Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

WILLS AND SUCCESSION

1. Mia is married to Aure with 3 children: T, J and A, all of legal age. Aure executed a NW on June 1, 2010.
Aure was diagnosed w/ a cancer of the bones and later succomed to hte illness.

Prior to the death of his father, T, who had 5M debt sold his 'future inheritance' consisting of a beach
resort in Palawan to his creditor Dan. Is T's act valid? No.

No. Ts act of disposing the said properties is not valid.


Under the law, rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. However, prior to a
persons death, his heirs merely have an inchoate right to his property. During his lifetime, the heirs have no right
of disposition of the said properties.
Here, prior to the death of Aure, T sold his future inheritance consisting of a beach resort to his creditor.
Since T disposed of his future inheritance which is prohibited by law, the act is not valid.

Would your answer be the same if T sold his share of his father's estate after the death of his father? No.

No. Ts act of disposing the said properties is valid.


Under the law, rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. The disposition of
property after the death of the decedent is allowed.
Here, Aure disposed of the subject property after the death of Aure.
Since the subject property is no longer considered future property the act of disposition is valid.

2. Robin is a US citizen who left a will involving his properties in hte PH. He had 3 children by his PH wife. It is stated
in his will that his prpreties should be distributed in accordance w/ PH law and not law of California.

Is his will valid? No.

No.
Under the law, with regard to the legality of provisions or intrinsic validity of a will, the governing law is the national
law of the Testator, regardless of the place of its execution.
Since Robin is a citizen of USA, the Cali law should apply and not PH law. The provision of the will contravents
the CVL code.
Thus, the will is invalid.

Assuming that under the Cali laws, the matter of succession rights depend on hte law of his domicile w/c is the
PH. Will your answer be the same?

No.
Under the law, with regard to the legality of provisions or intrinsic validity of a will, the governing law is the national
law of the Testator, regardless of the place of its execution.
Here, the Cali law refers back the case, when a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile,
the Philippines. The PH courts cannot refer the case back to California because such action will leave the issue
incapable of determination being tossed back and forth between the country of which the decedent was a citizen
and the country of his domicile.
Thus, PH law should apply.

3. Friends A, B, C, D went to Baguio for a brief sojourn. A executed a will in the presence of his friends. During the
probate, the court finds the attestation clause does not state that B C D actually witnessed C sign the will. Truth is
that they did see A sign the will as all eyes were on him when he signed the same.

What is the legal implication of such ommission in the attestation clause?

The will is void.


Under 805, the attestation clause of NW should contain the ff: 1) number of pages, 2) fact that it was signed by
the T, in the presence of the witnesses, 3) the fact that the IW witnessed and signed the will in the presence of T
and of one another.
Here, the attestation clause did not state that BCD actually witnessed C sign the will. Although the truth is that
they were able to see him sign, such omission cannot be determined by examination of the will itself as extrinsic
evidence is inadmissible.
Thus, the will is void.

Can T and 3W use as evidence a video clip of execution of a will to show compliance w/ 805?

No.
Under 805, the attestation clause of NW should contain the ff: 1) number of pages, 2) fact that it was signed by
the T, in the presence of the witnesses, 3) the fact that the IW witnessed and signed the will in the presence of T
and of one another.
Here, the attestation clause did not state that BCD actually witnessed C sign the will. Although the truth is that
they were able to see him sign, such omission cannot be determined by examination of the will itself as extrinsic
evidence is inadmissible. A video clip of execution is an extrinsic evidence which is inadmissible.
Thus, they cannot use a video clip as evidence to show compliance w/ 805.
4. A is a popular PH actress. She executed a will on Jan 1, 2014. Unknown to the public, she underwent
chronic depression that prompted her to attempt suicide. The suicide attempt failed as she was
immediately rushed to the hospital by her household upon seeing her slash her wrist w/ a razor-sharp
blade.
Few months after, realizing that she was blessed to have lived, she wanted to have her will probated.
Probate of the will was opposed by her sisters and brothers who contend that the will was not valid as the
T was not of sound mind due to the servere depression that she was undergoing at the time of exeution
of the will. Are the oppositors correct?

No.
Under the law, every person is presumed to be of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary. Morever, to
be of sound mind, it is not necessary that T be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties or mind be wholly
unbroken, unimpaired or unshatters by disease or injury. It is sufficient that the requisites of soundness of mind
are as present: that T was able at the time of making the will to know the 1) nature of estate, 2) proper objects of
his bounty, and character of the testamentary act.
Here, the oppositors contended that A was of sound mind due to severe depression at the time of execution of the
will.
Absence any proof that she did not know the nature of the estate, proper objects of his bountry, and character of
the testamentary act during the execution of the will, the will is valid making the contention of the oppositors
untenable.

5. A B C and D are very good friends. They are, however, separated geographically as A lives in Cavite, B in
Laguna, C in Makati, and D in Rizal. To stay connected to each other, they used different forms and/or
modes of social media.
One time, A organized that they all use Skype, a means whereby they can all see each otehr and hear
oeach other on their laptop screens, while in their respective homes. BCD saw A sign the document on
their laptops. After affixing her sign, the 4 decided to meet in Makati so that the 3 witnesses sign the will.
All the witnesses signed the will. The will is submitted for probate. Valid?

No.
Under 805, the will should be attested and subscribed by the witnesses in the presence of T and of one another.
Physical presence is not required but the possibility of seeing without physical obstruction.
Here, the witnesses saw A sign through skype and on the next day met together to personally sign the will.
Clearly, there was no unity of act.
Thus, absence the unity of the act of attestation and suscription, the will is not valid.

6. Mayor J wrote a will disposing his properties. He instituted his trusted right hand F as one of his legatees.
3 months later, he learned that F broke his trust and confidence by divulging a political secret to the
opposing political group. J was so furious that he opened his cabinet at the office and started tearing his
will. Meanwhile, A of CNN and his crew knocked on the door to do a live interview. J immediately put the
torn will in his cabinet as the CNN people cam in his office while some pieces lay on the floor. Valid
revocation?

No.
Under the law, revocation of a will may be done through overt acts such as tearing. The requirements for a valid
revocation through an overt act are the ff: 1) overt act such as tearing, 2) completion of the subjective phase, and
3) animus revocandi.
Here, A was able to tear the will into pieces but due to CNNs interruption he put the remaining of the document in
his cabinet. The subject phase was not completed due to the said interruption.
Althought there was an overt act of tearing and animus revocandi, the subjective phase was not yet completed.
Lacking the said requisite, there is no valid revocation.

7. L a widow. She made a 1st will (NW) in 2010 disposing of her properties and disinherting M her daughter.
In 2011, a year after the will was executed, M gave birth to a girl. L gew very fond of her grand child and
had a change of heart regarding M. In 2012, L executed another will (HW), revoking the 1st will and stating
that M is no longer disinherited. In 2013, L discovered that M had been stealing her jewelry and pension. L
got so mad and executed a 3rd will revoking the 2nd will. Does the 3rd will revive the 1st will?

No.
Under the law and the Principle of Instanter, when T makes a 2 nd will revoking the 1st will, the revocation of the 2 nd
will does not revive the 1st will, which can only be revived by another will or codicil.
Here, the 1st will was revoked by a 2nd will and the 2nd will was revoked by a 3rd will. The Principle of Instanter
applies and the will remains revoked. The 1st will can only be given effect by republication or revival.
Since there was express revocation, the 3rd will did not revive the 1st will.