1.X died in 1955 with a will. In her will, she devised one-half of a big parcel of land to her brothers, Y and Z. and the other half to the grandniece, A, subject to the condition that upon A’s death, whether before or after that of the testatrix, said one-half of the property devised to her shall be delivered to Y and Z, or their heirs should anyone of them die before X. After the will was admitted to probate, A demanded for the partition of the property. Y and Z, however, contended that since she is only a fiduciary heir or a usufructuary she cannot demand for the partition of the property. Is this contention tenable?
Answer: This contention is untenable. Art. 865 of the civil code provides that a fidiecomissary substitution shall have no effect unless it is made expressly either by giving it such a name or by imposing upon the first heir the absolute obligation to deliver the inheritance to the second heir. The testamentary clause under consideration does not cal the institution a fidiecomissary heir nor does it contain a clear statement that A enjoys only usufructuary right, the naked ownership being vested in the brothers of the testatrix. The will, therefore, establishes only a simple or common substitution (substitution vulgar), the necessary result of which is that A upon the death of the testatrix, became the owner of an undivided half of the property. Being a co-owner, she can therefore demand for a partition of the property (Crisologo v. Singson, 4 Scra 491).
2.A instituted B, (his son) and his brothers C and D as heirs to an estate of P600,000. Distribute the estate. Reason out your answer.
Art 846 of the civil code which declares that heirs instituted without designation of shares shall inherit in equal parts. It must be noted, however, that one of the instituted heirs (B) is a compulsory heir while the other two (C and D) are voluntary heirs. Article 486 is applicable only to the disposable free portion and not to the legitime of the compulsory heirs. Therefore the estate of 600,000 shall be divided as follows: B shall receive his legitime of ½ of the estate (i.e. 300,ooo) and that leaves the disposable portion of ½ of the estate which shall be divided into equal parts among the three instituted heirs. Thus: B shall receive P400,000; C P100,000 and D P100,000.
3. X , 80 years old and without any compulsory heir, executed a will wherein he left all of his properties to a stepson, A, and the latter’s wife, B. After X’s death in 1939, A and B, presented the will for probate. The probate was opposed by Y, a brother of X. An order for allowance was promulgated and in 1943, the project of partition was approved and implemented. Y did not appeal. In 1967, Y brought an action against A and B for the annulment of the will of X and for the recovery of the properties which were adjudicated to A and B. The lower court at first dismissed the action upon motion of A and B. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Y. The court granted the motion on the ground that under Art. 1410 of the Civil Code, an action for annulment of wills is imprescriptible. Is this correct? Explain.
That is an error. Article 1410 is not applicable to last will and testament. From the point of view of res judicata and ART. 838 of the Civil Code, Y has no longer any remedy. The last paragraph of Art 838 is clear. Subject to the right of appeal, says the code, “the allowance of the will during the lifetime of the testator or after his death, shall be conclusive as to its due execution.(Gallanosa v. Archangel 83 SCRA 676).
4. What are the only questions which a probate court can determine? Can A, an illegitimate child, file a motion for intervention so that he prove his filiation? Explain.
Answer: (1) whether or not the instrument which is offered for probate is the last will and testament of the decedent (the question of identity); (2) whether or not the will has been executed in accordance wit the formalities prescribed by law (due execution) (3) whether or not the testator has the necessary testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will (capacity)
Consequently the probate court cannot inquire into the intrinsic validity of testamentary dispositions.
5.A died in 1965 with a will. In the will, he devised a house and lot to B as fiduciary heir to the latter’s son, C, as fidiecomissary substitute, declaring that said property shall not be alienated for 100 years. B died in 1975. May C now validly alienate the property?
No. 3 of Art. 867 of the civil code provides that provisions which contain a perpetual prohibition to alienate and even a temporary one beyond the limit fixed in ART. 863 shall not take effect: except for the two limitations which are (a) that the substitution must no go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted and (b) that both the first heir and the second heir must be living at the time of the death of the testator. It is evident that in testamentary dispositions which contain a perpetual or temporary prohibition to alienate, neither one nor the other can possibly be violated. They only limitation which is violated is that provided in Art. 870 (i.e. the prohibition to alienate is good for 20 years. Beyond that, it is void.
In the instant problem, C must therefore still wait for 1985 before he can validly alienate the property.
