conjugal share. The will was very share as of the children. Thus, ownership
brief and straightforward and both the over the house and lot will be created
above provisions were contained in page 1, among wife Erica and her children
which Arthur and his instrumental witness, Bernice, Connie and Dora. Similarly, the
signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained the amount of P 1 million will be equally
attestation clause and the signatures, at divided among them.
the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental

witnesses which included Lambert, the
driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and
Intestate Succession; Rights of
Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared
Representation: Illegitimate, Adopted
the will. There was a 3rd page, but this only
Child; Iron Curtain Rule (2007)
contained the notarial acknowledgement.
The attestation clause stated the will was No. X. For purpose of this question, assume
signed on the same occasion by Arthur and all formalities and procedural requirements
his instrumental witnesses who all signed have been complied with.
in the presence of each other, and the
notary public who notarized the will. There In 1970, Ramon and Dessa got married.
are no marginal signatures or pagination Prior to their marriage, Ramon had a child,
appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon his Anna. In 1971 and 1972, Ramon and Dessa
death, it was discovered that apart from the legally adopted Cherry and Michelle
house and lot, he had a P 1 million account respectively. In 1973, Dessa died while
deposited with ABC bank. giving birth to Larry Anna had a child, Lia.
Anna never married. Cherry, on the other
hand, legally adopted Shelly. Larry had
Page 51 of 180
twins, Hans and Gretel, with his girlfriend, also of the person from whom the person
Fiona. In 2005, Anna, Larry and Cherry being represented was supposed to
died in a car accident. In 2007, Ramon inherit. While Shelly is a legal heir of
died. Who may inherit from Ramon and Cherry, Shelly is not a legal heir of
who may not? Give your reason briefly. Ramon. Adoption created a purely
(10%) personal legal relation only between
Cherry and Shelly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2). Hans and Gretel are barred from
The following may inherit from Ramon: inheriting from Ramon under Art. 992,
NCC. Being illegitimate children, they
(1). Michelle, as an adopted child of
cannot inherit ab intestao from Ramon.
Ramon, will inherit as a legitimate child
of Ramon. As an adopted child, Michelle ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
has all the rights of a legitimate child
(Sec 18, Domestic Adoption Law). The problem expressly mentioned the
dates of the adoption of Cherry and
(2). Lia will inherit in representation of Michelle as 1971 and 1972. During that
Anna. Although Lia is an illegitimate time, adoption was governed by the New
child, she is not barred by Articles 992, Civil Code. Under the New Civil Code,
because her mother Anna is an husband and wife were allowed to adopt
illegitimate herself. She will represent separately or not jointly with the other
Anna as regards Anna's legitime under spouse. And since the problem does not
Art. 902, NCC and as regards Anna's specifically and categorically state, it is
intestate share under Art. 990, NCC. possible to construe the use of the word
"respectively" in the problem as
The following may not inherit from
indicative of the situation that Cherry
Ramon:
was adopted by Ramon alone and
Michelle was adopted by Dessa alone. In
(1). Shelly, being an adopted child, she
such case of separate adoption the
cannot represent Cherry. This is because
alternative answer to the problem will be
adoption creates a personal legal relation
as follows: Only Lia will inherit from
only between the adopter and the
Ramon in representation of Ramon's
adopted. The law on representation
illegitimate daughter Anna. Although Lia
requires the representative to be a legal
is an illegitimate child, she is not barred
heir of the person he is representing and
from inheriting from Ramon because her
Page 52 of 180
mother is herself illegitimate. Shelly SUGGESTED ANSWER:

