Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
• QUESTION:
• Before his death, A borrowed from X P1, 000 as
evidenced by a promissory note. A died without
paying the debt.
IMPORTANT AREAS • A left no property but he is survived by his son, B,
who is making good in the buy and sell business.
IN • Subsequently, X brought an action against B for
the collection of P1,000 plus legal interest
• ANSWER: • QUESTION:
• No. The heirs are not personally liable with • The wife died while the action for
their own individual properties for the legal separation was pending.
monetary obligations/debts left by the
decedent. • Her children, however, wanted to
• An heir’s liability for his predecessor’s continue the action.
obligations is limited by the amount of • They ask that they be allowed to
inheritance he receives. substitute their deceased mother,
• B cannot be made liable for A’s unpaid arguing that the action should be
obligation because B did not inherit anything
from A.
allowed to continue. Decide.
• No inheritance, no obligation.
• ANSWER: • QUESTION:
• The children cannot be substituted in an • Clara, thinking of her mortality, drafted a will
action for legal separation upon the death of and asked Roberta, Hannah, Luisa and
their mother who filed the case. Benjamin to be witnesses.
• An action for legal separation which involves • During the day of the signing of the will, Clara
nothing more than bed-and-board separation fell down the stairs and broke both her arms.
of the spouses is purely personal. • Coming from the hospital, Clara, insisted on
signing her will by thumbmark. Later Clara was
• Being personal in character, it follows that
run over by a drunk driver while crossing the
the death of one party to the action causes street in Greenbelt.
the death of the action itself — actio
• May the will of Clara be admitted to probate?
personalis moritur cum persona. (Lapuz vs.
Give your reason briefly.
Eufemio, G.R. No. L-30977. January 31, 1972).
1
11/12/2018
• ANSWER: • QUESTION:
• Yes. Clara’s thumbmark in this • Stevie was born blind. He went to
case has all the hallmarks of a valid school for the blind, and learned to
signature. read in Braille language.
• Clara clearly intended to use her • He speaks English fluently. Can he:
thumbmark as her signature and • a. Make a will?
the circumstances justified her use • b. Act as a witness to a will?
of her thumbmark (Garcia v. La
Cuesta, GR. No. L-4067). • c. In either of the instances, must
the will be read to him?
• ANSWER: • ANSWER:
• a. Yes. Stevie may make a notarial will. A • b. No. A blind man is disqualified by
blind man is not expressly prohibited from
executing a will.
law to be a witness to a notarial will.
• In fact, Art. 808 of NCC provides for an • c. In case Stevie executes a
additional formality when the testator is notarial will, it has to be read to him
blind. Stevie however, may not make a twice. First by one of the
holographic will in Braille because the writing
in Braille is not handwriting.
instrumental witnesses and second
• A holographic will to be valid must be by the notary public before whom
entirely written, signed and dated by the the will was acknowledged (Art.
testator in his own handwriting. 808, NCC).
• QUESTION: • QUESTION:
• John and Paula, British citizens at birth, acquired • John and Paula died tragically in the
Philippine citizenship by naturalization after their
London Subway terrorist attack in 2005.
marriage.
Peter and Paul filed a petition for probate
• During their marriage the couple acquired
substantial landholdings in London and in Makati. of their parents’ will before a Makati
Paula bore John three children, Peter, Paul and Regional Trial Court.
Mary. • a. Should the will be admitted to probate?
• In one of their trips to London, the couple executed
a joint will appointing each other as their heirs and • b. Are the testamentary dispositions
providing that upon the death of the survivor valid?
between them the entire estate would go to Peter • c. Is the testamentary prohibition against
and Paul only but the two could not dispose of nor
the division of the London estate valid?
divide the London estate as long as they live.
2
11/12/2018
• ANSWER:
• a. No, the will cannot be admitted to probate. Joint wills
• QUESTION:
are void under the New Civil Code. Even if the joint will
executed by Filipinos abroad were valid where it was
• In 1919, Miguel executed a will.
executed, the joint will is still not valid in the
Philippines.
• In the post mortem probate,
• b. If a will is void, all testamentary dispositions there was a testimony to the
contained therein are also void. Hence, all
testamentary provisions contained in the void joint will effect that the will was in the
are also void. testator’s possession in 1919,
• c. No, the testamentary prohibition against the division
by Peter and Paul of the London estate for as long as but it can no longer be found.
they live, is not valid. Art. 494 of NCC provides that a
donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period • Is the will revoked?
which shall not exceed twenty (20) years.
