Q: Suppose that the beneficiary in a will is the wife of the minister of the gospel who rendered aid to the

testator during the latter’s last illness. Would she disqualified from inheriting from the testator?
a. Yes because the law expressly incapacitates the spouse to the minister
b. Yes because even the relative within the 4th degree are incapacitated as long as it was
spiritual aid it was extended. (1022 and 1047)
c. No, because she is not one of those who considered incapacitated by law
d. No, because she cannot be the legal wife of the minister

Q: X died January 15, 2005 survived by his wife, Y and the paramour Z. A, a legitimate child of X died
December 31 2004. Y gave birth to B on December 30, 2005. Z gave to C 5 months after the died of X.
However, C died 5 hours after birth. Who may inherit from X?
c. C may inherit if he has an intra-uterine life of more than seven months.

Q: X died January 15, 2005 survived by his wife, Y and the paramour Z. A, a legitimate child of X died on
December 31 2004. B an illegitimate child of died on March 1, 2005. Y gave birth C on January 2006. Z
was 2 months pregnant at the time of the death of X and gave birth to D 4 month after X died. However D
died 21 hours after birth. Who may inherit from X? A: B being illegitimate child.

Q: In the will of X, A parcel of land given to A B C D. A was the priest who heard the confession of the
testator 5 years before his death. B was the guardian of X. C was one of the attesting witnesses to the
execution of the will of X. D was convicted of adultery. Who may inherit from X as a voluntary heir?
A: All of the Above.

Q: A was the priest who heard the confession of the testator during his last illness. In the will of X, a
parcel of the land was given to B. B, may be inherit if he is the
a. First cousin of A
b. Grandson of A
c. Brother of A
d. Father of A
e. All of the above
f. None of the above
None will inherit. ART. 1027 para 2

ART 1032: act of unworthiness (31:00)

Q; X died leaving a last will and testament where stated that he was legally married to W by whom he had
2 legitimate children A and B which device to his force heir the entire estate except the free portion which
he gave to Y was leaving with him at the time of his death. In the said will, he explain that he had
estranged from his wife W more than 20 years and he’s leaving with X was leaving a man and wife since
he separate from his family. In the probate proceeding X asks for issuance of letter of the testamentary in
the accordance of the will when he name as sole executor. This was opposing by W and her children. Is
the said device to X valid? Nde dapat device kundi institution of heir
a. Yes because it did not impair the legitime of the compulsory heir
b. Yes because she leaving as man and wife for more than 20 years
c. No, because the devise impair the legitime of the compulsory heir
d. No, because the prohibition in donation inter vivos where made applicable in testamentary
provision (1028)

Panu kung nagbreak na sila X? pwde nna ba? YES, it must made when they was still guilty of adulterous
relationship.

Q: The husband was granted a degree of separation on the ground of the adultery of the wife. May the
wife inherit to the husband by intestate succession or by will?

1
 a. Yes because the a degree of separation on the ground of the adultery does not incapacitate the
guilty spouse
b. Yes through a will where executed after the degree of separation was promulgated.
c. No because the a degree of separation on the ground of the adultery does absolute incapacitate
the guilty spouse
d. No, she is no longer a legal wife.

Paternity & Filiation; Proofs; Limitations; Adopted Child (1995)

