Bar Q and A #37

1.) Natividad’s holographic will, which had only one (1) substantial provision, as first written, named Rosa as her sole heir. However, when Gregorio presented it for probate, it already contained an alteration, naming Gregorio, instead of Rosa, as sole heir, but without authentication by Natividad’s signature. Rosa opposes the probate alleging such lack of proper authentication. She claims that the unaltered form of the will should be given effect. Whose claim should be granted? Explain.

It depends. If the cancellation of Rosa's name in the will was done by the testator himself, Rosa's claim that the holographic will in its original tenor should be given effect must be denied. The said cancellation has revoked the entire will as nothing remains of the will after the name of Rosa was cancelled. Such cancellation is valid revocation of the will and does not require authentication by the full signature of the testator to be effective. However, if the cancellation of Rosa's name was not done by the testator himself, such cancellation shall not be effective and the will in its original tenor shall remain valid. The efﬁcacy of a holographic will cannot be left to the mercy of unscrupulous third parties. The writing of Gregorio‘s name as sole heir was ineffective, even though written by the testator himself, because such is an alteration that requires the authentication by the full signature of the testator to be valid and effective. Not having been authenticated. The designation of Gregorio as an heir was ineffective. (Kalaw v. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207, September 28, 1984)

2.) 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. 1. Can the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes be admitted to probate in the Philippines? Why or why not? 2. Assuming that the will is probated in the Philippines, can Jay validly insist that he be given his legitime? Why or why not?

1. Yes, the holographic will of Dr. Fuentes may be admitted to probate in the Philippines because there is no public policy violated by such probate. The only issue at probate is the due execution of the will which includes the formal validity of the will. As regards formal validity, the only issue the court will resolve at probate is whether or not the will was executed in accordance with the form prescribed by the law observed by the testator in the execution of his will. For purposes of probate in the Philippines, an alien testator may observe the law of the place where the will was executed (Art 17), or the formalities of the law of the place where he resides, or according to the formalities of the law of his own country, or in accordance with the Philippine Civil Code (Art. 816). Since Dr. Fuentes executed his will in accordance with the Philippine law, the Philippine court shall apply the New Civil Code in determining the formal validity of the holographic will. The subsequent change in the citizenship of Dr. Fuentes did not affect the law governing the validity of his will. Under the New Civil Code, which was the law used by Dr. Fuentes, the law enforced at the time of execution of the will shall govern the formal validity of the will. (Art. 795)

2. No, Jay cannot insist because under New York law he is not a compulsory heir entitled to a legitime. 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. (Art 16) 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.

3.) Alden and Stela were both former Filipino citizens. They were married in the Philippines but they later migrated to the United States where they were naturalized as American citizens. In their union they were able to accumulate several real properties both in the US and in the Philippines. Unfortunately, they were not blessed with children. In the US, they executed a joint will instituting as their common heirs to divide their combined estate in equal shares, the five siblings of Alden and the seven siblings of Stela. Alden passed away in 2013 and a year later, Stela also died. The siblings of Alden who were all citizens of the US instituted probate proceedings in a US court impleading the siblings of Stela who were all in the Philippines. 1. Was the joint will executed by Alden and Stela who were both former Filipinos valid? Explain with legal basis. 2. Can the joint will produce legal effect in the Philippines with respect to the properties of Alden and Stela found here? If so, how? 3. Is the situation presented in Item I an example of dépeçage?

1. Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela is valid. Being no longer Filipino citizens at the time they executed their joint will, the prohibition under our Civil Code on joint wills will no longer apply to Alden and Stela. For as long as their will was executed in accordance with the law of the place where they reside, or the law of the country of which they are citizens or even in accordance with the Civil Code, a will executed by an alien is considered valid in the Philippines. (Art. 816)

2. Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela can take effect even with respect to the properties located in the Philippines because what governs the distribution of their estate is no longer Philippine law but their national law at the time of their demise. Hence, the joint will produces legal effect even with respect to the properties situated in the Philippines.

3. No, because dépeçage is a process of applying rules of different states on the basis of the precise issue involved. It is a conflict of laws where different issues within a case may be governed by the laws of different states. In the situation in letter (a), no conflict of laws will arise because Alden and Stela are no longer Filipino citizens at the time of the execution of their joint will and the place of execution is not the Philippines.