• ANSWER: • QUESTION:
• Yes, the Doctrine of Presumed Revocation • Raymond, single, named his sister Ruffa in his will as
applies, which provides that: where a will a devisee of a parcel of land which he owned. The will
imposed upon Ruffa the obligation of preserving the
which cannot be found, is shown to have been land and transferring it, upon her death, to her
in the possession of the testator when last illegitimate daughter Scarlet who was then only one
seen, the presumption is, in the absence of year old. Raymond later died, leaving behind his
other competent evidence, that the same was widowed mother, Ruffa and Scarlet.
cancelled or destroyed. • a. Is the condition imposed upon Ruffa to preserve the
property and to transmit it upon her death to Scarlet,
• The same presumption arises where it is valid?
shown that the testator had ready access to • b. If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, who inherits the
the will and it cannot be found after his death property?
(Gago v. Mamuyac G.R. No. 26317, Jan. 29, • c. If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, can Scarlet inherit
1927). the property directly from Raymond?
• ANSWER: • ANSWER:
• a) When an obligation to preserve and • b) If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, the latter as
transmit the property to Scarlet was the former’s heir, will be entitled to the
imposed on Ruffa, the testator property. But since it is also Ruffa’s death
which will trigger the fideicommissary
Raymond intended to create a
substitution, the practical effect of her death
fideicommissary substitution where would be to allow her (Ruffa’s) mother to
Ruffa is the fiduciary and Scarlet is the inherit the property as Ruffa’s heir.
fideicommissary. • The transfer of the property from Scarlet to
• Having complied with the requirements Ruffa (as Scarlet’s heir) is what allows
of Art. 863 and 869 (NCC), the Ruffa’s mother to inherit the property which
fideicommissary substitution is valid. she would otherwise be disqualified to inherit
under Article 992.
3
11/12/2018
• Q: Who are compulsory heirs? • Q: Can the testator institute as an heir an unknown
• A: Article 887 person?
• (1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their • A: No.
legitimate parents and ascendants;
• Art. 845. Every disposition in favor of an unknown
• (2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants,
with respect to their legitimate children and descendants; person shall be void, unless by some event or
• (3) The widow or widower; circumstance his identity becomes certain. However, a
• (4) [Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal disposition in favor of a definite class or group of
fiction]; persons shall be valid.
• (5) [Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287]; Compulsory
heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. • Example: A testator provided in his will—“I bequeath
1 and 2; neither do they exclude one another. my property (identified) to the Bar topnotcher of the
• In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved. year immediately following my death.”
• Here, the heir is unknown but he will be identified later
• The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes
mentioned shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent
when the results of the Bar Examinations for the year
established by this Code. indicated are released.
• Q: Can the testator institute as an heir a class or • Q: What is the rule when the shares are
group of persons? not designated for each heir?
• A: Yes. (See Art. 845) • A:
• A disposition in favor of a definite class or • Art. 846. Heirs instituted without
group of persons is allowed by law. designation of shares shall inherit in
• Example: “I bequeath One Million Pesos to equal parts.
all honor graduates of the Faculty of Civil • The heirs instituted without designation of shares
Law, University of Santo Tomas from 1995 inherit in equal parts—if they belong to the sense
class or juridical station or condition.
to year 2000.”
• The law merely states the presumed intention of the
• The institution is valid provided the graduates testator, for had he desired otherwise, he should
are not incapacitated at the death of the have been more precise by the designation of the
testator. shares (6 Manresa 92).
4
11/12/2018
• Q: What is the effect if the institution of heir is based on • Q: What is the effect if the institution of heir is based on
a false cause? a false cause?
• EXAMPLE: • EXAMPLE:
• 1) ”I give to Juan who is my favorite nephew P50,000.00
for having graduated ‘Summa Cum Laude’ at the UP College • 2) A testatrix provided in her will, “I give to “A,” “B,” “C”,
of Law.” “D” and “E” who are my adopted children the following
• The truth is, Juan did not graduate with such honors. There properties x x x.”
is a false cause in his institution.
• Is the institution valid? • It turned out that the children were not legally adopted.
• If the testator would not have made the institution, had he • The statement of the false cause shall not impair the
known of the falsity of the cause or reason (which must institution because the real cause of the institution is the
appear in the will), the institution is void. Otherwise, the false generosity of the testatrix.
cause will be considered as not written because the real • There is nothing in the will which indicates that had the
cause is generosity of the testator. testator known of the falsity of the cause, she would not have
• The mere incidental statement of a false cause shall not made the institution (See Austria vs. Reyes, 31 SCRA 754).
impair the institution.
5
11/12/2018
6
11/12/2018
7
11/12/2018
8
11/12/2018
9
11/12/2018
10
11/12/2018
• Illustration:
• Testator died leaving an estate worth
P1,000,000.00. He is survived by “A”, his legitimate
son; “B”, his spouse; and “C”, “D,” “E,” “F” and “G,”
his illegitimate children.
• Division of Estate:
• 1. “A” will get P500,000.00 as legitime.
• 2. “B” will get P250,000.00 which is one-fourth of
the estate (Art. 842).
• 3. “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and “G” supposedly should get
one-half of the share of a legitimate child, that is,
P250,000.00 each or a total of P1,250,000.00 for all
of them.
11