Abraham died intestate on 7 January 1994 survived by his son Braulio. Abraham's older son Carlos died
on 14 February 1990. Danilo who claims to be an adulterous child of Carlos intervenes in the
proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Abraham in representation of Carlos. Danilo was legally
adopted on 17 March 1970 by Carlos with the consent of the " latter's wife.
1. Under the Family Code, how may an illegitimate filiation be proved? Explain.
2. As lawyer for Danilo, do you have to prove Danilo's illegitimate filiation? Explain.
3. Can Danilo inherit from Abraham in representation of his father Carlos? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Under Art. 172 in relation to Art. 173 andArt. 175 of the FC, the filiation of illegitimate children may be
established in the same way and by the same evidence as legitimate children. Art. 172 provides that the
filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) the record of birth appearing in the
civil register or a final Judgment; or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence of the foregoing
evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) the open and continuous possession of the status
of a legitimate child; or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. No. Since Danilo has already been adopted by Carlos, he ceased to be an illegitimate child. An
adopted child acquires all the rights of a legitimate child under Art, 189 of the FC.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3. No, he cannot. Danilo cannot represent Carlos as the latter's adopted child in the inheritance of
Abraham because adoption did not make Danilo a legitimate grandchild of Abraham. Adoption is personal
between Carlos and Danilo. He cannot also represent Carlos as the latter's illegitimate child because in
such case he is barred by Art. 992 of the NCC from inheriting from his illegitimate grandfather Abraham.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
An adopted child's successional rights do not include the right to represent his deceased adopter in the
inheritance of the latter's legitimate parent, in view of Art. 973 which provide that in order that
representation may take place, the representative must himself be capable of succeeding the decedent.
Adoption by itself did not render Danilo an heir of the adopter's legitimate parent. Neither does his being a
grandchild of Abraham render him an heir of the latter because as an illegitimate child of Carlos, who was
a legitimate child of Abraham, Danilo is incapable of succeeding Abraham under Art. 992 of the Code.

Barrier Between Illegitimate & Legitimate Relatives (1993)

A is the acknowledged natural child of B who died when A was already 22 years old. When B's full blood
brother, C, died he (C) was survived by his widow and four children of his other brother D. Claiming that
he is entitled to inherit from his father's brother C. A brought suit to obtain his share in the estate of C.
Will his action prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the action of A will not prosper. On the premise that B, C and D are legitimate brothers, as an
illegitimate child of B, A cannot inherit in intestacy from C who is a legitimate brother of B. Only the wife of
C in her own right and the Legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the children of D as C's legitimate nephews
inheriting as collateral relatives) can inherit in intestacy. (Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975, Civil Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action of A will not prosper. Being an illegitimate, he is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from
inheriting ab intestato from the legitimate relatives of his father.

OBJECT OF SUCCESSION (52:03)

2
It is the question of what may be transmitted by succession. A: Inheritance (Art 776)

Heir is entitled to the rental payment but not form part of the inheritance but he is already the owner upon
death of the decedent because of art 777.

Q: A filed an action B. however, during the pendency of the case, A died. Can his heir validly claim to B
substituted in that action?
A: It depends on the nature of the action. If the action would pertain to transmissible property rights and
obligation, then they may validly substitute. Because then the action will survive despite of death of A.
The heir will acquired what the decease had. However, if the action is personal in character, (ex. For the
annulment of the marriage) then, it will not prosper. The heir cannot be substituted in that action. (Bonilla
vs Barcena)

OPENING OF SUCCESSION

Intestate Succession (2000)

Eugenio died without issue, leaving several parcels of land in Bataan. He was survived by Antonio, his
legitimate brother; Martina, the only daughter of his predeceased sister Mercedes; and five legitimate
children of Joaquin, another predeceased brother. Shortly after Eugenio's death, Antonio also died,
leaving three legitimate children. Subsequently, Martina, the children of Joaquin and the children of
Antonio executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Eugenio, dividing it among themselves. The
succeeding year, a petition to annul the extrajudicial settlement was filed by Antero, an illegitimate son of
Antonio, who claims he is entitled to share in the estate of Eugenio. The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that Antero is barred by Article 992 of the Civil Code from inheriting from the
legitimate brother of his father. How will you resolve the motion? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It depends. If Antero was not acknowledged by Antonio, the motion to dismiss should be granted because
Antero is not a legal heir of Antonio. If Antero was acknowledged, the motion should be denied because
Article 992 is not applicable. This is because Antero is claiming his inheritance from his illegitimate father,
not from Eugenio.
Requisite for the transmission of successional rights
1. express will of the testator or provision of law
2. death of the person whose property is the subject of succession
3. acceptance of the inheritance

Acceptance:
Anu daw ung proper term sa ART 777? The right are transmitted from the moment of the death of the
decedent. Author sabi na dapat vested kasi pag namatay, kelangan pa ng acceptance. Nde daw dapat
transmitted, vested dapat. ATTY Uribe: The code is corrected that the right are transmitted. Because
even if conditional ung testamentary disposition, the effect of happening of the condition retroacts as if he
already acquired at the time of death. Anu effect kung hindi tinanggap ng heir? Somebody will acquired
such property. Ang pinakadulo is ung State. Hindi aayaw ung state.

