1
I. 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?
Yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes may be admitted to
probate in the Philippines.
Under the NCC, an alien testator is granted an option to
observe the formalities of the will in accordance with the
Philippine Civil Code and since the only issue in probate is
whether or not the will was executed in accordance with the
form prescribed by the law observed by the testator during the
execution of his will, the will he executed in accordance with
the formalities prescribed by Philippine Laws may be probated
in the Philippines.
Since Dr. Fuentes executed his will in accordance with the
Philippine law, formal validity of the will must be in
consonance with the New Civil Code, and therefore may be
admitted to probate in the Philippines. His change of
citizenship is immaterial since under the new Civil Code, the
law enforced at the time of execution of the will shall govern
the formal validity of the will.
b. Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can Jay
validly insist that he be given his legitime? Why or why not?
No, Jay cannot insist to have his legitime.
Under the NCC, 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.
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.
II. 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. In one of their trips to London, the
couple executed a joint will appointing each other as their heirs
and providing upon the death of the survivor, the entire estate
would go to Peter and Paul but the two could not dispose of nor
divide the London estate as long as they live.
a. Should the will be admitted to probate?
No. The will cannot be admitted to probate
Under NCC, joint wills executed by Filipinos in a foreign country
shall not be valid in the Philippines, even though authorized by
the laws of the country where they may have been executed.
This provision applies to John and Paula who became Filipino
citizens after their marriage and prior the execution of the will.
b. Are the testamentary dispositions valid?
Supposing that the will is valid, first disposition shall not be
valid because it shall be annulled.
Under the NCC, in case of preterition, the disposition
instituting the heirs shall be annulled.
Since the property was bequeathed to the surviving spouse
alone and none to the 2 sons who are also compulsory heirs,
the same will result to preterition and therefore institution of
heirs shall be annulled. Thus, such preterition shall annul the
first disposition instituting the heir.
Assuming again that the will was valid, the second disposition
prohibiting the division of the London estate shall be valid but
can only be maintained for 20 years.
Under 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.
But since the joint will is void, all the testamentary dispositions
written therein are also void.
III. 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?
Yes, he can make a will.
Under NCC, all persons who are not prohibited under the Code
may make a will. Further, the Code only requires the testator
to be of legal age and with sound mind at the time of its
execution.
Since NCC does not expressly prohibit a blind person to make
a will, he is allowed to execute a will provided he is of legal age
and with sound mind.
b. Act as a witness to a will?
No he may not act as a witness to a will.
NCC 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.
Hence, NCC expressly disqualify a blind person to be a witness
to the execution of a will.
c. Formalities?
Other than the formal requirements mandated by the NCC,
special additional requirements if the testator is blind, are:
that the will shall be read to him twice; once, by one of the
subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary public before
whom the will is acknowledged.
IV. A brought an action to obtain his share, will it prosper?
D B C
(brother) (Brother, predeceased) (Testator)
A
(Illegitimate Child)
No, the action of A will not prosper.
Pursuant to Iron Curtain Rule provided under NCC, an illegitimate
child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such
children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the
illegitimate child. Furthermore, in representation, the
representative must not only be a legal heir of the person he is
representing, he must also be a legal heir of the decedent he
seeks to inherit from.
In the case, A, being an illegitimate child, cannot inherit from C
in the representation of his father B. While A is a legal heir of B,
he is not a legal heir of C as he was expressly disqualified by the
Iron Curtain Rule.

