Points to Ponder Suggested Answers Mison

Page 13.
1. Does Article 774 also apply to juridical persons to the extent that successional rights of
corporate entities are governed under the Civil Code?
No. The death referred to in article 774 is death of natural persons.

2. Can there be a transfer of ownership without the fact of death? Is the transmission still
gratuitous if the heir is made to pay deficiency taxes before ownership can be transferred?
a) Yes. If the death is presumptive under articles 390 and 391 (ordinary –10, 5 years; extra ordinary
– 4 years) (Succession takes place at the time of disappearance, however, actual division takes
place at the end of the required period)
b) Yes. The transmission is still gratuitous even if the property transferred is subject to prior
charges (Manresa)

3. Are all obligations to give extinguished upon the death of the obligor? How about obligations
to do or not to do?
a) No. Obligations to give do not extinguish upon the death of the obligor except if prohibited by
law or stipulation. By nature, they are not prohibited.
b) No. There are 2 types of obligations to do
1. purely personal as when the special or personal qualification of the obligor is one of the
motives of the contract.
This type of obligation is absolutely intransmissible by nature.
2. Not very personal as when anyone can do it
This type of obligation may be done by substituted performance and may not be
extinguished upon death. MAYBE lng lol.

(SIDE NOTE )Intransmissible Rights and Obligations:

Art. 1311:
Rights and obligations are intransmissible by:
1. Law
2. Stipulation
3. Nature (Purely personal)
Examples:
 Right and obligation to receive support
 Right of usufruct
 Criminal liability
 Political position
 Marital rights
 Right of parental authority
  Rights from partnership and agency
 Civil liberties
 Commodatum

Side Note: Contingent liabilities and suretyship are transmissible. (Hemady Case)
Page 15
1. In an ejectment case, what is the legal effect of a death of a party during the pendency of the
case?
Ejectment, being an action involving recovery of real property, is a real action which as such, is not
extinguished by a party’s death.
2. What are the causes of action that are extinguished by death?
Personal actions are extinguished by the death i.e. the injury complained of is to the person, the
property and rights of property affected being incidental.
3. Are all criminal cases extinguished upon the death of the Complainant? Upon the death of the
Accused?
a) No. The death of the complainant is not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability. It may be hard
to prosecute if the complainant is a key witness but this does not extinguish the criminal case.
b) Yes. The death of the accused is one of the modes to extinguish criminal liability. Technically
however, if there are more than one accused, this does not extinguish the criminal case entirely.
Only the case against the deceased accused.
4. TRANSMISSIBLE RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS (Bar 2006): Alberto and Janine migrated to the
United States of America, leaving behind their 4 children, one of whom is Manny. They own a
duplex apartment and allowed Manny to live in one of the units. While in the United States,
Alberto died. His widow and all his children executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Alberto’s
estate wherein the 2-door apartment was assigned by all the children to their mother, Janine.
Subsequently, she sold the property to George. The latter required Manny to sign a prepared
Lease Contract so that he and his family could continue occupying the unit. Manny refused to
sign the contract alleging that his parents allowed him and his family to continue occupying
the premises. If you were George’s counsel, what legal steps will you take?
File an ejectment case against him as he has no right to possess or own the property. Allowing
Manny to live in one of the units is a contract of Commodatum which is purely personal thus
extinguishes upon death of one party. If we consider that Janine is also a bailor along with Alberto,
the Commodatum is still extinguished upon her will as she wishes to sell the property to George
instead of loaning it to Manny.
Page 33

1. At what point does succession open for persons declared presumptively dead — after the
lapse of 10 years? After the decree has been issued by a competent court? At the point when
he was found to be absent, i.e. the decree retroacts to the first day of his absence?
In cases of presumptive deaths, a competent court issues a decree that the decedent is presumed
dead for purposes of opening his succession. The time of this decree is when the legal beginning of
succession takes place.
This decree ,however, retroacts to the first day of his absence. Meaning, the ones who will inherit
are the heirs at the moment of his absence (last news from the absentee, occurrence of shipwreck,
plane accident, etc.)