A person has free disposal to be able to accept. Ex. Person suffer civil interdiction may not validly accept
inheritance bcoz they cannot have free disposal of property.

Death:

For purpose of succession when is death deemed to occur or take place?

a. When it is declared by a doctor
b. Death is a fact is deemed to occur when it is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction
c. Upon issuance of the death certificate
d. Presume death of an absentee under extra-ordinary circumstance is deemed to occur at
the moment of disappearance

3
Our law recognized a death as matter of fact and presumptive death. Ung kay Punongbayan, lasog lasog
na ung katawan. Death as matter of fact ba to or presumptive death? Nde lang presume, but they really
die. When they die? At the time the accident took place.

When the person presume to have died?

Under extra ordinary circumstances, pertain to a scenario when a person is in danger of death.

Ordinary circustances- the person is not in danger of death. Nawala lang bigla. Nag disappear siya.
When he considered died? When the heir can file an action for declaration of presumptive death and for
partition? It depends on the age. If he is unless 75, it is be after 10 years pero pag more than 75, after 5
years lang. The petition is premature before the lapse of the period. And he will entitle only after lapse of
the period.

Pro pag kasama sa barkong lumuboog, tapos di nkita ung katawan, pwede bang mag file ng action for
the declaration of the presumptive death? No, dapat 4 years

But the court already declared death presumptively? When he will be considered died? And therefore the
heir will be entitled to the rentals of the mishaps? Yes. The heir be entitled from the very day the ship
sunk.

TWO PERSONS DIED WITH THE SAME ACCIDENT:

Death; Effects; Simultaneous Death (2000)

b) Cristy and her late husband Luis had two children, Rose and Patrick, One summer, her mother-in-law,
aged 70, took the two children, and then aged 10 and 12, with her on a boat trip to Cebu. Unfortunately,
the vessel sank en route, and the bodies of the three were never found. None of the survivors ever saw
them on the water. On the settlement of her mother-in-law's estate, Cristy files a claim for a share of her
estate on the ground that the same was inherited by her children from their grandmother in representation
of their father, and she inherited the same from them. Will her action prosper? (2%)
a. Yes because Cristy inherited from her children what is inherited from her children is inherited to
their grandmother in representation of their father
b. Yes because under the survivorship rule her mother-in-law is presumed to have died ahead of her
grandchildren
c. No, because she is not a heir of her mother in law (rosales vs rosales)
d. No, because they are deemed to have died at the same time therefore her children did not
inherit from her mother in law
It is the under the survivorship rule her mother-in-law is presumed to have died ahead of her grandchildren.
(1:55:00)

The survivorship rule is not applicable in succession. Art 43 of NCC.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, her action will not prosper. Since there was no proof as to who died first, all the three are deemed to
have died at the same time and there was no transmission of rights from one to another, applying Article
43 of the New Civil Code.

Death; Effects; Simultaneous Death (1998)

Jaime, who is 65, and his son, Willy, who is 25, died in a plane crash. There is no proof as to who died first.
Jaime's only surviving heir is his wife, Julia, who is also Willy's mother. Willy's surviving heirs are his mother,
Julia and his wife, Wilma. 1. In the settlement of Jaime's estate, can Wilma successfully claim that her late
husband, Willy had a hereditary share since he was much younger than his father and, therefore, should
be presumed to have survived longer? (3%)
2. Suppose Jaime had a life insurance policy with his wife, Julia, and his son, Willy, as the beneficiaries.
Can Wilma successfully claim that one-half of the proceeds should belong to Willy's estate? (2%)

4
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. No, Wilma cannot successfully claim that Willy had a hereditary share in his father's estate. Under Art.
43, Civil Code, two persons "who are called to succeed each other" are presumed to have died at the same
time, in the absence of proof as to which of them died first. This presumption of simultaneous death applies
in cases involving the question of succession as between the two who died, who in this case are mutual
heirs, being father and son.
2. Yet, Wilma can invoke the presumption of survivorship and claim that one-half of the proceeds should
belong to Willy's estate, under Sec. 3 (jj) par. 5 Rule 131, Rules of Court, as the dispute does not involve
succession. Under this presumption, the person between the ages of 15 and 60 years is deemed to have
survived one whose age was over 60 at the time of their deaths. The estate of Willy endowed with juridical
personality stands in place and stead of Willy, as beneficiary.