cannot inherit in representation of
A testator may dispose of by will the free
Cherry because Shelly is just an adopted
portion of his estate. Since the legitime
child of Cherry. In representation, the
of JCP is 1/8 of the estate, SGO is ¼ of
representative must not only be a legal
the estate and that of HBR and RVC is ½
heir of the person he is representing but
of the hereditary estate under Art 889 of
also of the decedent from whom the
the NCC, the remaining 1/8 of the estate
represented person is supposed to
is the free portion which the testator
inherit. In the case of Shelly, while she
may dispose of by will.
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 adopting Legitime; Compulsory Heirs (2008)
parent and the adopted child (Teotico v.
Del Val, 13 SCRA 406, 1965. Michelle No. XII. Ernesto, an overseas Filipino
cannot inherit from Ramon, because she worker, was coming home to the Philippines
was adopted not by Ramon but by Dessa. after working for so many years in the
In the eyes of the law, she is not related Middle East. He had saved P100.000 in his
to Ramon at all. Hence, she is not a legal saving account in Manila which intended to
heir of Ramon. Hans and Gretel are not use to start a business in his home
entitled to inherit from Ramon, because country. On his flight home, Ernesto had a
they are barred by Art. 992 NCC. Being fatal heart attack. He left behind his
illegitimate children of Larry, they widowed mother, his common-law wife and
cannot inherit from the legitimate their twins sons. He left no will, no debts,
relatives of their father Larry. Ramon is no other relatives and no other properties
a legitimate relative of Larry who is the except the money in his saving account.
legitimate father. Who are the heirs entitled to inherint from
him and how much should each
receive?(3%)
Legitimes; Compulsory Heirs (2012) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No.VIII.b) How can RJP distribute his estate The mother and twin sons are entitled to
by will, if his heirs are JCP, his wife; HBR inherit from Ernesto. Art. 991 of the
and RVC, his parents; and an illegitimate Civil Code, provides that if legitimate
child, SGO?
Page 53 of 180
ascendants are left, the twin sons shall The attestation clause stated the will was
divide the inheritance with them taking signed on the same occasion by Arthur and
one-half of the estate. Thus, the widowed his instrumental witnesses who all signed
mother gets P50,000.00 while the twin in the presence of each other, and the
sons shall receive P25,000.00 each. The notary public who notarized the will. There
common-law wife cannot inherit from are no marginal signatures or pagination
him because when the law speaks "widow appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon his
or widower" as a compulsory heir, the death, it was discovered that apart from the
law refers to a legitimate spouse (Art. house and lot, he had a P 1 million account
887, par 3, Civil Code). deposited with ABC bank.
(A). Was Erica preterited? (1%)
Preterition; Disinheritance (2008) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No.X. Arthur executed a will which Erica cannot be preterited. Art. 854 of
contained only: (i) a provision disinheriting the Civil Code provides that only
his daughter Bernica for running off with a compulsory heirs in the direct line can
married man, and (ii) a provision disposing be preterited.
of his share in the family house and lot in
favor of his other children Connie and Dora. (B). What other defects of the will, if any,
He did not make any provisions in favor of can cause denial of probate? (2%)
his wife Erica, because as the will stated,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
she would anyway get ½ of the house and
lot as her conjugal share. The will was very
The other defects of the will that can
brief and straightforward and both the
cause its denial are as follows: (a) Atty.
above provisions were contained in page 1,
Zorba, the one who prepared the will was
which Arthur and his instrumental witness,
one of the three witnesses, violating the
signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained the
three-witnesses rule; (b) no marginal
attestation clause and the signatures, at
signature at the last page; (c ) the
the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental
attestation did not state the number of
witnesses which included Lambert, the
pages upon which the will is written;
driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and
and, (d) no pagination appearing
Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared
correlatively in letters on the upper part
the will. There was a 3rd page, but this only
of the three pages (Azuela v. C.A., G.R.
contained the notarial acknowledgement.
Page 54 of 180
No. 122880, 12 Apr 2006 and cited cases (B). Between Marian and the baby, who is
therein, Art 805 and 806, Civil Code). presumed to have died ahead? (1%)
(C). Was the disinheritance valid? (1%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Marian is presumed to have died ahead