The 1.5 Million estate shall be divided as follows:
D, E, and F shall get 500,000 each
Under NCC, compulsory heirs may be validly deprived of his
legitime through a perfect disinheritance. If the cause is other
than those stated under NCC, the disinheritance is deemed
imperfect and as consequence, the heir will not receive
anything thus, preterition occurs and the institution of heirs
shall be annulled. Finally, the rule on intestacy shall govern.
Since the cause of Mr Reyes in disinherting his daughter D is
not one of those causes enumerated under the NCC, the
disinheritance is imperfect and D was, in effect, preterited.
Consequently, the institution of E and F as heirs shall be
annuled and rule on intestacy shall govern.
In intestacy, the children of the deceased shall always inherit
from him in their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal
shares.
Therefore, D, E and F shall get 500,000 each (1.5 Million / 3).
VI. Distribution of Estate
Legacies B SS
Mistress - 100k Junior Tanga
Driver 50K (Legitimate Children)
SS, Junior and Tanga were left out
The 950,000 estate shall be distributed as follows:
SS, Junior and Tanga - 300,000 each
Driver - 50,000 legacy
Mistress - None
Under the NCC, when a one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs
are omitted in the will such that he will not receive anything,
there is preterition. The preterition shall annul the institution of
heir, consequently, the rules of intestacy shall govern, but the
devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not
inofficious or declared as void by the Code. A devise or legacy is
not inofficious if the same will not impair the legitime of the
compulsory heirs. In addition, NCC enumerated individuals, not
permitted by law to inherit, one of which is the mistress as
deduced from the provision prohibiting donation between
persons guilty of adultery or concubinage.
In the case, the 100K legacy to the mistress is void and therefore,
she shall receive nothing. The drivers legacy is not inofficious
since it does not impair the legitime of the compulsory heirs. The
legitime of compulsory heirs is 237,500 each (950,000/2/2 =
share of one child; surviving spouse shall have the same share as
one child; total legitime of 712,500). Since there is a free portion
from which to get the legacy, the 50,000 legacy shall be
distributed to the driver.
2
The net estate of Mr Reyes left to his intestate heirs is 900,000
(950,000 50,000 legacy) which shall be distributed according to
the rules of intestacy which provides that if a widow or widower
and legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving
spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of
the children.
Therefore, the SS, Junior and Tanga shall receive 300,000 each
(900,000 / 3).
a. The intestate heirs of Luis are:
2 legitimate children having a share of 40,000 each
2 illegitimate children having a share of 20,000 each
Under the NCC, succession pertains, in the first place, to the
descending direct line. Ascendants are excluded by legitimate
children or descendants and collateral relatives succeed only if
there are no descendants, ascendants, or illegitimate children.
In the situation given, the presence of the 2 legitimate children
excludes the ascendants-parents of Luis, while the presence of
the 2 legitimate children and 2 illegitimate children excludes the
collateral relatives-brothers.
b. Intestate Share:
As to the share, under NCC, if illegitimate children survive with
legitimate children, the shares of the illegitimate children shall
be one-half of the legitime of each of the legitimate children or
descendants. This intestate shares however should not be less
than the amount of legitime each compulsory heirs is entitled.
Therefore, the distribution shall be:
2 LC x 2 units = 4 units of LC
2 IC x 1 unit = 2 units of IC
Total Units = 6 units
20,000 is the share of 1 unit (120,000 / 6 units)
Each LC receives 40,000 (20,000 x 2 units)
Each IC receives 20,000 (20,000 x 1 unit)
Comparing the intestate shares with the legitime to check
whether there is impairment:
The legitime of each LC is 30,000 (120,000 / 2 / 2 children)
The legitime of each IC is 15,000 (30,000/2 IC)
Therefore, as there is no impairment of legitime, the intestate
shares are to be distributed as stated above.

