Bar Q and A #38

1.) Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived together as common law spouses and agreed to raise a son of Bert's living brother as their child without legally adopting him. Bert worked while Joe took care of their home and the boy. In their 20 years of cohabitation they were able to acquire real estate assets registered in their names as co-owners. Unfortunately, Bert died of cardiac arrest, leaving no will. Bert was survived by his biological siblings, Joe, and the boy. 1. Can Article 147 on co-ownership apply to Bert and Joe, whereby all properties they acquired will be presumed to have been acquired by their joint industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares? 2. What are the successional rights of the boy Bert and Joe raised as their son? 3. If Bert and Joe had decided in the early years of their cohabitation to jointly adopt the boy, would they have been legally allowed to do so? Explain with legal basis.

1. No, Article 147 cannot apply to Bert and Joe because the law only applies to a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other who live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. In the case of Bert and Joe, they are both men, so the law does not apply.

2. Neither of the two will inherit from Bert. Joe cannot inherit because the law does not recognize the right of a stranger to inherit from the decedent in the absence of a will. Their cohabitation will not vest Joe with the right to inherit from Bert. The child will likewise not inherit from Bert because of the lack of formal adoption of the child. A mere ward or “ampon” has no right to inherit from the adopting parents. (Manuel v. Ferrer, 247 SCRA 476)

3. No, Bert and Joe could not have jointly adopted the boy. Under the Domestic Adoption Act, joint adoption is permitted, and in certain cases mandated, for spouses. Here, Bert and Joe are not spouses.

2.) Ernesto, an overseas Filipino worker, was coming home to the Philippines after working for so many years in the Middle East. He has saved P100,000 in his savings account in Manila which intended to use to start a business in his home country. On his flight home, Ernesto has a fatal heart attack. He left behind his widowed mother, his common- law wife and their twin sons. He left no will, no debts, no other relatives and no other properties except the money in his savings account. Who are the heirs entitled to inherit from him and how much should each receive?

The mother and twin sons are entitled to inherit from Ernesto. If legitimate ascendants are left, the twin sons shall divide the inheritance with them taking one-half of the estate. (Art. 991) Thus, the widowed mother gets P50,000.00 while the twin sons shall receive P25,000.00 each. The common-law wife cannot inherit from him because when the law speaks “widow or widower” as a compulsory heir, the law refers to a legitimate spouse. (Art. 887, par 3)

3.) The spouses Peter and Paula had three (3) children. Paula later obtained a judgment of nullity of marriage. Their absolute community of property having been dissolved, they delivered P1 million to each of their 3 children as their presumptive legitimes. Peter later re- married and had two (2) children by his second wife Marie. Peter and Marie, having successfully engaged in business, acquired real properties. Peter later died intestate. 1. Whoare Peter’slegalheirsandhow will his estate be divided among them? 2. What is the effect of the receipt by Peter’s 3 children by his first marriage of their presumptive legitimes on their right to inherit following Peter’s death?

1. The legal heirs of Peter are his children by the first and second marriages and his surviving second wife.

Their shares in the estate of Peter will depend, however, on the cause of the nullity of the first marriage. If the nullity of the first marriage was psychological incapacity of one or both spouses, the three children of that void marriage are legitimate and all of the legal heirs shall share the estate of Peter in equal shares. If the judgment of nullity was for other causes, the three children are illegitimate and the estate shall be distributed such that an illegitimate child of the first marriage shall receive half of the share of a legitimate child of the second marriage, and the second wife will inherit a share equal to that of a legitimate child. In no case may the two legitimate children of the second marriage receive a share less than one- half of the estate which is their legitime. When the estate is not sufficient to pay all the legitimes of the compulsory heirs, the legitime of the spouse is preferred and the illegitimate children suffer the reduction.

Computation:

(A) If the ground of nullity is psychological incapacity:
3 children by first marriage 1/6 of the estate for each
2 children by second marriage 1/6 of the estate for each
Surviving second spouse 1/6 of the estate

(B) If the ground of nullity is not psychological capacity:
2 legitimate children 1/4 of the estate for each
of second marriage
Surviving second spouse 1/4 of the estate
3 illegitimate children 1/12 of estate for each of first marriage

NOTE: The legitime of an illegitimate child is supposed to be 1/2 the legitime of a legitimate child or 1/8 of the estate. But the estate will not be sufficient to pay the said legitime of the 3 illegitimate children, because only 1/4 of the estate is left after paying the legitime of the surviving spouse which is preferred.

Hence, the remaining 1/4 of the estate shall be divided among the 3 illegitimate children.

2. In the distribution of Peter’s estate, 1/2 of the presumptive legitime received by the 3 children of the first marriage shall be collated to Peter’s estate and shall be imputed as an advance of their respective inheritance from Peter. Only half of the presumptive legitime is collated to the estate of Peter because the other half shall be collated to the estate of his first wife.

