quiz in civil law review

8/13/2019 Quiz in Civil Law Review

1/7

QUIZ IN CIVIL LAW REVIEW

(Wills and Succession) Nov. 21, 2010

1. Petitioner Lauro G. Vizconde and his wife Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde had two

children, viz., Carmelaand Jennifer. Petitioner's wife, Estrellita, is one of the five siblings ofspouses RafaelNicolas and Salud Gonzales-Nicolas. The other children of Rafael and Salud

areAntonioNicolas; RamonNicolas; TeresitaNicolas de Leon, and RicardoNicolas, an

incompetent. Antonio predeceased his parents and is now survived by his widow, Zenaida, and

their four children.

On May 22, 1979, Estrellita purchased from Rafael a parcel of land with an area of 10,110 sq.

m. located at Valenzuela, Bulacan (hereafter Valenzuela property) covered by TCT No. (T-

36734) 13206 for One Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Pesos (P135,000.00), evidenced by a

"Lubusang Bilihan ng Bahagi ng Lupa na Nasasakupan ng Titulo TCT No . T-36734".1In view

thereof, TCT No. V-554 covering the Valenzuela property was issued to Estrellita. 2On March

30, 1990, Estrellita sold the Valenzuela property to Amelia Lim and Maria Natividad Balictar

Chiu for Three Million, Four Hundred Five Thousand, Six Hundred Twelve Pesos

(P3,405,612.00). 3In June of the same year, Estrellita bought from Premier Homes, Inc., a

parcel of land with improvements situated at Vinzon St., BF Homes, Paraaque (hereafter

Paraaque property) using a portion of the proceeds of sale of the Valenzuela property. The

remaining amount of the proceeds was used in buying a car while the balance was deposited in

a bank.

The following year an unfortunate event in petitioner's life occurred. Estrellita and her two

daughters, Carmela and Jennifer, were killed on June 30, 1991, an incident popularly known as

the "Vizconde Massacre". The findings of the investigation conducted by the NBI reveal that

Estrellita died ahead of her daughters.4 Accordingly, Carmela, Jennifer and herein petitioner

succeeded Estrellita and, with the subsequent death of Carmela and Jennifer, petitioner was left

as the sole heir of his daughters. Nevertheless, petitioner entered into an "Extra-Judicial

Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde With Waiver of Shares", 5withRafael and Salud, Estrellita's parents. The extra-judicial settlement provided for the division of

the properties of Estrellita and her two daughters between petitioner and spouses Rafael and

Salud. The properties include bank deposits, a car and the Paraaque property. The total value

of the deposits deducting the funeral and other related expenses in the burial of Estrellita,

Carmela and Jennifer, amounts to Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00).6The settlement gave

fifty percent (50%) of the total amount of the bank deposits of Estrellita and her daughters to

Rafael, except Savings Account No. 104-111211-0 under the name of Jennifer which involves a

token amount. The other fifty percent (50%) was allotted to petitioner. The Paraaque property

and the car and were also given to petitioner with Rafael and Salud waiving all their "claims,

rights, ownership and participation as heirs" 7in the said properties.

On November 18, 1992, Rafael died. To settle Rafael's estate, Teresita instituted an intestateestate proceeding8 docketed as Sp. Proc. No. C-1679, with Branch 120 of the Regional Trial

Court (RTC) of Caloocan City listing as heirs Salud, Ramon, Ricardo, and the wife (Zenaida)

and children of Antonio. Teresita prayed to be appointed Special Administratrix of Rafael's

estate. Additionally, she sought to be appointed as guardian ad litemof Salud, now senile, and

Ricardo, her incompetent brother Herein private respondent Ramon filed an opposition 9dated

March 24, 1993, praying to be appointed instead as Salud and Ricardo's guardian. Barely three

weeks passed, Ramon filed another opposition 10alleging, among others, that Estrellita was


2/7

given the Valenzuela property by Rafael which she sold for not less than Six Million Pesos

(P6,000,000.00) before her gruesome murder. Ramon pleaded for the court's intervention "to

determine the legality and validity of the intervivos distribution made by deceased Rafael to his

children," 11Estrellita included. On May 12, 1993, Ramon filed his own petition, docketed as Sp.