F(+)
A(+) B C
W X Y Z
a. Who are the intestate heirs of F?
The intestate heirs of F are only B and C.
Under the NCC, in every inheritance, the relative nearest in degree
excludes the more distant ones, saving the right of representation
when it properly takes place. In representation, the representative
acquires the rights which the represented could have inherited.
However, if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who
are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, in
the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time
and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other
and therefore, there is no represented nor representative.
Representation cannot take place.
In the case, B, C and A, should he be alive or properly represented,
exclude the more remote relatives X, Y, and Z. Since A died
concurrently with F, and representation does not properly takes
place, W cannot be an heir by representation.
B and C shall get of the estate each.
Under the Code, the children of the deceased shall always inherit
from him in their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal
shares.
In the case, since X, Y and Z are excluded and W is not an heir by
representation, they will not receive anything. Only B and C shall
inherit the entire estate, dividing equally among themselves.
b. Who are the intestate heirs of A? What are their respective
shares?
W is the sole heir of A, inheriting the entire estate.
Under the NCC, succession pertains, in the first place, to the
descending direct line and collateral relatives succeed only if there
are no descendants, ascendants, or illegitimate children.
Since W is a legitimate child, he excludes all other collateral
relatives.
c. If B and C both predeceased F. Who are Fs intestate heirs? What
are their shares? Do they inherit by right of representation or in
their own right?
Fs intestate heirs are X, Y, Z, and their shares are per stirpes or:
X = of estate; Y = of estate; Z = of estate
3
Under NCC, whenever there is succession by representation, the
division of the estate shall be made per stirpes or in such manner
that the representative or representatives shall not inherit more
than what the person they represent would inherit, if he were living
or could inherit.
Since B and C predeceased F, X,Y, Z, legitimate children of B and C
respectively, shall succeed by representation. Thus, X shall inherit
of the estate representing the share of his parent B while Y and
Z shall inherit each, representing the share of their parent C. W
shall not receive anything as he is not an heir by representation.
d. If B and C repudiated their inheritance, who are Fs intestate
heirs? What are their share? Do they inherit in their own right?
Fs intestate heirs will be W, X, Y and Z who are inheriting in their
own right, sharing per capita or of the estate each.
Under NCC, if the inheritance should be repudiated by the nearest
relative, those of the following degree shall inherit in their own
right. Consequently, relatives in the same degree shall inherit in
equal shares.
In the case, since B and C repudiated their inheritance, the
following degree shall be that of W, X, Y, Z. Being relatives in same
degree, they shall inherit in their own right, equally.
M Estate= 120,000
T (testator)
A B C (repudiated) E (predeceased T)
D G F
The estate shall be distributed to:
A and B = 40,000 each in their own right
F = 40,000 by representation
C, D, G and M = 0
Under the NCC, The children of the deceased shall always inherit
from him in their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal
shares. If there are several relatives of the same degree, and one
or some of them are unwilling or incapacitated to succeed, his
portion shall accrue to the others of the same degree, save the right
of representation when it should take place. However, heirs who
repudiate their share may not be represented.
In the case, the estate shall be divided among 4 legitimate children,
thus, each shall get 30,000. The share of C who repudiated his
inheritance shall be distributed among A, B and E by virtue of
accretion. Thus, A, B and E shall get additional 10,000 (30,000 / 3),
 4
and consequently they will have a total share of 40,000 each
(30,000 + 10,000). Since E predeceased T, he will be represented by
his child, F who shall get his 40,000 share. G shall not inherit as he
cannot be an heir by representation since his parent C repudiated
his inheritance. D cannot inherit as he was excluded by his parent
B. M, likewise, cannot inherit as she was excluded by the legitimate
children.

The claims of the parents are not valid. Parents of Mr Cruz shall get
125,000 each while parents of Mrs Cruz shall get 375,000 each.

Under the NCC, properties acquired by spouses constitute the

community which are owned in common by the said spouses. Upon
the dissolution and liquidation of the community, like in case of
death of one or both spouses, the net assets shall be divided
Enrique (Testator) Estate = 1.2 Mn equally between the husband and the wife. Should there be
successive deaths, there will be 2 sets of estate to be distributed
separately. Further, when the widow or widower survives with
G H A B C D legitimate parents or ascendants, the surviving spouse shall be
(IC) (IC) (LC) (LC) (LC) (LC, predeceased) entitled to one-half of the estate, and the legitimate parents or
ascendants to the other half. Finally, the father and mother, if
E F living, shall inherit in equal shares.

The estate shall be distributed to:
A, B, and C = 240,000 each in their own right as LC
G and H = 120,000 each in their own right as IC
E and F =120,000 each by representation of Ds share
Under NCC, should children of the deceased and descendants of
predeceased children, survive, the former shall inherit in their own
right, and the latter by right of representation. The share of
predeceased children shall divided among their descendants in
equal portions. If illegitimate children survive with legitimate
children, the shares of the former shall be the share of one
legitimate child.
In the case provided, upon the death of Mr Cruz, the community
between him and his spouse has ceased. The 1 Mn property is to
be divided between the spouses, thus, Mr Cruz estate is only
500,000. Out of the 500,000, 250,000 shall be inherited by the then
surviving spouse, Mrs Cruz (500,000/2) and the remaining 250,000
shall be inherited by parents of Mr Cruz, sharing equally (250,000/2
= 125,000 each).
Upon the death of Mrs Cruz, her estate is 750,000. Since her
intestate heirs are her parents, they shall inherit Mrs Cruz entire
estate sharing equally (750,000/2 = 375,000)
Therefore, the claim of the parents to share equally is not valid.