of the baby. Art. 43 applies to persons
Yes, the disinheritance was valid. Art. who are called to succeed each other.
919, par 7, Civil Code provides that The proof of death must be established
"when a child or descendant leads a by positive or circumstantial evidence
dishonorable or disgraceful life, like derived from facts. It can never be
running off with a married man, there is established from mere inference. In the
sufficient cause for disinheritance." present case, it is very clear that only
Marian and Pietro were hacked with
bolos. There was no showing that the
baby was also hacked to death. The
Succession; Proof of Death between
baby's death could have been due to lack
persons called to succeed each other
of nutrition.
(2008)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. II. At age 18, Marian found out that she
was pregnant. She insured her own life and
The baby is presumed to have died ahead
named her unborn child as her sole
of Marian. Under Par. 5, rule 131, Sec. 5
beneficiary. When she was already due to
(KK) of the Rules of Court, if one is
give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the
under 15 or above 60 and the age of the
father of her unboarn child, were
other is in between 15 and 60, the latter
kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they
is presumed to have survived. In the
were vacationing. The military gave chase
instant case, Marian was already 18
and after one week, they were found in an
when she found out that she was
abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro
pregnant. She could be of the same age
were hacked with bolos. Marian and the
or maybe 19 years of age when she gave
baby delivered were both found dead, with
birth.
the baby's umbilical cord already cut. Pietro
survived. (C). Will Pietro, as surviving biological
father of the baby, be entitled to claim the
Page 55 of 180
proceeds of the life insurance on the life of

Marian? (2%) Marilyn is not entitled to a share in the
estate of Dr. Lopez. For purpose of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: succession, Dr. Lopez and his son
Roberto are presumed to have died at
Pietro, as the biological father of the
the same time, there being no evidence
baby, shall be entitled to claim the
to prove otherwise, and there shall be no
proceeds of life insurance of the Marian
transmission of rights from one to the
because he is a compulsory heir of his
other (Article 43, NCC). Hence, Roberto,
child.
inherited nothing from his father that
Marilyn would in turn inherit from
Roberto .The children of Roberto,
Succession; Rule on Survivorship (2009) however, will succeed their grandfather,

Dr. Lopez ,in representation of their
No. II. Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, father Roberto and together Roberto will
and his son Roberto both died in a fire that receive 1/3 of the estate of Dr. Lopez
gutted their home while they were sleeping since their father Roberto was one of the
in their air-conditioned rooms. Roberto’s three children of Dr. Lopez . Marilyn
wife, Marilyn, and their two children were cannot represent her husband Roberto
spared because they were in the province at because the right is not given by the law
the time. Dr. Lopez left an estate worth to a surviving spouse.
P20M and a life insurance policy in the
amount of P1M with his three children --- As to the proceeds of the insurance on
one of whom is Roberto --- as beneficiaries. the life of Dr. Lopez:
Marilyn is now claiming for herself and her Since succession is not involved as
children her husband’s share in the estate regards the insurance contract, the
left by Dr. Lopez, and her husband’s share provisions of the Rules of Court (Rule
in the proceeds of Dr. Lopez’s life insurance 131, Sec. 3 , [jj] [5] ) on survivorship
policy. Rule on the validity of Marilyn’s shall apply. Under the Rules, Dr. Lopez,
claims with reasons. (4%) who was 70 years old, is presumed to
have died ahead of Roberto who is
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
presumably between the ages 15 and 60.
Having survived the insured, Roberto's
As to the Estate of Dr. Lopez:
right as a beneficiary became vested
Page 56 of 180
upon the death of Dr. Lopez. When should be given effect must be denied.
Roberto died after Dr. Lopez, his right to The said cancellation has revoked the
receive the insurance became part of his entire will as nothing remains of the will
hereditary estate, which in turn was after the name of Rosa was cancelled.
inherited in equal shares by his legal Such cancellation is valid revocation of
heirs, namely, his spouse and children. the will and does not require
Therefore, Roberto's children and his authentication by the full signature of
spouse are entitled to Roberto's the testator to be effective.
one-third share in the insurance
However, if the cancellation of Rosa’s
proceeds.
name was not done by the testator
himself, such cancellation shall not be
effective and the will in its original tenor
Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions & shall remain valid. The effectively of the
Cancellations (2012) holographic will cannot be left to the
mercy of unscrupulous third parties.
No.VII.a) Natividad’s holographic will, which
had only one (1) substantial provision, as The writing of Gregorio’s name as sole
first written, named Rosa as her sole heir. heir was ineffective, even though written
However, when Gregorio presented it for by the testator himself, because such is
probate, it already contained an alteration, an alteration that requires
naming Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as sole authentication by the full signature of
heir, but without authentication by the testator to be valid and effective. Not
Natividad’s signature. Rosa opposes the having an authenticated, the designation
probate alleging such lack of proper of Gregorio as an heir was ineffective,
authentication. She claims that the (Kalaw v. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207, Sept
unaltered form of the will should be given 28, 1984).
effect. Whose claim should be granted?

