SUCCESSION

MIDTERM EXAMINATION

Instructions: Write your answers in the space provided below. After answering all the questions, save
the Word file containing your answers using the following format: [Last Name – Midterm Exam, for
example, Uy – Midterm Exam], and submit it via email to [email protected] on or before 4:30
pm. The subject of your email should be “Succession - Midterm Exam”.

This is not an open book exam. Close all books, notes, and your web browsers. Do not leave the Google
Meet videoconference while taking the exam.

Name:

1. Dinah died single and without children. At the time of her death, her nearest living relatives
were his brothers Adam, Michael, and Donny, her nieces Nicole, Vangie, and Rowena, and her
grandniece Claire.

Before Dinah’s death, she executed a will leaving her properties to Claire with the condition that
should Claire die, whether this occurs before or after Dinah’s death, the properties bequeathed
to Claire shall be delivered in equal parts to Adam, Michael, and Donny, or to any of their heirs,
should anyone of them die ahead of Claire.

(a) What is a fideicommissary substitution? (5 points)

(b) What is the type of substitution provided in Dinah’s will? Is this a simple substitution or
a fideicommissary substitution? Explain. (5 points)

ANSWER:

(a)

(b)

1
 2. Jun executed his last will and testament and filed before the Regional Trial Court a petition for
its probate. In his will, Jun instituted as his sole heirs his children Anton and Andrea. Marie filed
an opposition to the probate of the will alleging that she is an acknowledged illegitimate child of
Jun but she was completely ignored in the will thus impairing her legitime. The Regional Trial
Court issued an Order declaring Marie to be an acknowledged illegitimate child of Jun and
annulling the will insofar as it impairs Marie’s legitime. Is the Regional Trial Court correct in
entertaining Marie’s opposition and annulling the will insofar as it impairs the supposed legitime
of Marie? (10 points)

ANSWER:

3. Steve Jr. died a bachelor without descendants, ascendants, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces.
His only surviving heirs are Lila, who is his maternal aunt and the half-sister of his mother Felora,
and Bambi, who is the sister of his deceased father Steve Sr.

Felora brought to her marriage paraphernal properties which consists of parcels of land. No
conjugal property was acquired during her short-lived marriage with Steve Sr. Felora died,
leaving all her properties to her only child Steve Jr., and the titles to all the properties were
transferred in the name of Steve Jr. Subsequently, Steve Jr. died. Lila filed a petition praying to
be declared as sole heir of Steve Jr., and arguing that the properties of Steve Jr. is subject to
reserva troncal and that it pertains to her as Steve Jr.’s only relative within the third degree on
his mother’s side.

(a) What are the requisites of a reserva troncal?

(b) Is Lila correct? Are the properties of Steve Jr. subject to reserva troncal? (10 points)

ANSWER:

(a)

(b)

2
 4. The tricycle driven by the deceased Ben figured in an accident with a bus driven by Manuelito
and owned and operated by Series. Ben was survived by his wife Alice and son Benito and his
parents Joel and Josefa. Manuelito, Series, and the bus insurer negotiated with Ben’s widow
Alice, who then received a sum of money as settlement. Alice executed a "Release of Claim" and
an affidavit of desistance. A year later, Joel and Josefa, filed a complaint against Manuelito and
Series to be indemnified for the death of their son, for the funeral expenses incurred by reason
thereof, and for the damage for the tricycle which they only loaned to Ben.

Who should be indemnified for the death of Ben? Your options are the following: Alice, Benito,
Alice and Benito, Joel, Josefa, Joel and Josefa, or all four of them since they are related to Ben.
Explain your answer. (10 points)

ANSWER:

5. The Spouses Juanito and Margarita Mercado decided to leave the Philippines. They became
American citizens. Juanito executed a will instituting Margarita to all the remainder of his real
and personal properties at the time of his death wherever situated. A few days later, Margarita
also executed a will instituting Juanito to her entire estate. Unfortunately, they both died
together when their home was gutted by a fire. The two wills were admitted to probate in New
York. The mother of Margarita then filed a petition for reprobate in the Philippines. The RTC in
the Philippines denied reprobate on the ground that the probate of separate wills even if those
of husband and wife cannot be undertaken in a single petition.