Death; Effects; Simultaneous Death (2009)

Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his son Roberto both died in a fire that 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 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. 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 insurance policy. Rule on the validity of Marilyn’s claims
with reasons. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As to the Estate of Dr. Lopez:
Marilyn is not entitled to a share in the estate of Dr. Lopez. For purposes of succession, Dr. Lopez and his
son Roberto are presumed to have died at the time, there being no evidence to prove otherwise, and there
be no transmission of rights from one to the other (Art. 43, NCC). Hence, Roberto inherited nothing from
his father that Marilyn would in turn inherit from Roberto. The children of Roberto, however, will succeed
their grandfather, Dr. Lopez, in representation of their father Roberto and together they will receive 1/3 of
the estate of Dr. Lopez since their father Roberto was one of the three children of Dr. Lopez. Marilyn cannot
represent her husband Roberto because the right of representation is not given by law to a surviving
spouse.
As to the proceeds of the insurance on the life of Dr. Lopez:
Since succession is not involved as regards the insurance contract, the provision of the Rules of Court
(Rule 131, Sec. 3, (jj) (5)) on survivorship 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 ages of 15 and 60. Having
survived the insured, Roberto’s right as a beneficiary became vested upon the death of Dr. Lopez. When
Roberto died after Dr. Lopez, his right to receive the insurance proceeds became part of his hereditary
estate, which in turn was inherited in equal shares by his legal heirs, namely, his spouse and children.
Therefore, Roberto’s children and his spouse are entitled to Roberto’s 1/3 share in the insurance proceeds.

HOW THEY MAY ACQUIRE?

Wills; Joint Wills (2000)

Manuel, a Filipino, and his American wife Eleanor, executed a Joint Will in Boston, Massachusetts when
they were residing in said city. The law of Massachusetts allows the execution of joint wills. Shortly
thereafter, Eleanor died. Can the said will be probated in the Philippines for the settlement of her estate?
(3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the will may be probated in the Philippines insofar as the estate of Eleanor is concerned. While the
Civil Code prohibits the execution of Joint wills here and abroad, such absolute prohibition applies only to
Filipinos. Hence, the joint will which is valid where executed is valid in the Philippines but only with respect
to Eleanor. Under Article 819, it is void with respect to Manuel whose joint will remains void in the Philippines
despite being valid where executed.

5
Requirement for the validity of the will
(1986) Q: 14 Busalsal executed a will in his handwriting, signed by him at the end of each page on the left marginal
space of every page except the last page. The document bore no date. However, below busalsal’s every signature
were the signatures of two witnesses, who later testified that the will was executed in their. Presence on January 1,
1985, New year’s day, and that busalsal was in full possession of his faculties at that time and even explained to
them details of the will he was writing down. Is the will formally valid? Explain

A: the will is not valid either as a notarial will or a holographic will. It is not valid as a notarial will because this
requires 3 attesting witnesses. Neither is it a valid holographic will because the will must be entirely written, dated
and signed in the handwriting of the testator. The fact that the witnesses testified as the date of execution did not
cure the defect.

Wills; Formalities (2007)

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.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Probate should be denied. The requirement that the testator and at least (3) witnesses must all sign in 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 the three witnesses (Cruz v. 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 period of time. Inside
the restroom, Roberta could not have 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 [1906); Nera v. Rimando, 18 Phil. 451
[1914]). Therefore, the testatrix signed her will in the presence of only two witnesses, and only two witnesses signed
the will in the presence of the testatrix and one of another.
It is to be noted, however, that a thumb mark intended by the testator to be his signature in executing his last will
and testament is valid (Payad v. Tolentino, 62 Phil. 848 [1936]; Matias v. Salud, L-104 Phils. 1046, 23 June [1958]).
The problem, however, states that Clara “said that she can sign her full name later”; Hence, she did not consider her
thumb-mark as her “complete” signature, and intended further action on her part. The testatrix and the other witness
signed the will in the presence of Hannah, because she was aware of her function and role as witness and was in a
position to see the testatrix and the other witness sign by merely casting her eyes in the proper direction.