4.) 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?

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 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. It is void with respect to Manuel whose joint will remains void in the Philippines despite being valid where executed. (Art. 819)

5.) John Sagun and Maria Carla Camua, British citizens at birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by naturalization after their marriage. During their marriage, the couple acquired substantial landholdings in London and in Makati. Maria begot three (3) children, Jorge, Luisito, and Joshur. In one of their trips to London, the couple executed a joint will appointing each other as their heirs and providing that upon the death of the survivor between them, the entire estate would go to Jorge and Luisito only but the two (2) could not dispose of nor divide the London estate as long as they live. John and Maria died tragically in the London subway terrorist attack in 2005. Jorge and Luisito filed a petition for probate of their parents’ will before a Makati RTC. Joshur vehemently objected because he was preterited. 1. Should the will be admitted to probate? Explain. 2. Are the testamentary dispositions valid? Explain. 3. Is the testamentary prohibition against the division of the London estate valid? Explain.

1. No, the will should not be admitted to probate since the couple are both Filipino citizens. Arts. 818 and 819 shall apply. Said Articles prohibit the execution of joint wills and make them void, even though authorized by the laws of the country where they were executed.

2. No. Since the joint will is void, all the testamentary dispositions written therein are also void. However, if the will is valid, the institutions of heirs shall be annulled because Joshur was preterited. He was preterited because he will receive nothing from the will, will receive nothing by intestacy, and the facts do not show that he received anything as an advance on his inheritance. He was totally excluded from the inheritance of his parents.

3. Assuming the will of John and Maria is valid, the testamentary prohibition on the division of the London estate shall be valid but only for 20 years. A testamentary disposition of the testator cannot forbid the partition of all or part of his estate for a period longer than twenty (20) years. (Arts. 1083 and 494)

6.) Ricky and Arlene are married. They begot Franco during their marriage. Franco had an illicit relationship with Audrey and out of which, they begot Arnel. Franco predeceased Ricky, Arlene and Arnel. Before Ricky died, he executed a will which when submitted to probate was opposed by Arnel on the ground that he should be given the share of his father, Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel correct? Why?

No, his opposition is not correct. Arnel cannot inherit from Ricky in representation of his father, Franco. The representative must not only be a legal heir of the person he is representing but he must also be a legal heir of the decedent he seeks to inherit from.

While Arnel is a legal heir of Franco, he is not a legal heir of Ricky because an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. (Art. 992) Arnel is disqualified to Inherit from Ricky because Arnel is an illegitimate child of Franco and Ricky is a legitimate relative of Franco.

7.) True or False. X, a widower, died leaving a will stating that the house and lot where he lived cannot be partitioned for as long as the youngest of his four children desires to stay there. As coheirs and co-owners, the other three may demand partition anytime.

FALSE, The other three co–heirs may not anytime demand the partition of the house and lot since it was expressly provided by the decedent in his will that the same cannot be partitioned while his youngest child desires to stay there. Adecedent to prohibit, by will, the partition of a property and his estate for a period not longer than 20 years no matter what his reason maybe. (Art. 1083) Hence, the three co-heir can demand its partition only after 20 years from the death of their father. Even if the deceased parent did not leave a will, if the house and lot constituted their family home, partition is prohibited for a period of ten (10) years, or for as long as there is a minor beneficiary living in the family home. (Art. 159)

8.) Pedro had worked for 15 years in Saudi Arabia when he finally decided to engage in farming in his home province where his 10- hectare farmland valued at ₱2,000,000.00 was located. He had already ₱3,000,000.00 savings from his long stint in Saudi Arabia. Eagerly awaiting Pedro's arrival at the NAIA were his aging parents Modesto and Jacinta, his common-law spouse Veneranda, their three children, and Alex, his child by Carol, his departed legal wife. Sadly for all of them, Pedro suffered a stroke because of his overexcitement just as the plane was about to land, and died without seeing any of them. The farmland and the savings were all the properties he left. a. State who are Pedro's legal heirs, and the shares of each legal heir to the estate? Explain your answer. (4%) b. Assuming that Pedro's will is discovered soon after his funeral. In the will, he disposed of half of his estate in favor of Veneranda, and the other half in favor of his children and his parents in equal shares. Assuming also that the will is admitted to probate by the proper court. Are the testamentary dispositions valid and effective under the law on succession? Explain your answer. (4%)