2. What is the ultimate factor that determines whether a contract involves future inheritance?
If the contract was made before succession opens (death)

SIDE NOTE:
Future Inheritance cannot be the subject of a contract!
Requisites of a contract involving future inheritance (Tolentino):
1. Succession is not yet open (Decedent still alive) (Uson Case)
2. The object forms part of the inheritance
3. Expectancy of a purely hereditary right (dependent upon death)

BUT future objects can. Meaning if the object is not dependent upon the death of the decedent,
then they can be objects of a contract.

What is allowed?
-Contract made after the death of decedent (De Borja Case)

4. PRESUMPTIVE DEATH (Bar 2008): At age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She
insured her own life and named her unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she was
already due to give birth, she and her boyfriend Pedro, the father of her unborn child, were
kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they were vacationing. The military gave chase and
after one week, they were found in an abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pedro were
hacked with bolos. Marian and the baby she delivered were both found dead, with the baby’s
umbilical cord already cut. Pedro survived.
i. Can Marian’s baby be the beneficiary of the insurance taken on the life of the mother? (2%)
ii. Between Marian and the baby, who is presumed to have died ahead? (1%)
 iii. Will Pedro, as surviving biological father of the baby, be entitled to claim the proceeds of
the life insurance on the life of Marian? (2%)
i. Yes. Art.41 of the NCC states that the fetus is considered born if it is alive at the
time it is completely delivered from the mother’s womb. Even if the child was killed
after 24 hrs, it is still alive because it had no intra-uterine life of less than 7 months
as evidence by the phrase “she was already due to give birth”.
ii. Marian. Art. 43 of the NCC states that there shall be proof as to who died first. Here,
Marian has bolo hacks, obvious evidence of death, while the baby has none.
Therefore, Marian must have died first and the baby died thereafter probably from
hunger.
iii. Yes. As the biological father of the baby, he is a compulsory heir under Art.887.

Page 37

Does the delivery of presumptive legitimes transfer ownership to the common children by virtue of
tradicion or succession?
The spirit and intent of this law is to protect the interest of the children in the first marriage. As there
are many tales wherein the children of the first marriage will get diminished or completely zero
inheritance from the death of their parent who obviously favored the children of the second marriage.
This delivery is merely an advance on the children’s inheritance which affects the amount they are to
receive in case their parent actually dies.

This transfer, however, is not by virtue of succession under Art.774 as there is no death. Spirit of
succession puwede.

Page 47

Article 785. The duration or efficacy of the designation of heirs, devisees or legatees, or the
determination of the portions which they are to take, when referred to by name, cannot be left to
the discretion of a third person

What is/are the instance(s) contemplated in this article inasmuch the phrase “when referred to by
name” appears to qualify the extent of the prohibited delegation as regards the portions to which the
heirs can succeed?
Because when the testator already provided the names of his heirs or devisees or legatees, he should
also be able to provide the determination of their portions. If he leaves this to a third person, it will not
be personal hence an invalid delgation of the will. That third person can give any amount to any heir
depending on his whim.

But, if the heirs are not named and instead the testator designates a group of people or a cause like in
Art. 786, this is a valid delegation provided that he determines the amount to be given. Because it is
impossible for the testator to specifically bequest specific property to each person in the class or group
or because he is unfamiliar with the inner workings of charity work.

Sample 785:
I designate, Ana, Bella, and Ciara as my heirs. I leave it to Dondi to determine the portion of each heir.

Sample 786:
I bequeath 10M to the Aetas of (insert specific place) and it will be up to Jerome to distribute to each
Aeta.

Page 48

How specific must the criteria be for the delegation of the ministerial power to be valid under Article
786?
Specific enough that even an expert in the field has no chance to misapprehend the will of the testator.
But even broad criteria are given inherent limitations by the law. So who knows.

Page 53

What could possibly be the “technical words” the law contemplated in providing for such rule of
interpretation?
Technical words that may be misused either through the mistake of the testator or simply used it
wrongly just to sound smart.