Wills; Holographic Wills; Witnesses (1994)

On his deathbed, Vicente was executing a will. In the room were Carissa, Carmela, Comelio and Atty. Cimpo, a
notary public. Suddenly, there was a street brawl which caught Comelio's attention, prompting him to look out the
window. Cornelio did not see Vicente sign a will. Is the will valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a) Yes, The will is valid. The law does not require a witness to actually see the testator sign the will. It is sufficient if
the witness could have seen the act of signing had he chosen to do so by casting his eyes to the proper direction.
b) Yes, the will is valid. Applying the "test of position", although Comelio did not actually see Vicente sign the will,
Cornelio was in the proper position to see Vicente sign if Cornelio so wished.

1988 Q11: The probate of the will of Nicandro is contested on the ground that the notary public before whom the
will, was acknowledged was also one of the three instrumental witnesses. If you were the probate judge, how
would you decide the contest? Give you reasons.
A: the will is void. The acknowledging officer cannot serve as attesting witness at the same time. In effect there are
only two witnesses since the notary cannot swear before himself. (cruz vs villasor)

6
URIBE PART4

Special requiment as to blind person

Q: If there is a proposition as to the probate that the grouns that the will was not read to the testator twice,
but the testator was not blind at the time of death. Is it possible none the less that the will will be denied
probate because of the failure to read the will twice to him?

A: Yes the 1st reason is that the requirement that is should be read to him would be relevant if he was blind
not the time of his death but at the time of the execution of the will.

But even he was not blind at the time of the execution of the will, and there is failure to read the will twice,
May it still denied probate?
A: yes, as SC ruled that is also applicable if the testator have very poor eyesight which he cannot read the
disposition of the will. It is also apply if the person is an illiterate and he cannot read what was written on
the document.

CODICIL

Q: if an instrument would only have one provision in the will which is the revocation of a prior will. It state
that “So I hereby revoke the will which I executed in 1999” can we consider this instrument as a codicil?
A: Definitely, no because a codicil by its nature is just a supplement, or addition to a will, with this instrument
in a codicil a will is explain or altered only and not totally revoke.

NB: that a codicil may revoke but the revocation here is only partial or alteration. Thus if it is a total alteration
or revocation, that cannot be a codicil.

Q: e ano tawag natin dun? Hindi rin siya will kasi it did not dispose any property. Simply put it is only a
revocatory instrument.

Q: As far as codicil is concern, for the disposition, alteration and revocation therein to be given effect, is it
required that they comply with the formalities prescribed by law for the execution of the wills?
A: Yes, this codicil must also be probated because the law required that the codicil must be executed as in
the case of a will. (Parang will ung requirement)

Q: But is it required that the witnesses in the will to the execution of the will, be the same witnesses in the
codicil? Kung si A B and C ung witnesses sa will, sila parin ba dapat ang witnesses sa codicil?
A: Obviously No! It is not required because the codicil may be executed 30 years after the execution of the
will. By that time, all the witnesses are alreary died.

INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE/ INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

Q: A document which was executed not in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law, may the
disposition therein be given effect?
A: Yes, the disposition therein may be given effect by incorporation. (REPUBLICATION)

Q: but by incorporation, is it required that in subsequent instrument which we can call a will, all the
disposition must have been copied in the 2nd or subsequent instrument?
A: Not necessarily, it depends on the reason why the will is void. The disposition should all be copied in
subsequent instrument would only applied if the reason why the will is void is because it is void as to form
or it did not complied with the formalities prescribed by law, likes for ex. Walang attestation clause or 2 lang
ung witness etc. But if the reason why the will is void not pertains as to form, the disposition therein can be
given effect by incorporation by reference even without copying this entire disposition. Ex. Maybe the will
was executed when he was only 16 years old, so when he became 18 years old, he executed an instrument
and just refer to the prior will as far as disposition is concerned and that would be a valid disposition and
can be given effect.

7
Padoru padoru