(a) The shares to Pedro’s estate are as follows: Alex shall inherit ½ of the estate of Pedro while the other 3 children to Veneranda is entitled to 1/6 each of the estate because they are illegitimate children. Under the Civil Code, a legitimate child shall inherit ½ of the estate while under our family code, illegitimate children are only entitled to half of the share of the legitimate child.While Veneranda is not an heir since she is not the legal spouse of Pedro while Modesto and Jacinta are excluded because Pedro has children. Under the Civil Code, parents are excluded from the shares of their child when the child has legal descendants.

(b) No the testamentary disposition are not valid and effective because such testamentary disposition must not impair the legitimes of the testator’s compulsory heirs. Under the Civil Code, for the testamentary dispositions be effective, the legitimes of the respective compulsory heirs must not be impaired by such testamentary dispositions.

In this case, the dispositions impair the legitimes of Pedro’s children, which are as follows:(i) 1/2 of the estate to Alex; (ii) 1/4 of the estate each to the three illegitimate children, which shall be proportionally reduced since the legitimes already exceed the balance of the estate. Hence, the testamentary dispositions are not valid and effective.

9.) Princess married Roberto and bore a son, Onofre. Roberto died in a plane crash. Princess later married Mark and they also had a son - Pepito. Onofre donated to Pepito, his half-brother, a lot in Makati City worth P3,000,000.00. Pepito succumbed to an illness and died intestate. The lot given to Pepito by Onofre was inherited by his father, Mark. Mark also died intestate. Lonely, Princess followed Mark to the life beyond. The claimants to the subject lot emerged - Jojo, the father of Princess; Victor, the father of Mark; and Jerico, the father of Roberto. Who among the three (3) ascendants is entitled to the lot? Explain.

Jojo, Princess’ father, is entitled to the lot.

This is a clear case of reserva troncal. The origin is Onofre. The Prepositus is Pepito. The mode of transmission from Onofre to Pepito is donation (hence, by gratuitous title). The Reservista is Mark, who acquired it from his descendant (son) Pepito by legitime and intestacy (hence, by operation of law).

The Reservatario is Princess, a relative of the Prepositus Pepito within the third degree and who belonged to the line of origin is the maternal line because Onofre (the Origin) and Pepito (the Prepositus) are maternal half-blood siblings.

When Mark (Reservista) died, the property passed to Princess as sole reservatario, thus extinguishing the reserve troncal.

Upon Princess’ death, the property was transmitted ab intestate to her father Jojo. Transmission to Jojo is by the ordinary rules of compulsory and intestate succession, not by reserva troncal, because the reserve was extinguished upon the transmission of the property to Princess, this making Princess the absolute owner subject to no reservation.

10.) Don Ricardo had 2 legitimate children - Tomas and Tristan. Tristan has 3 children. Meanwhile, Tomas had a relationship with Nancy, who was also single and had the legal capacity to marry. Nancy became pregnant and gave birth to Tomas, Jr. After the birth of Tomas, Jr., his father, Tomas, died. Later, Don Ricardo died without a will and Tristan opposed the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be declared an heir of the deceased since he is an illegitimate child. Tomas, Jr. countered that Article 992 of the Civil Code is unconstitutional for violation of the equal protection of the laws. He explained that an illegitimate child of an illegitimate parent is allowed to inherit under Articles 902, 982 and 990 of the Civil Code while he - an illegitimate child of a legitimate father - cannot. Civil Law commentator Arturo Tolentino opined that Article 992 created an absurdity and committed an injustice because while the illegitimate descendant of an illegitimate child can represent, the illegitimate descendant of a legitimate child cannot. Decide the case and explain.

I will deny the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be declared as an heir of the deceased. Tomas Jr., being an illegitimate child of the deceased legitimate son, Tomas, cannot inherit ab intestate from the deceased, Don Ricardo, because of the iron curtain rule under Art. 992 of the Civil Code. Tomas cannot argue that Art. 992 is violative of the equal protection clause because equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. (Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155, May 31, 1957) It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause permits classification.