SET C.

I.
1.) The characteristics of succession are as follows, except:
A. It is a legal contract;
B. Only property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of inheritance are transmitted;
C. The transmission takes place only at the time of the death; or
D. The transmission takes place either by will or by operation of law.
Answer: A, because succession is a mode of acquisition and not a legal contract. Under Art 774 of the Civil Code,
Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value
of inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of
law.

2.) The attestation clause contains the following, except:

A. The number of pages used;
B. That the testator signed or caused another to sign the will and every page thereof in the presence of the
instrumental witnesses;
C. Notarization;
D. The instrumental witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the
testator and one another; or
E. The signatures of the witnesses.
Answer: C, because under Article 805, the attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is
written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or cause some other person to write his
name, under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and
signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

3.) In her will, the testator designated Laida as a legatee to receive P2 Million for the purpose of buying an
ambulance which the residents of her Baranggay can use. What kind of institution is this?
A. A fideicommissary institution;
B. A modal institution;
C. A conditional institution; or
D. A collective institution.
Answer: B, because under Article 882, the statement of the object of the institution, or the application of the
property left by the testator, or the charge imposed by him, shall not be considered as a condition unless it appears
such was his intention.

4.) Adelaida married Miguel, a person with no known relatives. Through Miguel’s hard work, he and his wife
Adelaida prospered. When Miguel died, his estate alone amounted to P50 Million. If, in his will, Miguel
designates Adelaida as his only heir, what will be the free portion of his estate?
A. Adelaida gets all; estate has no free portion left;
B. Adelaida gets ½, the other half is free portion;
 C. Adelaida gets 1/3, the remaining 2/3 is free portion; or
D. Adelaida gets 1/4, the remaining ¾ is free portion

Answer: B, under Article 900, if the only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled to one-half of
the hereditary estate of the deceased spouse, and the testator may freely dispose of the other half.

5.) Can a common- law spouses donate properties of substantial value to one another?
A. No, they are only allowed to give moderate gifts to each other during family rejoicing;
B. No, they cannot give anything of value to each other to prevent placing their legitimate relatives at a
disadvantage;
C. Yes, unlike the case of legally married spouses, such donations are not prohibited; or
D. Yes, as long as they leave sufficient property for themselves and for their dependents.
Answer: A, because under Article 87 of the Family Code, every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or
indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give
each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as
husband and wife without a valid marriage.

6.) The partition of the estate made by the testator in his will, which was declared void by the probate court, is
also void.
A. True;
B. False; or
C. It depends.
Answer: B; because under Article 1080, should a person make a partition of his estate by an act inter vivos, or by
will, such partition shall be respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs.

7.) Which of the following are subject to collation?

A. Release or remission of the debt of an heir;
B. Repairs and improvements on the house belonging to an heir;
C. Purchases of an immovable by the deceased in the name of an heir;
D. All of the above;
E. A and B;
F. B and C; or
G. None the above.
Answer: D. because under Article, Art. 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs,
must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have received from the decedent, during
the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the
determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition.
II. Mrs. Cacanindin, who died of Ebola virus, is survived by her three married daughters, Maybe Co, Gina
Tan and Sabby Lao and three (3) grandchildren, namely, Pik Co, Pak Tan, and Boom Lao. Upon learning of
her mother's death, Sabby sold her entire inheritance to Lou Gaw. Maybe Co who has made a name in a
bottled water industry, repudiated her equal share while Gina Tan is incapacitated to succeed. It was found
out that during her lifetime, Mrs. Cacanindin had incurred loans in the amount of P600,000.00 and has given
Sabby Lao P100,000 and her best friend P200,000. Her estate at the time of her death is P3M. Determine and
distribute the estate of Mrs. Cacanindin (20pts)

III. Mr. Romantico has lived a life of deboucherie following the steps of his idol, Cassanova. In the twilight of
his life, he met and married Baba Ganough. In order to attain nirvana, Mr. Romantico executed a will leaving
his earthly possessions to Baba Ganough, while leaving nothing for his love child, Sexy for living-in with a
married but separated man and disinherinting his legitimate father, Mr. Suave for attempting to give him
away for adoption when he was a child. Three months after the wedding, Mr. Romantico died. His estate at
the time of his death is P1 Million. Resolve and distribute his estate.

Answer:
Romantico validly disinherited Sexy for living an immoral life by living-in with a separated man. The disinheritance
of the father is imperfect disinheritance since the ground used was not one of the grounds specified by law.
The estate of Romantico is P1M thus the legitime is P500K and Free portion of P500K. As the Legitimate parent,
Mr Suave shall inherit P500K as his legitime. As Surviving spouse, Baba shall inherit 1/8 of the estate which is
P125K while Sexy’s share which is P250K shall be distributed by intestate succession. The free portion which is
P125K shall be distributed between Legitimate Parents and Ascendants: Mr. Suave and Surviving Spouse: baba.
They will get ½ each or P125K each.

In total:
Mr Suave
 P500k as CH
P125K as LH
Baba
125K as CH
P125K as VH
P125K as LH

V. Crispin died testate and was survived by Alex and Josine, his children from his first wife, Rene and Ruby,
his children from his second wife, and Allan, Bea, and Cheska, his children from third wife.

