Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of abintestato from Cristina. Both are legitimate relatives of Cristina's illegitimate parents and therefore they fall under the prohibition prescribed by Art. 992. (Manuel v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 117246, August 21, 1995; Diaz v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66574, February 21, 1990)
1. Michelle, as an adopted child of Ramon, will inherit as a legitimate child of Ramon. As an adopted child, Michelle has all the rights of a legitimate child. (Sec 18, Domestic Adoption Law)
2. Lia will inherit in representation of Anna. Although Lia is an illegitimate child, she is not barred by Articles 992, because her mother Anna is an illegitimate herself. She will represent Anna as regards Anna's legitime under Art. 902 and as regards Anna's intestate share under Art. 990.
The following may not inherit from Ramon:
1. Shelly, being an adopted child, she cannot represent Cherry. This is because adoption creates a personal legal relation only between the adopter and the adopted. The law on representation requires the representative to be a legal heir of the person he is representing and also of the person from whom the person being represented was supposed to inherit. While Shelly is a legal heir of Cherry, Shelly is not a legal heir of Ramon. Adoption created a purely personal legal relation only between Cherry and Shelly.
2. Hans and Gretel are barred from inheriting from Ramon under Art. 992. Being illegitimate children, they cannot inherit ab intestato from Ramon.
M (his mother) – P50,000 and T and S (his twin sons) – P25,000 each.
D died intestate and his heirs are the mother (legitimate ascendant) and his twin sons (illegitimate). The mother gets one-half of his estate and his two illegitimate sons get the other half. (Article 991)
W, the common-law wife” is not an heir abintestato because she is not a legal spouse. She is merely a partner in a non-marital union.
As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's opposition should be sustained in part and denied in part. Jorge's omission as spouse of Maria is not preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line. Hence, Art. 854 of the Civil Code does not apply, and the institution of Miguela as heir is valid, but only to the extent of the free portion of one-half. Jorge is still entitled to one-half of the estate as his legitime. (Art. 1001)
This is a case of ineffective disinheritance because marrying a man that the father did not approve of is not a ground for disinheriting D. Therefore, the institution of D-1 and D-2 shall be annulled insofar as it prejudices the legitime of D, and the institution of D-1 and D- 2 shall only apply on the free portion in the amount of P500,000.00. Therefore, D, D-1 and D-2 will get their legitimes of P500, 000.00 divided into three equal parts and D-1 and D- 2 will get a reduced testamentary disposition of P250,b000.00 each. Hence, the shares will be:
The disinheritance of Wilma was ineffective because the ground relied upon by the testator does not constitute maltreatment under Art. 919(6). Hence, the testamentary provisions in the will shall be annulled but only to the extent that her legitime was impaired.
The total omission of Elvira does not constitute preterition because she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line. Only compulsory heirs in the direct line may be the subject of preterition. Not having been preterited, she will be entitled only to her legitime.
The legacy in favor of Rosa is void under Article 1028 for being in consideration of her adulterous relation with the testator. She is, therefore, disqualified to receive the legacy of 100,000 pesos. The legacy of 50,000 pesos in favor of Ernie is not inofficious not having exceeded the free portion. Hence, he shall be entitled to receive it.
The institution of Baldo, which applies only to the free portion, shall be respected. In sum, the estate of Lamberto will be distributed as follows:
a.) No, the said doctrine will not In the case of Molo v. Molo (G.R. No. L-2538, September 21, 1951), the court stated that the doctrine of relative revocation is a rule where revocation of the old will is a suspensive condition or depends upon the efficacy of the new disposition, and if the new will intended as a substitute is inoperative, the revocation fails and the original will remains in force. This was applied based on the fact that the original will appears to be lost; hence, the second will was executed with a revocatory clause, but in both instances, the wife was instituted as the universal heir. In this case, however, the revocation of the original was not through the execution of a subsequent will with a revocatory clause, but through destruction with intent to do so. It does not appear either that the revocation of the old will operates as a suspensive condition to the efficacy of the subsequent will, because the testator revoked the 1st original will, as she does not wish to institute the same heirs, unlike in Molo v. Molo where the wife was the heir in both wills.
P600,000.00 — legitime to be divided equally between Tom, Henry and Warlito as the legitimate children. Each will be entitled to P200,000.00. (Art.888)
P100,000.00 – share of Ramon the illegitimate child. Equivalent to 1/2 of the share of each legitimate child. (Art. 176, FC)
P200,000.00 — Adette the wife. Her share is equivalent to the share of one. legitimate child. (Art.892,par.2) Pepe and Pilar, the parents are only secondary compulsory heirs and they cannot inherit if the primary compulsory heirs (legitimate children) are alive. (Art.887,par.2) Brother Mark and sister Nanette are not compulsory heirs since they are not included in the enumerationunderArt.887of theCivilCode.
The remaining balance of P300,000.00 is the free portion which can be given to the illegitimate child Ramon as an instituted heir. (Art. 914) If so given by the decedent, Ramon would receive a total of P400,000.00.
No, Alberto and Baldomero are not entitled to share in Edilberto’s estate. They are not related at all to Edilberto. They were born during the marriage of Conrado and Clarita, hence, are considered legitimate children of the said spouses. This status is conferred on them at birth by law.
Under Philippine law, a person cannot have more than one natural filiation. The legitimate filiation of a person can be changed only if the legitimate father will successfully impugn such status. In the problem, therefore, the filiation of Alberto and Baldomero as the legitimate children of Conrado cannot be changed by their recognition by Edilberto as his illegitimate children. Before they can be conferred the status of Edilberto’s illegitimate children, Conrado must first impugn their legitimacy. Since Conrado has not initiated any action to impugn their legitimacy, they continue to be the legitimate children of Conrado. They cannot be the illegitimate children of Edilberto at the same time. Not being the illegitimate children of Edilberto, they have no right to inherit from him.
There was no preterition of the oldest son because the testatrix donated P100,000 to him. This donation is considered an advance on the son's inheritance. There being no preterition, the institutions in the will shall be respected but the legitime of the oldest son has to be completed if he received less. After collating the donation of P100,000 to the remaining property of P900,000, the estate of the testatrix is P1,000,000. Of this amount, one-half or P500,000, is the legitime of the legitimate children and it follows that the legitime of one legitimate child is P100,000. The legitime, therefore, of the oldest son is P100,000. However, since the donation given him was P100,000, he has already received in full his legitime and he will not receive anything anymore from the decedent. The remaining P900,000, therefore, shall go to the four younger children by institution in the will, to be divided equally among them. Each will receive P225,000.