6. X died in 1960 with a will wherein he instituted his mother, M, as universal heir. His estate consisted of properties valued at P80,000. In 1962, M died intestate will all of these properties still intact. There are now two claimants to these properties. They are A, maternal aunt of X and B, paternal uncle of X. (A) suppose that X had inherited all of these properties from his father, F, in 1955, to whom shall you adjudicate them? (b) suppose that one-half of these properties had been acquired by X through succession from his father, F, in 1955 and the other half through his own effort or industry from 1955 to 1960, to whom shall you adjudicate them?
(a) one-half undivided share of all the properties shall be adjudicated to A in accordance with the normal rules of intestate succession and the other half undivided share to B in accordance with art 891 of the civil code. The reason is that only one-half undivided portion of the properties in the instant case is reservable. Under ART. 891, the law requires that the ascendant-reservista should have inherited the property from the descendant-propositus “by operation of law”. In testamentary succession, “by operation of law” applies only to the transmission of the legitime and not to the free portion. Therefore, only ½ undivided portion in the properties, which is the legitime of M is reservable., while the other half which is the free portion is the free property. Consequently, when M died in 1962, the 1/2undivided portion of said properties which is reservable, passed automatically to B in accordance with Art. 891 while the other half which is free passed to A in accordance with the normal rules of intestate succession.
(b) when M the reservista died in 1962 only ½ undivided share of all the properties which X originally acquired from his father F by gratuitous title shall pass automatically and by operation of law to B in accordance with art. 891 while the other half undivided share of such properties as well as all of the properties which X originally acquired through his effort shall pass to A in accordance with the normal rules of intestate succession.
7. (Problem No. 185) X died in 1972. In his will, he instituted as heirs four legitimate children, A, B, C and D to inherit in equal shares. B and C, however, died before X. B is survived by two legitimate children E and F, while C is also survived by two legitimate children G and H. On the other hand, D survived but repudiated his inheritance. He has to legitimate children I and J. The net value of the estate is P120,000. (a) How shall the estate be distributed?(b)Suppose that X, in the above problem, died intestate, how shall the distribution be made?
A: p15T as compulsory heir plus P15t as voluntary heir + P5t as legal heir to D’s legitime + 15t by right of accretion from B’s share + 15t by right of accretion from C’s share + 15t by right of accretion from D’s share
Or a total of P80,000.
E: 7,500 by right of representation + 2,500 as legal heir to D’s legitime
F and G and H same as E
I and J none. ( see p. 418 of Jurado Reviewer)
8.(a) Suppose that the beneficiary of the will is the wife of the minister of the gospel who rendered aid to the testator during the latter’s last illness,would she be disqualified from inheriting from the testator? (b) suppose the beneficiary in the will is a physician or a nurse who took care of the testator during the latter’s last illness, but he or she happens to be the spouse,child, or parent of the said testator, would he/she be disqualified from inheriting from the testator?
(a)Applying art. 1027 no. 2 of the civil code, the wife of the minister of the gospel is NOT disqualified. The disqualification extends only to the relatives within the fourth degree as well as to the church, order, chapter, community, organization or institution to which he belongs. The spouse is excluded.
(b) there is no disqualification of said nurse or physician considering that the same is his relative. (p. 457)
9. Are the following subject to collation? (a) gifts bestowed by the deceased father during his lifetime to the spouse of his son (b) money paid by the deceased parent during his lifetime to the debts of his son.
(a) not collatable. The daughter-in-law is considered a stranger(art. 1066)
(b) collatable since what we have here is actually a donation intervivos made to a compulsory heir. (art. 1069)
10.When the attending physician of X finally informed the latter that he is suffering from the last stages of cancer and that he cannot live longer than one month, he called up his son, A, a priest. IT was the latter who heard his last confession. After the confession, he executed a will wherein he gave the disposable free portion of his estate in the proportion of “one-third for each” as to his two sons, A and B, who are his only compulsory heirs and to a friend, F. He died ten days afterwards. The net value of his estate is P120,000. During the administration proceedings, B, who was not in good terms with A, contended that the latter in incapacitated to inherit from the testator pursuant to the provision of No. 1 of Art. 1027 of the civil code. Is he correct?
B is correct. A is certainly incapacitated under no. 1 of ART. 1027 of the civil code. There can be no question about that. But B is also incapacitated to inherit from the testator under No. 2 of the same article, being a brother of A, and therefore a collateral relative of the latter within the fourth degree. It must be noted however, that their legitime will not be affected by said disqualification. What is affected is their share in the disposable free portion. Such shares shall pass to their co-heir F by right of accretion pursuant to Arts. 1016 and 1017 of the civil code. THEREFORE, A shall be entitled to his legitime of P30,000; B to P30,000 and F to the entire free portion of P60,000.
No comments:
Post a Comment