Explain. (5%)
Wills; Holographic Wills; Probate (2009)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It depends. If the cancellation of Rosa’s No.VI. On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito
name in the will was done by the Fuentes executed a holographic will,
testator himself, Rosa’s claimed that the wherein he gave nothing to his recognized
holographic will in its original tenor illegitimate son, Jay. Dr. Fuentes left for the
Page 57 of 180
United States, passed the New York medical court shall apply the New Civil Code in
licensure examinations, resided therein, determining the formal validity of the
and became a naturalized American citizen. holographic will. The subsequent change
He died in New York in 2007. The laws of in the citizenship of Dr. Fuentes did not
New York do not recognize holographic wills affect the law governing the validity of
or compulsory heirs. his will. Under the new Civil Code, which
was the law used by Dr. Fuentes, the law
(A). Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes enforced at the time of execution of the
be admitted to probate in the Philippines? will shall govern the formal validity of
Why or why not? (3%) the will (Art. 795, NCC).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (B). Assuming that the will is probated in

Yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that
may be admitted to probate in the he be given his legitime? Why or why not?
Philippines because there is no public (3%)
policy violated by such probate. The only
issue at probate is the due execution of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the will which includes the formal No, Jay cannot insist because under New
validity of the will. As regards formal York law he is not a compulsory heir
validity, the only issue the court will entitled to a legitime.
resolve at probate is whether or not the
will was executed in accordance with the The national law of the testator
form prescribed by the law observed by determines who his heirs are, the order
the testator in the execution of his will. that they succeed, how much their
For purposes of probate in the successional rights are, and whether or
Philippines, an alien testator may not a testamentary disposition in his will
observe the law of the place where the is valid (Art 16, NCC). Since, Dr. Fuentes
will was executed (Art 17, NCC), or the was a US citizen, the laws of the New
formalities of the law of the place where York determines who his heirs are. And
he resides, or according to the since the New York law does not
formalities of the law of his own country, recognize the concept of compulsory
or in accordance with the Philippine heirs, Jay is not a compulsory heir of Dr.
Civil Code (Art. 816, NCC). Since Dr. Fuentes entitled to a legitime.
Fuentes executed his will in accordance

