Bar Q and A #40

1.) Cristina the illegitimate daughter of Jose and Maria, died intestate, without any descendant or ascendant. Her valuable estate is being claimed by Ana, the legitimate daughter of Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate son of Maria. Is either, both, or neither of them entitled to inherit? Explain.

Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of ab intestato 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)

2.) For purpose of this question, assume all formalities and procedural requirements have been complied with. In 1970, Ramon and Dessa got married. Prior to their marriage, Ramon had a child, Anna. In 1971 and 1972, Ramon and Dessa legally adopted Cherry and Michelle respectively. In 1973, Dessa died while giving birth to Larry Anna had a child, Lia. Anna never married. Cherry, on the other hand, legally adopted Shelly. Larry had twins, Hans and Gretel, with his girlfriend, Fiona. In 2005, Anna, Larry and Cherry died in a car accident. In 2007, Ramon died. Who may inherit from Ramon and who may not? Give your reason briefly.

The following may inherit from Ramon:

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.

3.) D, an Overseas Filipino Worker, was on his way home to the Philippines after working for so many years in the Middle East. He had saved ₱100,000.00 in his local savings account which he intended to use to start up a business in his home country. On his flight home, tragedy struck as a suicide bomber blew up the plane. All the passengers, including D, died. He left behind his widowed mother M; his common-law wife, W, who is the mother of his twin sons, T and S; and his brother, B. 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 D and how much should each receive? Explain.

D’s heirs entitled to inherit from him are:

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 ab intestato because she is not a legal spouse. She is merely a partner in a non-marital union.

4.) Maria, to spite her husband Jorge, whom she suspected was having an affair with another woman, executed a will, unknown to him, bequeathing all the properties she inherited from her parents, to her sister Miguela. Upon her death, the will was presented for probate. Jorge opposed probate of the will on the ground that the will was executed by his wife without his knowledge, much less consent, and that it deprived him of his legitime. After all, he had given her no cause for disinheritance, added Jorge in his opposition. How will you rule on Jorge's opposition to the probate of Maria's will. If you were the Judge?

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)

5.) Mr. Palma, widower, has three daughters D, D-1 and D-2. He executes a Will disinheriting D because she married a man he did not like, and instituting daughters D-1 and D-2 as his heirs to his entire estate of P 1,000,000.00, Upon Mr. Palma's death, how should his estate be divided? Explain.

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:

D P166,666.66

D-l P166,666.66 + P250.000.00

D-2 P166,666.66 + P250,000.00

6.) In his last will and testament, Lamberto 1) disinherits his daughter Wilma because "she is disrespectful towards me and raises her voice talking to me", 2) omits entirely his spouse Elvira, 3) leaves a legacy of P100,000.00 to his mistress Rosa and P50,000.00 to his driver Ernie and 4) institutes his son Baldo as his sole heir. How will you distribute his estate of P1,000,000.00?

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:

Baldo ----------------------------- 450,000

Wilma --------------------------- 250,000

Elvira----------------------------- 250,000

Ernie -----------------------------50,000

1,000,000

7.) Sydney, during her lifetime, was a successful lawyer. By her own choice, she remained unmarried and devoted all her time to taking care of her nephew and two (2) nieces: Socrates, Saffinia, and Sophia. She wrote a will giving all her properties remaining upon her death to the three (3) of them. The will was admitted to probate during her lifetime. Later, she decided to make a new will giving all her remaining properties only to the two (2) girls, Saffinia and Sophia. She then tore up the previously probated will. The second will was presented for probate only after her death. However, the probate court found the second will to be void for failure to comply with formal requirements. A. Will the doctrine of dependent relative revocation apply? B. Will your answer be the same if the second will was found to be valid but both Saffinia and Sophia renounced their inheritance?

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.

8.) Emil, the testator, has three legitimate children, Tom, Henry and Warlito; a wife named Adette; parents named Pepe and Pilar; an illegitimate child, Ramon; brother, Mark; and a sister, Nanette. Since his wife Adette is well-off, he wants to leave to his illegitimate child as much of his estate as he can legally do. His estate has an aggregate net amount of P1,200,000.00, and all the above-named relatives are still living. Emil now comes to you for advice in making a will. How will you distribute his estate according to his wishes without violating the law on testamentary succession?

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.

9.) Four children, namely: Alberto, Baldomero, Caridad, and Dioscoro, were born to the spouses Conrado and Clarita de la Costa. The children’s birth certificates were duly signed by Conrado, showing them to be the couple’s legitimate children. Later, one Edilberto de la Cruz executed a notarial document acknowledging Alberto and Baldomero as his illegitimate children with Clarita. Edilberto died leaving substantial properties. In the settlement of his estate, Alberto and Baldomero intervened claiming shares as the deceased’s illegitimate children. The legitimate family of Edilberto opposed the claim. Are Alberto and Baldomero entitled to share in the estate of Edilberto? Explain.

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.

10.) Because her eldest son Juan had been pestering her for capital to start a business, Josefa gave him P100,000. Five years later, Josefa died, leaving a last will and testament in which she instituted only her four younger children as her sole heirs. At the time of her death, her only properly left was P900,000.00 in a bank. Juan opposed the will on the ground of preterition. How should Josefa's estate be divided among her heirs? State briefly the reason(s) for your answer.

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.