Proc. No. C-1699, entitled "In The Matter Of The Guardianship Of Salud G. Nicolas and Ricardo

G. Nicolas" and averred that their legitime should come from the collation of all the propertiesdistributed to his children by Rafael during his lifetime. 12Ramon stated that herein petitioner is

one of Rafael's children "by right of representation as the widower of deceased legitimate

daughter of Estrellita." 13

In a consolidated Order, dated November 9, 1993, the RTC appointed Ramon as the guardian

of Salud and Ricardo while Teresita, in turn, was appointed as the Special Administratrix of

Rafael's estate. The court's Order did not include petitioner in the slate of Rafael's

heirs. 14Neither was the Paraaque property listed in its list of properties to be included in the

estate. 15Subsequently, the RTC in an Order dated January 5, 1994, removed Ramon as Salud

and Ricardo's guardian for Selling his ward's property without the court's knowledge and

permission. 16

Sometime on January 13, 1994, the RTC released an Order giving petitioner "ten (10) days . . .

within which to file any appropriate petition or motion related to the pending petition insofar asthe case is concerned and to file any opposition to any pending motion that has been filed by

both the counsels for Ramon Nicolas and Teresita de Leon." In response, petitioner filed a

Manifestation, dated January 19, 1994, stressing that he was neither a compulsory heir nor an

intestate heir of Rafael and he has no interest to participate in the proceedings. The RTC noted

said Manifestation in its Order dated February 2, 1994. 17Despite the Manifestation, Ramon,

through a motion dated February 14, 1994, moved to include petitioner in the intestate estate

proceeding and asked that the Paraaque property, as well as the car and the balance of the

proceeds of the sale of the Valenzuela property, be collated. 18Acting on Ramon's motion, the

trial court on March 10, 1994 granted the same in an Order which pertinently reads as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

On the Motion To Include Lauro G. Vizconde In Intestate proceedings in instant case andconsidering the comment on his Manifestation, the same is hereby granted. 19

xxx xxx xxx

Petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Order which Ramon

opposed. 20 On August 12, 1994, the RTC rendered an Order denying petitioner's motion for

reconsideration. It provides:

xxx xxx xxx

The centerpoint of oppositor-applicant's argument is that spouses Vizconde were then

financially incapable of having purchased or acquired for a valuable consideration the property

at Valenzuela from the deceased Rafael Nicolas.Admittedly, the spouses Vizconde were then

living with the deceased Rafael Nicolas in the latter's ancestral home.In fact, as the argument

further goes, said spouses were dependent for support on the deceased Rafael Nicolas.And,Lauro Vizconde left for the United States in, de-facto separation, from the family for sometime

and returned to the Philippines only after the occurrence of violent deaths of Estrellita and her

two daughters.

To dispute the contention that the spouses Vizconde were financially incapable to buy the

property from the late Rafael Nicolas, Lauro Vizconde claims that they have been engaged in

business venture such as taxi business, canteen concessions and garment

manufacturing.However, no competent evidence has been submitted to indubitably support the

business undertakings adverted to.


3/7

In fine, there is no sufficient evidence to show that the acquisition of the property from Rafael

Nicolas was for a valuable consideration.

Accordingly, the transfer of the property at Valenzuela in favor of Estrellita by her father was

gratuitous and the subject property in Paraaque which was purchased out of the proceeds of

the said transfer of the property by the deceased Rafael Nicolas in favor of Estrellita, is subject

to collation.

QUESTIONS: A) Is the order of the Court correct?

B) State the nature and purpose of collation.

ANSWER:LAURO G. VIZCONDE,petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, , G.R. No. 118449 February 11,

1998

2.In a duly probated last will and testament of one Damasa Crisostomo, she gave the naked ownership

of a fishpond owned by her to her sister Teodorica de la Cruz while its usufruct to the children of her

cousins Antonio Perez, Patricia Vicente and Canuto Lorenzo. The fishpond is situated at a barrio of

Hagonoy, Bulacan.

The children of Antonio Perez, Patricia Vicente and Canuto Lorenzo turned out to be fourteen, namely:

Maria, Pio, Fructuosa, Graciano, Vicente, Victoria, Teodora, and Juan, all surnamed Perez, Apolonio

Lorenzo, Bonifacio Lorenzo, Vicente Asuncion, Francisco Lorenzo, Leoncio Perez and Servillano Perez.