with the Philippine law, the Philippine
Page 58 of 180
Wills; Joint Wills (2008) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. XI. John and Paula, British citizens at No. The testamentary dispositions are
birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by not valid because (a) omission of Mary, a
naturalization after their marriage. During legitimate child, is tantamount to
their marriage the couple acquired preterition which shall annul the
substanial landholdings in London and in institution of Peter and Paul as heirs
Makati. Paula bore John three children, (Art. 854, Civil Code); and, (b) the
Peter, Paul and Mary. In one of their trips disposition that Peter and Paul could not
to London, the couple executed a joint will dispose of nor divide the London estate
appointing each other as their heirs and for more than 20 years is void (Art. 870,
providing that upon the death of the Civil Code).
survivor between them the entire estate
would go to Peter and Paul only but the two
could not dispose of nor divide the London
Wills; Joint Wills; Probate (2012)
estate as long as they live. John and Paul
died tragically in the London Subway
No.VII.b) John Sagun and Maria Carla
terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul
Camua, British citizens at birth, acquired
filed a petition for probate of their parent's
Philippine citizenship by naturalization
will before a Makati Regional Trial Court.
after their marriage. During their marriage,
the couple acquired substantial
(A). Should the will be admitted to probate?
landholdings in London and in Makati.
(2%)
Maria begot three (3) children, Jorge,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Luisito, and Joshur. In one of their trips to

London, the couple executed a joint will
No. The will cannot be admitted to appointing each other as their heirs and
probate because a joint will is expressly providing that upon the death of the
prohibited under Art. 818 of the Civil survivor between them, the entire estate
Code. This provision applies John and would go to Jorge and Luisito only but the
Paula became Filipino citizens after their two (2) could not dispose of nor divide the
marriage. London estate as long as they live. John
and Maria died tragically in the London
(B). Are the testamentary dispositions subway terrorist attack in 2005. Jorge and
valid? (2%) Luisito filed a petition for probate of their
parents’ will before a Makati Regional Trial
Page 59 of 180
Court. Joshur vehemently objected because SUGGESTED ANSWER:

he was preterited.
Assuming the will of John and Maria was
(1) Should the will be admitted to probate? valid, the testamentary prohibition on the
Explain. (2%) division of the London estate shall be valid

but only for 20 years. Under Arts 1083 and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 494 of the NCC, a testamentary disposition
of the testator cannot forbid the partition of
No, the will should not be admitted to
all or part of the estate for a period longer
probate. Since the couples are both
than twenty (20) years.
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 Wills; Prohibition to Partition of a Co-
the country where they were executed. Owned Property (2010)
(2) Are the testamentary dispositions valid? No.I. True or False.

Explain. (2%)
(B) X, a widower, died leaving a will stating
SUGGESTED ANSWER: that the house and lot where he lived
cannot be partitioned for as long as the
Since the joint will is void, all the
youngest of his four children desires to stay
testamentary disposition written therein
there. As coheirs and co-owners, the other
are also void. However, if the will is
three may demand partition anytime. (1%)
valid, the institutions of the heirs shall
be annulled because Joshur was SUGGESTED ANSWER:
preterited. He was preterited because he
will receive nothing from the will, will FALSE, The other three co – heirs may
receive nothing in testacy, and the facts not anytime demand the partition of the
do not show that he received anything as house and lot since it was expressly
an advance on his inheritance. He was provided by the decedent in his will that
totally excluded from the inheritance of the same cannot be partitioned while his
his parents. youngest child desires to stay there.

Article 1083 of the New Civil Code allows
(3) Is the testamentary prohibition against a decedent to prohibit, by will, the
the division of the London estate valid? partition of a property and his estate for
Explain. (1%) a period not longer than 20 years no
Page 60 of 180
matter what his reason maybe. Hence, (B). Act as a witness to a will? (1%)
the three co-heir cannot demand its
partition at anytime but only after 20 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
years from the death of their father.

Stevie cannot be a witness to a will. Art.
Even if the deceased parent did not
820 of the Civil Code provides that "any
leave a will, if the house and lot
person of sound mind and of the age of
constituted their family home, Article
eighteen years or more, and not blind,
159 of the Family Code prohibits its
deaf or dumb, and able to read and write,
partition for a period of ten (10) years, or
may be a witness to the execution of a
for as long as there is a minor
will.
beneficiary living in the family home.
(C). In either of the above instances, must

the will be read to him? (1%)
Wills; Notarial Wills; Blind Testator;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Requisites (2008)
If Stevie makes a will, the will must be

