Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 558 views

    Succession Bar Questions 2014 and 2015

    Uploaded by

    Hazelmer Fernandez
    The document contains sample answers to questions from the 2014 and 2015 Philippines Bar Examinations on Civil Law. It discusses several hypothetical cases involving issues of succession, family relations, and property rights. For one question, the suggested answer is that a child born out of wedlock cannot claim recognition and inheritance from his putative father's estate after the father's death, as he did not bring the action during the father's lifetime as required by law. For another question, the suggested response is that a boy raised by two unmarried common law partners has no successional rights upon the death of one partner who left no will, as there was no legal adoption.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Succession Bar Questions 2014 and 2015

    Uploaded by

    Hazelmer Fernandez
    558 views4 pages
    The document contains sample answers to questions from the 2014 and 2015 Philippines Bar Examinations on Civil Law. It discusses several hypothetical cases involving issues of succession, family relations, and property rights. For one question, the suggested answer is that a child born out of wedlock cannot claim recognition and inheritance from his putative father's estate after the father's death, as he did not bring the action during the father's lifetime as required by law. For another question, the suggested response is that a boy raised by two unmarried common law partners has no successional rights upon the death of one partner who left no will, as there was no legal adoption.

    Original Description:

    Succession Civil Law Bar Questions Suggested Answers 2014 and 2015 Compilation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document contains sample answers to questions from the 2014 and 2015 Philippines Bar Examinations on Civil Law. It discusses several hypothetical cases involving issues of succession, family relations, and property rights. For one question, the suggested answer is that a child born out of wedlock cannot claim recognition and inheritance from his putative father's estate after the father's death, as he did not bring the action during the father's lifetime as required by law. For another question, the suggested response is that a boy raised by two unmarried common law partners has no successional rights upon the death of one partner who left no will, as there was no legal adoption.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    558 views4 pages

    Succession Bar Questions 2014 and 2015

    Uploaded by

    Hazelmer Fernandez
    The document contains sample answers to questions from the 2014 and 2015 Philippines Bar Examinations on Civil Law. It discusses several hypothetical cases involving issues of succession, family relations, and property rights. For one question, the suggested answer is that a child born out of wedlock cannot claim recognition and inheritance from his putative father's estate after the father's death, as he did not bring the action during the father's lifetime as required by law. For another question, the suggested response is that a boy raised by two unmarried common law partners has no successional rights upon the death of one partner who left no will, as there was no legal adoption.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The document discusses various issues related to succession law such as validity of will provisions, effect of preterition, rights of adopted/ward children, acquisitive prescription, and legitime.

    It annuls the institution of heir

    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.

    2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS

    UNIVERSITY of the PHILIPPINES LAW


    CENTER
    SUGGESTED ANSWERS IN CIVIL LAW
    Assoc. Dean Viviana M. Paguirigan
    II.

    son Cesar. Ten (10) years after, Cesar died


    intestate without any issue. Peachy, Anitas
    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.

    Crispin died testate and was survived by Alex


    and Josine, his children from his first wife; Rene
    and Ruby, his children from his second wife;
    and Allan, Bea, and Cheska, his children from
    his third wife.
    One important provision in his will reads as
    follows:
    "Ang lupa at bahay sa Lungsod ng Maynila ay
    ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan nila Alex at Rene
    hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang
    pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at
    nang ang sinuman sa aking mga anak, sampu
    ng aking mga apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa
    habang panahon, ay may tutuluyan kung
    magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o sa kalapit
    na mga lungsod."
    Is the provision valid? (4%)
    SUGGESTED ANSWER:
    No, the provision is not valid. At first glance,
    the provision may appear valid as it provides
    for the transfer of title in favor of Alex and
    Rene over the parcel of land. A legacy or
    devise is to be construed as a donation
    effective mortis causa, and it is intended to
    transfer ownership to the legatee or devisee.
    Since the ownership is legally transferred to
    the Alex and Rene, they cannot be prohibited
    by the testator from alienating or partitioning
    the same perpetually. The dispositions of the
    testator declaring all or part of the estate
    inalienable for more than twenty years are
    void. (Article 870)

    Is the contention of Edith and Philip valid?


    (4%)

    SUGGESTED ANSWER:
    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. vs.Policarpio, et.
    al. 1 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, Article 891 provides that
    the person obliged to reserve the property
    should be an ascendant. Peachy is not Cesars
    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.

    V.

    XVII.

    What is the effect of preterition ? (1%)


    (A) It annuls the devise and legacy
    (B) It annuls the institution of heir
    (C) It reduces the devise and legacy
    (D) It partially annuls the institution of
    heir
    Answer is letter B (preterition annuls the
    institution of heirs)

    XIII.
    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

    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 Marianos 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? (4%)

    G.R. NO. 176422 -March 20, 2013

    I.

    SUGGESTED ANSWER:
    No, the contention of Carlito is not tenable. In
    the case of Patricio v. Dario, 2 with similar facts
    to the case at bar, the court ruled that to qualify
    as beneficiary of the family home the person
    must be among those mentioned in Article 154,
    he/she must be actually living in the family
    home and must be dependent for legal support
    upon the head of the family. 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.

    XXV.

    Mario executed his last will and testament


    where he acknowledges the child being
    conceived by his live-in partner Josie as his own
    child; and that his house and lot in Baguio City
    be given to his unborn conceived child. Are the
    acknowledgment and the donation mortis causa
    valid? Why? (4%)

    SUGGESTED ANSWER:
    Yes, the acknowledgment is considered valid
    because a will (although not required to be filed
    by the notary public) may still constitute a
    document which contains an admission of
    illegitimate filiation. Article 834 also provides
    that the recognition of an illegitimate child does
    not lose its legal effect even though the will
    wherein it was made should be revoked. This
    provision by itself warrants a conclusion that a
    will may be considered as proof of filiation. The
    donation mortis causa may be considered valid
    because although unborn, a fetus has a
    presumptive personality for all purposes
    favorable to it provided it be born under the
    conditions specified in Article 41.

    UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS


    SUGGESTED ANSWERS
    2015 CIVIL LAW BAR EXAMINATIONS
    By: Assoc. Dean Viviana M. Paguirigan

    G.R. No. 170829 November 20, 2006

    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
    siblingsand of Alden 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.
    a) Was the joint will executed by Alden
    and Stela who were both former
    Filipinos valid? Explain with legal basis.
    (3%)
    b) Can the joint will produce legal
    effect in the Philippines with
    respect to the propertiesand of
    Alden Stela found here? If so,
    how? (3%)
    c)

    Is the situation presented in


    Item
    I
    an
    example
    of
    depe9age? (2%)

    SUGGESTED ANSWER:
    a) Yes, the joint will of Alden and Stela is
    considered 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. (Article
    816)
    b) 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.
    c) No, because depecage 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.

    IV.
    III.
    Julie had a relationship with a married man who
    had legitimate children. A son was born out of
    that illicit relationship in 1981. Although the
    putative father did not recognize the child in
    his certificate of birth, he nevertheless
    provided the with child all the support he
    needed and spent time regularly with the child
    and his mother. When the man died in 2000,
    the child was already 18 years old so he filed a
    petition to be recognized as an illegitimate
    child of the putative father and sought to be
    given a share in his putative father's estate.
    The legitimate family opposed, saying that
    under the Family Code his action cannot
    prosper because he did not bring the action for
    recognition during the lifetime of his putative
    father.

    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.
    xxxx
    b) What are the successional rights of the
    boy Bert Joe and raised as their son? (2%)
    xxxxx

    a)
    If you were the judge in this
    case, would how you rule? (4%)

    SUGGESTED ANSWER:

    b)
    Wishing to keep the peace, the
    child during the pendency of the case
    decides to compromise with his putative
    father's family by abandoning his petition
    in exchange for Yi of what he would have
    received as inheritance if he were
    recognized as an illegitimate child. As the
    judge, would you approve such a
    compromise? (2%)

    b)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)

    SUGGESTED ANSWER:
    a) If I were the judge, I will not allow the
    action for recognition filed after the death
    of the putative father.
    Under the Family
    Code, an illegitimate child who has not
    been recognized by the father in the record
    of birth, or in a private handwritten
    instrument, or in a public document and
    may prove his filiation based on open and
    continuous possession of the status of an
    illegitimate child but pursuant to Article
    175, he or she must file the action for
    recognition during the lifetime of the
    putative father. The provision of Article 285
    of the Civil Code allowing the child to file
    the action for recognition even after the
    death of the father will not apply because
    in the case presented, the child was no
    longer a minor at the time of death of the
    putative father.
    b) No, I will not approve the compromise
    agreement because filiation is a matter to
    be decided by law. It is not for the parties
    to stipulate whether a person is a
    legitimate or illegitimate child of another.
    (De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon 366 SCRA 499)
    In all cases of illegitimate children, their
    filiation must be duly proved. (Article 887,
    Civil Code)
    ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, I would approve
    the compromise because it is no longer
    considered future inheritance. What the law
    prohibits is a compromise with respect to
    future legitime. In this case, the father is
    already dead so the compromise is considered
    valid.

    IX.
    Jose, single, donated a house and lot to his only
    niece, Maria, who was of legal age and who
    accepted the donation. The donation and
    Maria's acceptance thereof were evidenced by
    a Deed of Donation. Maria then lived in the
    house and lot donated to her, religiously
    paying real estate taxes thereon. Twelve years
    later, when Jose had already passed away, a
    woman claiming to be an illegitimate daughter
    of Jose filed a complaint against Maria.
    Claiming rights as an heir, the woman prayed
    that Maria be ordered to reconvey the house
    and lot to Jose's estate. In her complaint she
    alleged that the notary public who notarized
    the Deed of Donation had an expired notarial
    commission when the Deed of Donation was
    executed by Jose. Can Maria be made to
    reconvey the property? What can she put up as
    a defense? (4%)

    SUGGESTED ANSWER:
    No. Maria cannot be compelled to reconvey the
    property.
    The Deed of Donation was void
    because it was not considered a public
    document. However, a void donation can
    trigger acquisitive prescription. (Solis v. CA 176
    SCRA 678; Doliendo v. Biarnesa 7 Phil. 232) The
    void donation has a quality of titulo colorado
    enough for acquisitive prescription especially
    since 12 years had lapsed from the deed of
    donation.

    ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Maria can be made


    to reconvey the property. The law provides
    that no person may give or receive by way of
    donation more than what he may give or
    receive by will. On the assumption that the
    property donated to Maria is the only property
    of Jose, the legitime of his illegitimate child
    would be impaired if Maria would be allowed to
    keep the entire property.
    After taking into
    account the value of the property, Maria can be
    made to reconvey the property to the extent
    necessary to satisfy the legitime of Joses
    illegitimate daughter provided that the woman
    claiming to be Joses child can prove her
    filiation to the deceased.

    Maria can set up the defense that the action


    has prescribed. An action for revocation of the
    donation on the ground that it impaired the
    legitime of a compulsory heir may only be filed
    within ten (10) years from the time the cause
    of action accrues which is at the time of the
    death of Jose. The facts are not clear as to
    when Jose died but on the assumption that he
    died ten years prior to the filing of the action,
    the same has clearly prescribed.

    You might also like