One of the provisions in his will reads as follows: “Ang lupa at bahay sa Lungsod ng Maynila ay ililipat at
ilalagay sa pangalan nila Alex at Rene hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi ipang pamahalaan at
pangalagaan lamang nila at nang ang sinuman sa aking mga anak, sampu ng aking mga apo at kaapuapuhan
ko sa habang panahon, ay may tutuluyan kung magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o sa kalapit na mga
lungsod.”

Is the above provision valid? (10pts)

Answer:

No. The provision in the will is VOID. Under Art. 870 of the New Civil Code, "The dispositions of the testator
declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are void." In the case at bar, the testator
stated that the heirs should govern and preserve the property "sa habang panahon" which is void because as a rule, it
is mandatory that property must be distributed to particular heirs within the 20 year period.

IV. In 1998, Jennifer and Brad were madly inlove. In 1999, because a certain Picasso painting reminded Brad
of her, Jennifer acquired and placed it in his bedroom. In 2000, Brad and Jennifer broke up. While Brad was
mending his broken heart, he met Angie and fell in love. Because the Picasso painting reminded Angie of him,
Brad in his will bequeathed the painting to Angie. Brad died in 2005. Saddened by Brad's death, Jennifer
asked for the Picasso painting as remembrance of him. Angie refused and claimed that Brad, in his will,
bequeathed the painting to her. Is Angie correct? Why or why not?

Answer:
No. The contention of Angie is incorrect because according to Art. 930, "The legacy or devise of a thing belonging
to another person is void, if the testator erroneously believed that the thing pertained to him. But if the thing
bequeathed, though not belonging to the testator when he made the will, afterwards becomes his, by whatever title,
the disposition shall take effect."

Therefore, the Picasso painting cannot be bequeathed by Brad since the owner of said painting is Jennifer. Brad
cannot give what he does not have.

VI. On March 30, 2012, Tonio died intestate and was survived by his wife Tep-Tep and children, Anthony and
Stephanie. One of the properties he left was a piece of land in Alabang where he built his residential house.
After his burial, Tep-Tep and her children extrajudicially settled his estate. Thereafter, Tep-Tep and Anthony
advised Stephanie of their intention to partition the property. Stephanie opposed alleging that since her minor
child Lucas still resides in the premises, the family home continues until said minor becomes of age.
Is the contention of Stephanie tenable?
Answer:
NO, the contention of Stephanie is not tenable. In Patricio vs. Dario III (G.R. No. 170829), the Supreme Court held
that as a general rule, the family home may be preserved for a minimum of 10 years following the death of the
spouses or the unmarried family head who constituted the family home, or of the spouse who consented to the
constitution of his or her separate property as family home. After 10 years and a minor beneficiary still lives therein,
the family home shall be preserved only until that minor beneficiary reaches the age of majority. The intention of the
law is to safeguard and protect the interests of the minor beneficiary until he reaches legal age and would now be
capable of supporting himself. However, three requisites must concur before a minor beneficiary is entitled to the
benefits of Art. 159: (1) the relationship enumerated in Art. 154 of the Family Code; (2) they live in the family
home, and (3) they are dependent for legal support upon the head of the family.
In the case at bar, the third requisite has not been satisfied as Lucas cannot demand support from his maternal
grandfather if he has parents who are capable of supporting him. The liability for legal support falls primarily on
Lucas’ parents. The law first imposes the obligation of legal support upon the shoulders of the parents, especially the
father, and only in their default is the obligation imposed on the grandparents.
However, Art. 159 of the Family Code provides that “the family home shall continue despite the death of one or both
spouses or of the unmarried head of the family for a period of ten years…xxx…and the heirs cannot partition the
same unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor.” Thus, although the contention of Stephanie is untenable,
the family home cannot be subjected to partition for a period of ten (10) years.
FOR REFERENCE: Article 154 of the Family Code enumerates who are the beneficiaries of a family home: (1)
The husband and wife, or an unmarried person who is the head of a family; and (2) Their parents, ascendants,
descendants, brothers and sisters, whether the relationship be legitimate or illegitimate, who are living in the family
home and who depend upon the head of the family for legal support.
Article 159 of the Family Code provides that “the family home shall continue despite the death of one or both
spouses or of the unmarried head of the family for a period of ten years or for as long as there is a minor beneficiary,
and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor. This rule shall apply
regardless of whoever owns the property or constituted the family home.”
In Arriola vs. Arriola (G.R. No. 177703, January 28, 2008), the Supreme Court held that the purpose of Article 159
is to avert the disintegration of the family unit following the death of its head. To this end, it preserves the family
home as the physical symbol of family love, security and unity by imposing the following restrictions on its
partition: first, that the heirs cannot extra-judicially partition it for a period of 10 years from the death of one or both
spouses or of the unmarried head of the family, or for a longer period, if there is still a minor beneficiary residing
therein; and second, that the heirs cannot judicially partition it during the aforesaid periods unless the court finds
compelling reasons therefor. No compelling reason has been alleged by the parties; nor has the RTC found any
compelling reason to order the partition of the family home, either by physical segregation or assignment to any of
the heirs or through auction sale as suggested by the parties.

VII. You are hereby given a legacy of 5 points provided you can state the SBCA Mission Vison

MISSION
To provide excellent and responsive programs and services,
adopt empowering management systems,
and build a learning, caring, and praying community
guided by the teachings of St. Benedict and the example of St. Bede.
VISION
To be a leading Catholic Christian educational institution
committed to the holistic formation of persons
who excel in their respective endeavors
andare guided by the Benedictine principles of
Prayer, Work and Peace.