No. XIV. Stevie was born blind. He went to
read to him twice, once by one of the
school for the blind, and learned to read in
subscribing witnesses, and again, by the
Baille Language. He Speaks English
notary public before whom the will is
fluently. Can he:
acknowledged (Art. 808, Civil Code).
(A). Make a will? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Wills; Testamentary Disposition; Period
Assuming that he is of legal age (Art. to Prohibit Partition (2008)
797, Civil Code) and of sound mind at

No. XI. John and Paula, British citizens at
the time of execution of the will (Art.
birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by
798, Civil Code), Stevie, a blind person,
naturalization after their marriage. During
can make a notarial will, subject to
their marriage the couple acquired
compliance with the "two-reading rule"
substanial landholdings in London and in
(Art. 808, Civil Code) and the provisions
Makati. Paula bore John three children,
of Arts. 804, 805 and 806 of the Civil
Peter, Paul and Mary. In one of their trips
Code.
to London, the couple executed a joint will
appointing each other as their heirs and
Page 61 of 180
providing that upon the death of the that she can sign her full name later. While
survivor between them the entire estate the will was being signed, Roberta
would go to Peter and Paul only but the two experienced a stomach ache and kept going
could not dispose of nor divide the London to the restroom for long periods of time.
estate as long as they live. John and Paul Hannah, while waiting for her turn to sign
died tragically in the London Subway the will, was reading the 7th Harry Potter
terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul book on the couch, beside the table on
filed a petition for probate of their parent's which everyone was signing. Benjamin,
will before a Makati Regional Trial Court. aside from witnessing the will, also offered
to notarize it. A week after, Clara was run
(C). Is the testamentary prohibition against over by a drunk driver while crossing the
the division of the London estate valid? (2%) street in Greenbelt.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: May the will of Clara be admitted to

probate? Give your reasons briefly. (10%)
No. the testamentary prohibition against
the division of the London estate is void SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(Art. 870, Civil Code). A testator,
however, may prohibit partition for a Probate should be denied. The
period which shall not exceed twenty requirement that the testator and at
(20) years (Art. 870 in relation to Art. least three (3) witnesses must sign all in
494, par 3, Civil Code). the "presence" of one another was not
complied with. Benjamin who notarized
the will is disqualified as a witness,
hence he cannot be counted as one of
Wills; Witnesses to a Will, Presence
the three witnesses (Cruz v. Villasor, 54
required; Thumbmark as Signature
SCRA 31, 1973). The testatrix and the
(2007)
other witnesses signed the will not in
the presence of Roberta because she was
No.VI. Clara, thinking of her mortality,
in the restroom for extended periods of
drafted a will and asked Roberta, Hannah,
time. Inside the restroom, Roberta could
Luisa and Benjamin to be witnesses.
not have possibly seen the testatrix and
During the day of signing of her will, Clara
the other witnesses sign the will by
fell down the stairs and broke her arms.
merely casting her eyes in the proper
Coming from the hospital, Clara insisted on
direction (Jaboneta v. Gustilo, 5 Phil
signing her will by thumb mark and said
541, 1906; Nera v. Rimando, 18 Phil
Page 62 of 180
451, 1914). Therefore, the testatrix Because the Picasso painting reminded
signed the will in the presence of only Angie of him, Brad in his will bequeathed
two witnesses, and only two witnesses the painting to Angie. Brad died in 1995.
signed the will in the presence of the Saddened by Brad's death, Jennifer asked
testatrix and of one another. for the Picasso painting as a remembrance
of him. Angie refused and claimed that
It is to be noted, however, that the Brad, in his will, bequeathed the painting to
thumb mark intended by the testator to her. Is Angie correct? Why or why not?
be his signature in executing his last will (10%)
and testament is valid (Payad v.
Tolentino, 62 Phil 848, 1936; Matias v. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Salud, L-104 Phil 1046, 23 June, 1958).
The problem, however, states that Clara NO. Angie is not correct. The Picasso
"said that she can sign her full name painting is not given or donated by
later;" Hence, she did not consider her Jennifer to Brad. She merely "placed it
thumb mark as her "complete" signature, in his bedroom." Hence, she is still the
and intended further action on her part. owner of the painting. Not being the
The testatrix and the other witness owner of the Picasso painting, Brad
signed the will in the presence of cannot validly bequeath the same to
Hannah, because she was aware of her Angie (Art. 930, NCC). Even assuming
function and role as witness and was in a that the painting was impliedly given or
position to see the testatrix and the donated by Jennifer to Brad, the
other witnesses sign by merely casting donation is nevertheless void for not
her eyes in the proper direction. being in writing. The Picasso painting
must be worth more than 5,000 pesos.
Donation
Under Art. 748, NCC, the donation and
acceptance of a movable worth more
Donations; Formalities; In Writing (2007)
than 5,000 pesos must be in writing,
No. VIII. In 1986, Jennifer and Brad were otherwise the donation is void. The
madly in love. In 1989, because a certain donation being void, Jennifer remained
Picasso painting reminded Brad of her, the owner of the Picasso painting and
Jennifer acquired it and placed it in his Brad could not have validly disposed of
bedroom. In 1990, Brad and Jennifer broke said painting in favor of Angie in his will.
up. While Brad was mending his broken