Page 62

1. Does a convict serving a penalty that carries with it the penalty of civil interdiction have
testamentary capacity?
Yes. Civil interdiction bars a person from disposing his properties but only during his lifetime or through
acts inter vivos. He can dispose his properties through acts mortis causa.
2. Can a person under guardianship write a will? Can a guardian write a will on behalf of his
ward?
a) Under Rule 92 of the Rules of Court A person under guardianship or "incompetent" includes
persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf
and dumb who are unable to read and write, those who are of unsound mind, even though they
have lucid intervals, and persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease,
weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves and
manage their property, becoming thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation.

The underlined potential wards may be in the age of majority and of sound mind during the
execution of the will.
 b) In holographic wills, no. It has to be written in the handwriting of the testator. However, in
notarial wills, as long as the dispositions are reflective of the personal intent of the testator,
then yes.

Page 87

FORMALITIES (Bar 2007): Clara, thinking of her mortality, drafted a will and asked Roberta, Hannah,
Luisa and Benjamin to be witnesses. During the day of the signing of her will, Clara fell down the stairs
and broke both her arms. Coming from the hospital, Clara insisted on signing her will by thumb mark
and said that she can sign her full name later. While the will was being signed, Roberta experienced a
stomach ache and kept going to the restroom for long periods of time. Hannah, while waiting for her
turn to sign the will, was reading the 7th Harry Potter book on the couch, beside the table on which
everyone was signing. Benjamin, aside from witnessing the will, also offered to notarize it.
A week after, Clara was run over by a drunk driver while crossing the street in Greenbelt. May the will
of Clara be admitted to probate? Give your reasons briefly.

Thumbmark-valid
1. Luisa- valid
2. Roberta going to the restroom for long periods of time- invalid if restroom is closed space (most
likely)
3. Hannah Reading while in the room-valid (requisites for witness presence is physical and mental
condition and position to see each other sign the will if they wish to do so)
4. Benjamin cannot notarize a will where he is a witness to- no acknowledgement
Total witnesses: 4
Qualified witnesses: 2 if acknowledged before Benjamin and 3 if not.
Either way, the will lacks the formal requisistes of 3 qualified witnesses or acknowledgement before a
notary public

Page 94

1. Why did the law specifically prescribe that the notary and one of the witnesses communicate
the contents of the will to the blind testator but did not prescribe the same persons to do the
same for deaf and deaf-mute testators?
Because not everyone is able to communicate with deaf and deaf-mute testators. If such was the
case, all notary publics should be required to learn sign language.

2. EFFECTS OF BLINDNESS (Bar 2008): Steve was born blind. He went to school for the blind and
learned to read in Braille language. He speaks English fluently. Can he: a) Make a will? (1%) b)
Act as a witness to a will? (1%) c) In either of the above instances, must the will be read to
him?
a) Yes. Blind testators are allowed under Art. 808 and as long as he has testamentary capacity
b) Never. Disqualified under Art. 820
 c) Yes in the first instance. Twice according to Art. 808.

Page 127

1. Why did the law limit the disqualification of prior conviction only to three specific offenses?
Why not disqualify a convict guilty of an offense involving moral turpitude?
Because the three offenses relate to credibility when affirming facts and documents.

2. What is the effect if the prior conviction or any disqualification was concealed from the
testator?
It should not affect the validity of the will. The testator or the heirs should not be punished for the
willful concealment of the disqualification of a witness. The judge should determine the credibility of
the witness in probate proceedings and if he is not credible, the judge should just disregard his
testimony, not invalidate the will.

Page 129

1. Why do you think the prohibition extends to the spouse of the witness, parent of the witness;
child of the witness; any person claiming against the witness, his spouse, parent or child?
Familial relations can easily be a reason for perjury as the witness will protect the interests of his
family.

2. Can the 4th witness (the one who is also a beneficiary in the will) still testify at the same time
receive his/her bequest under the will?
No.
The purpose of allowing a 4th disqualified witness is so that the remaining 3 will be the ones who will
testify instead of him who will most probably have a biased stance. He should not testify.

However, if he is allowed to testify by the judge and the judge finds him credible or even if the judge
sets aside his testimony, he may still receive his bequest if the will is found valid and there are 3
other credible witnesses who testified.