In the case, A, B and C shall inherit 240,000 each. Ds share shall be

inherited by E and F by representation in equal shares. Hence, E
and F shall get 120,000 each (240,000/2). G and H shall inherit
120,000 each ( the share of a legitimate child). Thus:

4 LC x 2 units = 8 units of LC
2 IC x 1 unit = 2 units of IC
Total Units = 10 units

120,000 is the share of 1 unit (1,200,000 / 10 units)

Each LC receives 240,000 (120,000 x 2 units)

Each IC receives 120,000 (120,000 x 1 unit)

Comparing the intestate shares with the legitime to check

whether there is impairment:
The legitime of each LC is 150,000 (1,200,000 / 2 / 4 children)
The legitime of each IC is 75,000 (150,000/2 IC)
Therefore, as there is no impairment of legitime, the intestate
shares are to be distributed as stated above.
No, there is no reservable property created.
Under NCC, the ascendant who inherits from his descendant any
property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title
from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve
such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the
 5
benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong Therefore, in both situation, parents of Mr Luna and parents of Mrs
to the line from which said property came. Luna shall be entitled to 2.5 Mn each.

In the case, Mrs Cruz inherited the property from her spouse and
not from another ascendant, or a brother or sister. Therefore,
there is no reserva troncal.

The parents of Mr Luna and the parents of Mrs Luna shall be

entitled to Mr Lunas estate with a share of 2.5 Mn each regardless
of whether the child had an intra-uterine life of at least 7 months
or not. Only the legal bases shall differ.

Under the NCC, a conceived child shall be considered born for all
purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later. Foetus
is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered
from the mother's womb. If the foetus had an intra-uterine life of
less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within
twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal
womb. As to the order of intestate succession, if a widow or
widower and legitimate children or descendants are left, the
surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of
each of the children. But in default of legitimate children and
descendants of the deceased, his parents and ascendants shall
inherit from him subject to the condition that any reservable
property created by operation of law shall be given to
reservatorios. Finally, when the widow or widower survives with
legitimate parents or ascendants, the surviving spouse shall be
entitled to one-half of the estate, and the legitimate parents or
ascendants to the other half, sharing equally.

Supposing the fetus had at least 7 months intra-uterine life:

When Mr Luna died, his 10 Mn estate is inherited by his wife and

his child with shares of 5 Mn each (10 Mn/2). The childs estate
amounting to 5 Mn shall be inherited by his mother, Mrs Luna. 2.5
Mn of that amount is inherited by Mrs Luna in her own right while
the other 2.5 Mn, which supposedly inherited by his father who
predeceased him, is also inherited by Mrs Luna, by virtue of
accretion since there is no right of representation in the ascending
line. Consequently, the transfer of the estate from the child to Mrs
Luna created a reservable property in favor of the reservatorios,
parents of Mr Luna. Hence, upon the death of Mrs Luna, the
reservable property amounting to 5 Mn, shall be inherited by the
reservatorios-parents of Mr Luna (sharing equally or 2.5 Mn), while
the other 5 mn shall be inherited by the parents of Mrs Luna,
sharing equally also (5 Mn/2 = 2.5 Mn).

Supposing the fetus had less than 7 months intra-uterine life:

When Mr Luna died, his intestate heirs were his wife who shall
inherit 5 Mn (1/2 of 10 Mn estate) while the parents shall receive
2.5 Mn each (1/2 of 10 Mn estate, each parent sharing equally).
When Mrs Luna died, her then 5 Mn estate shall be inherited by
her parents equally (5 mn /2 = 2.5 Mn).