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
heart, he met Angie and fell in love.
Page 63 of 180

2007-2013 Civil Law Bar Questions (Dragged)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2007-2013 Civil Law Bar Questions (Dragged)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) hectorchristopher@yahoo.com dbaratbateladot@gmail.

the property. Their share is in Succession

acquired. through an act intervivos. (1%)

Having been acquired during their SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

shall be distributed such that an children each of first marriage

illegitimate child of the first marriage

psychological incapacity: Peter’s 3 children by his first marriage of

2 children by second 1/6 of the estate SUGGESTED ANSWER:

imputed as an advance of their Art 992 of the NCC, an illegitimate child

Heirs; Representation; Iron-Curtain Rule

Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel correct? the prepositus. (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: FALSE. Not all the relatives within the

attestation clause and the signatures, at divided among them.

the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental

mother is herself illegitimate. Shelly SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Legitimes; Compulsory Heirs (2012) SUGGESTED ANSWER:

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

Preterition; Disinheritance (2008) SUGGESTED ANSWER:

his wife Erica, because as the will stated,

(C). Was the disinheritance valid? (1%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Marian is presumed to have died ahead

proceeds of the life insurance on the life of

Succession; Rule on Survivorship (2009) however, will succeed their grandfather,

probate, it already contained an alteration, an alteration that requires

naming Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as sole authentication by the full signature of

Natividad’s signature. Rosa opposes the having an authenticated, the designation

probate alleging such lack of proper of Gregorio as an heir was ineffective,

unaltered form of the will should be given 28, 1984).

effect. Whose claim should be granted?

Wills; Holographic Wills; Probate (2009)

It depends. If the cancellation of Rosa’s No.VI. On December 1, 2000, Dr. Juanito

SUGGESTED ANSWER: (B). Assuming that the will is probated in

For purposes of probate in the successional rights are, and whether or

Philippines, an alien testator may not a testamentary disposition in his will

Fuentes executed his will in accordance

Wills; Joint Wills (2008) SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Luisito, and Joshur. In one of their trips to

Court. Joshur vehemently objected because SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Explain. (2%) division of the London estate shall be valid

(2) Are the testamentary dispositions valid? No.I. True or False.

his parents. youngest child desires to stay there.

years from the death of their father.

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

Wills; Notarial Wills; Blind Testator;

If Stevie makes a will, the will must be

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

Assuming that he is of legal age (Art. to Prohibit Partition (2008)

797, Civil Code) and of sound mind at

SUGGESTED ANSWER: May the will of Clara be admitted to

up. While Brad was mending his broken

You might also like