(a) Is there a Joint Will here since the spouses reciprocally benefit from each other’s will? (5
points)
(b) Was the RTC in the Philippines correct in denying the reprobate of the wills of Juanito
and Margarita? (5 points)

ANSWER:

(a)

(b)

3
 6. Greggy filed a petition for probate of the holographic will of his sister Nadine. Nadine named her
sister Rose as sole heir in her will. However, Nadine later erased the name of Rose by drawing a
diagonal line across Rose’s name and on top, Nadine wrote the name of her brother Greggy.
Rose opposed the probate saying that the alteration was not authenticated by the full signature
of Nadine, hence the original text of the will naming her as sole heir should be given effect. The
Regional Trial Court then denied probate of Nadine’s holographic will. Is the Regional Trial Court
correct in denying probate of Nadine’s holographic will? (10 points)

ANSWER:

7. Matthew, executed a last will and testament before three attesting witnesses, Luka, Cam, and
Theresa.

The attestation clause of Matthew’s last will and testament reads as follows: “we do certify that
the testament was read by him and the testator, Matthew, has published unto us the foregoing
will consisting of THREE PAGES, including the acknowledgment, each page numbered
correlatively in letters of the upper part of each page, as his Last Will and Testament, and he has
signed the same and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left
hand margin in the presence of the said testator and in the presence of each and all of us.”

Matthew himself file a petition seeking the probate of his last will and testament. His nephews
and nieces then opposed and objected to the allowance of the will on the ground that
Matthew’s will is null and void since the attestation clause is fatally defective.

(a) What is an attestation clause in an ordinary or notarial will? (2 points)

(b) What are the contents of the attestation clause? (3 points)
(c) Is the attestation clause of Matthew’s last will and testament defective? (5 points)

ANSWER:

(a)

(b)

4
(c)

8. Kate is married to Siegfred, and they have three children, Wendell, Rudy, and Daniela. Wendell
predeceased his mother Kate, and left his widow Liz, and their two children, Margaux and Mary.
Kate died without leaving a will. Daniela as administratrix of Kate’s estate declared that the legal
heirs of Kate are her husband Siegfred, their children Rudy, and Daniela, and her grandchildren
Margaux and Mary in representation of Wendell. Liz argues that she is a compulsory heir of
Kate. Is Liz correct? (10 points)

ANSWER:

9. Chippy and Sal are the children of Spouses Rafa and Celia. Rafa mortgaged his land to a bank and
the same was foreclosed and sold to the bank. No redemption was made by Rafa. A new title
was issued in the name of the bank. Later, Rafa died. Chippy and Sal executed an Extrajudicial
Settlement of the Estate of Rafa and it contained a provision that they intend to repurchase the
land form the bank. Only Sal repurchased the land from the bank 3 years after the extrajudicial
settlement. Chippy now claims that he has a right to the land by virtue of succession to the
estate of Rafa. Is Chippy correct? (10 points)

ANSWER:

10. Salcedo died on March 14, 2015. He was survived by his widow, Annabelle, and his children:
Penny, Alex, Jamie, and Tommy. Believing that Salcedo died intestate, the heirs filed a petition
with the RTC for the partition of Salcedo’s estate. Irene filed a separate petition with the RTC
alleging that Salcedo left a will, which omitted Tommy, an illegitimate son of Salcedo. Irene
prayed for the probate of the will. The heirs moved to dismiss the probate proceedings on the
ground that Tommy was preterited. Irene argued that Tommy was not preterited because he
received a house and lot from Salcedo as an advance legitime. However, Irene failed to attend
the evidentiary hearings to disprove the heirs’ claim of preterition.

(a) How does a heir become preterited? (5 points)

(b) Was there a preterition of Tommy? (5 points)

5
ANSWER:

(a)

(b)

Bonus Questions:

1. If the lessor dies before the end of the term of a Contract of Lease, are the lessor’s obligations in
the said contract transmissible to his/her heirs? (5 points)

ANSWER:

2. Johnny died without a will and left money in the total amount of Ten Million Pesos
(Php10,000,000.00). He was survived by his parents Cesar and Virginia, his spouse Catarina and
their child Ryan. He was also survived by his illegitimate child Nina. Before his death, Johnny
owed money to Edgar in the amount of Two Million Pesos (Php2,000,000.00), which was left
unpaid at the time of Johnny’s death. Who among his family members shall inherit from
Johnny’s estate and how should they divide the money left by Johnny? Show the exact amount
that each heir should receive from Johnny’s estate. (10 points)

ANSWER:

6
 - NOTHING FOLLOWS -

A man’s greatness lies not in wealth and station, as the vulgar believe, not yet in his intellectual
capacity, which is often associated with the meanest moral character, the most abject servility to
those in high places and arrogance to the poor and lowly; but a man’s true greatness lies in the
consciousness of an honest purpose in life, founded on a just estimate of himself and everything else,
on frequent self-examination, and a steady obedience to the rule which he knows to be right, without
troubling himself, as the emperor says he should not, about what others may think or say, or whether
they do or do not do that which he thinks and says and does.”

― Marcus Aurelius