4.) Ramon Mayaman died intestate, leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00. Determine how much each heir will receive from the estate: 1. If Ramon is survived by his wife, three full- blood brothers, two half-brothers, and one nephew (the son of a deceased full-blood brother)? Explain. 2. If Ramon is survived by his wife, a half- sister, and three nephews (sons of a deceased full-blood brother)? Explain.

1. Having died intestate, the estate of Ramon shall be inherited by his wife and his full and half-blood siblings or their respective representatives. In intestacy, if the wife concurs with no one but the siblings of the husband, all of them are the intestate heirs of the deceased husband. The wife will receive half of the intestate estate, while the siblings or their respective representatives, will inherit the other half to be divided among them equally. If some siblings are of the full- blood and the other of the half blood, a half blood sibling will receive half the share of a full-blood sibling.

a) The wife of Ramon will, therefore, receive one half (1/2) of the estate or the amount of P5,000,000.00.
b) The three (3) full-blood brothers, will, therefore, receive P1,000,000.00 each.
c) The nephew will receive P1,000,000.00 by right of representation.
d) The two (2) half-brothers will receive P500,000.00 each.

2. The wife will receive one half (1/2) of the estate or P5,000,000.00. The other half shall be inherited by (1) the full-blood brother, represented by his three children, and (2) the half-sister. They will divide the other half between them such that the share of the half- sister is just half the share of the full-blood brother. The share of the full-blood brother shall in turn be inherited by the three nephews in equal shares by right of representation.

Therefore, the three (3) nephews will receive P1,111,111.10 each the half- sister will receive the sum of P1,666,666.60.

5.) Mr. XT and Mrs. YT have been married for 20 years. Suppose the wife, YT, died childless, survived only by her husband, XT. What would be the share of XT from her estate as inheritance? Why? Explain.

Under the Civil Code, the widow or widower is a legal and compulsory heir of the deceased spouse. If the widow is the only surviving heir, there being no legitimate ascendants, descendants, brothers, and sisters, nephews and nieces, she gets the entire estate.

6.) Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are childless, met with a serious motor vehicle accident with Mr. Cruz at the wheel and Mrs. Cruz seated beside him, resulting in the instant death of Mr. Cruz. Mrs. Cruz was still alive when help came but she also died on the way to the hospital. The couple acquired properties worth One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos during their marriage, which are being claimed by the parents of both spouses in equal shares. Is the claim of both sets of parents valid and why? (b) Suppose in the preceding question, both Mr. and Mrs. Cruz were already dead when help came, so that nobody could say who died ahead of the other, would your answer be the same to the question as to who are entitled to the properties of the deceased couple?

a.) No, the claim of both parents is not valid. When Mr. Cruz died, he was succeeded by his wife and his parents as his intestate heirs who will share his estate equally. His estate was 0.5 Million pesos which is his half share in the absolute community amounting to 1 Million Pesos. His wife, will, therefore, inherit O.25 Million Pesos and his parents will inherit 0.25 Million Pesos.

When Mrs. Cruz died, she was succeeded by her parents as her intestate heirs. They will inherit all of her estate consisting of her 0.5 Million half share in the absolute community and her 0.25 Million inheritance from her husband, or a total of 0.750 Million Pesos.

In sum, the parents of Mr. Cruz will inherit 250,000 Pesos while the parents of Mrs. Cruz will inherit 750,000 Pesos.

b.) This being a case of succession, in the absence of proof as to the time of death of each of the spouses, it is presumed they died at the same time and no transmission of rights from one to the other is deemed to have taken place. Therefore, each of them is deemed to have an estate valued at P500,000,00, or one-half of their conjugal property of P1 million. Their respective parents will thus inherit the entire P1 Million in equal shares, of P500,000.00 per set of parents.

7.) Esteban and Martha had four (4) children: Rolando, Jun, Mark, and Hector. Rolando had a daughter, Edith, while Mark had a son, Philip. After the death of Esteban and Martha, their three (3) parcels of land were adjudicated to Jun. After the death of Jun, the properties passed to his surviving spouse Anita, and son Cesar. When Anita died, her share went to her son Cesar. Ten (10) years after, Cesar died intestate without any issue. Peachy, Anita’s sister, adjudicated to herself the properties as the only surviving heir of Anita and Cesar. Edith and Philip would like to recover the properties claiming that they should have been reserved by Peachy in their behalf and must now revert back to them. Is the contention of Edith and Philip valid?

No, the contention is not valid. The property adjudicated to Jun from the estate of his parents which he in turn left to Anita and Cesar is not subject to reservation in favor of Edith and Philip. In Mendoza et. al. v. Policarpio, et. al. (G.R. No. 176422, March 20 2013), the court ruled that lineal character of the reservable property is reckoned from the ascendant from whom the propositus received the property by gratuitous title. The ownership should be reckoned only from Jun, as he is the ascendant from where the first transmission occurred or from whom Cesar inherited the properties. Moreover, Art. 891 provides that the person obliged to reserve the property should be an ascendant. Peachy is not Cesar’s ascendant but a mere collateral relative. On the assumption that the property is reservable, Edith and Philip being first cousins of Cesar who is the propositus are disqualified to be reservatarios as they are not third-degree relatives of Cesar.

8.) On March 30, 2000, Mariano died intestate and was survived by his wife, Leonora, and children, Danilo and Carlito. One of the properties he left was a piece of land in Alabang where he built his residential house. After his burial, Leonora and Mariano’s children extrajudicially settled his estate. Thereafter, Leonora and Danilo advised Carlito of their intention to partition the property. Carlito opposed invoking Article 159 of the Family Code. Carlito alleged that since his minor child Lucas still resides in the premises, the family home continues until that minor beneficiary becomes of age. Is the contention of Carlito tenable?

No, the contention of Carlito is not tenable. To qualify as beneficiary of the family home, the person must be among those mentioned in Art. 154, he/she must be actually living in the family home and must be dependent for legal support upon the head of the family. (Patricio v. Dario, G.R. No. 170829, November 20, 2006) While Lucas, the son of Carlito satisfies the first and second requisites, he cannot however, directly claim legal support from his grandmother, Leonora because the person primarily obliged to give support to Lucas is his father, Carlito. Thus, partition may be successfully claimed by Leonora and Danilo.

9.) Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both 18 years of age, were passengers of Flight No. 317 of Oriental Airlines. The plane they boarded was of Philippine registry. While en route from Manila to Greece some passengers hijacked the plane, held the chief pilot hostage at the cockpit and ordered him to fly instead to Libya. During the hijacking Isidro suffered a heart attack and was on the verge of death. Since Irma was already eight months pregnant by Isidro, she pleaded to the hijackers to allow the assistant pilot to solemnize her marriage with Isidro. Soon after the marriage, Isidro expired. As the plane landed in Libya Irma gave birth. However, the baby died a few minutes after complete delivery. Back in the Philippines, Irma Immediately filed a claim for inheritance. The parents of Isidro opposed her claim contending that the marriage between her and Isidro was void ab initio on the following grounds: (a) they had not given their consent to the marriage of their son; (b) there was no marriage license; (c) the solemnizing officer had no authority to perform the marriage; and, (d) the solemnizing officer did not file an affidavit of marriage with the proper civil registrar. Does Irma have any successional rights at all? Discuss fully.

Irma succeeded to the estate of Isidro as his surviving spouse to the estate of her legitimate child. When Isidro died, he was succeeded by his surviving wife Irma, and his legitimate unborn child. They divided the estate equally between them, the child excluding the parents of Isidro. An unborn child is considered born for all purposes favorable to it provided it is born later. The child was considered born because, having an intra-uterine life of more than seven months, it lived for a few minutes after its complete delivery. It was legitimate because it was born within the valid marriage of the parents. Succession is favorable to it. When the child died, Irma inherited the share of the child. However, the share of the child in the hands of Irma is subject to reserva troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the child within the third degree of consanguinity and who belong to the line of Isidro.

10.) Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten Million (P1 0,000,000.00) Pesos. His widow gave birth to a child four months after Mr. Luna's death, but the child died five hours after birth. Two days after the child's death, the widow of Mr. Luna also died because she had suffered from difficult childbirth. The estate of Mr. Luna is now being claimed by his parents, and the parents of his widow. Who is entitled to Mr. Luna's estate and why?

Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna as their inheritance from Mrs. Luna, while the other half will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna as the reservatarios of the reserved property inherited by Mrs. Luna from her child.

When Mr. Luna died, his heirs were his wife and the unborn child. The unborn child inherited because the inheritance was favorable to it and it was born alive later though it lived only for five hours. Mrs. Luna inherited half of the 10 Million estate while the unborn child inherited the other half. When the child died, it was survived by its mother, Mrs. Luna. As the only heir, Mrs. Luna inherited, by operation of law, the estate of the child consisting of its 5 Million inheritance from Mr. Luna. In the hands of Mrs. Luna, what she inherited from her child was subject to reserva troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the child within the third degree of consanguinity and who belong to the family of Mr. Luna, the line where the property came from.

When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived by her parents as her only heirs. Her parents will inherit her estate consisting of the 5 Million she inherited from Mr. Luna. The other 5 Million she inherited from her child will be delivered to the parents of Mr. Luna as beneficiaries of the reserved property.

In sum, 5 Million Pesos of Mr. Luna's estate will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna, while the other 5 Million Pesos will go to the parents of Mr. Luna as reservatarios.