On the other hand, Teodorica de la Cruz, the naked owner, bequeathed in her will all her rights to the

fishpond to Jose V. Salamat.

The fourteen usufructuaries leased the fishpond first to one Gil P. Policarpio who used to give them

proportionately the usufruct corresponding to them. During the term of the lease, however, three of the

usufructuaries died, namely, Francisco Lorenzo, Leoncio M. Perez and Servillano Perez, and so, upon

their death, both the naked owner and the remaining usufructuaries claimed the shares corresponding to

the deceased usufructuaries in the amount of P10,714.26. Because of these conflicting claims, the lessee

withheld said amount.

Subsequently, on May 31, 1962, the surviving usufructuaries leased the fishpond to one Batas Riego de

Dios who, after executing the contract of lease, came to know of the existing conflicting claims, and not

knowing to whom of the claimants the shares of the deceased usufructuaries should be paid, said lessee

was also constrained to withhold the corresponding part of the usufruct of the property. So on November

15, 1962, the two lessees commenced the present action for interpleader against both the naked owner

and surviving usufructuaries to compel them to interplead and litigate their conflicting claims.

Defendant Jose V. Salamat avers as special defense that he is the successor-in-interest of Teodorica dela Cruz and as such he is entitled to the shares corresponding to the three deceased usufructuaries

inasmuch as the usufruct in their favor was automatically extinguished by death and became merged with

the naked owner.

The surviving usufructuaries, on the other hand, adhere to the theory that since the usufructuaries were

instituted simultaneously by the late Damasa Crisostomo, the death of the three usufructuaries did not

extinguish the usufruct, hence, the surviving usufructuaries are entitled to receive the shares


4/7

corresponding to the deceased usufructuaries, the usufruct to continue until the death of the last

usufructuary.

Question: 1. Is Salamat entitled to the shares of the lease rental?

2. Or are all the rentals pertain to the surviving usucfructuaries? Explain.

3. Is the principle of accretion applicable in the case at bar? How?

Answer:GIL P. POLICARPIO, ET AL.,plaintiffs-appellees, vs.JOSE V. SALAMAT, ET

AL.,defendants. G.R. No. L-21809 January 31, 1966

3.It appears from the record of the case that on February 26, 1971, Mrs. Petra V. Rosales, a resident of Cebu City,

died intestate. She was survived by her husband Fortunate T. Rosales and their two (2) children Magna Rosales

Acebes and Antonio Rosales. Another child, Carterio Rosales, predeceased her, leaving behind a child,

Macikequerox Rosales, and his widow Irenea C. Rosales, the herein petitioner. The estate of the dismissed has an

estimated gross value of about Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).

On July 10, 1971, Magna Rosales Acebes instituted the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased

in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The case was docketed as Special Proceedings No. 3204-R. Thereafter, the

trial court appointed Magna Rosales Acebes administratrix of the said estate.

In the course of the intestate proceedings, the trial court issued an Order dated June 16, 1972 declaring the following

in individuals the legal heirs of the deceased and prescribing their respective share of the estate

Fortunata T. Rosales (husband), 1/4; Magna R. Acebes (daughter), 1/4; Macikequerox Rosales,

1/4; and Antonio Rosales son, 1/4.

This declaration was reiterated by the trial court in its Order I dated February 4, 1975.

These Orders notwithstanding, Irenea Rosales insisted in getting a share of the estate in her capacity as the surviving

spouse of the late Carterio Rosales, son of the deceased, claiming that she is a compulsory heir of her mother-in-law

together with her son, Macikequerox Rosales.

Thus, Irenea Rosales sought the reconsideration of the aforementioned Orders. The trial court denied her plea.

Hence this petition.

In sum, the petitioner poses two (2) questions for Our resolution petition. First is a widow (surviving spouse) an

intestate heir of her mother-in-law? Secondare the Orders of the trial court which excluded the widow from

getting a share of the estate in question final as against the said widow?

Question: Resolve the two questions.

ANSWER:INTESTATE ESTATE OF PETRA V. ROSALES, IRENEA C. ROSALES,petitioner,

vs.FORTUNATO ROSALES, MAGNA ROSALES ACEBES, MACIKEQUEROX ROSALES and

ANTONIO ROSALES, respondents.: G.R. No. L-40789 February 27, 1987


5/7

4. Maria to spite her husband Jorge, whom she suspected of having an affair with another woman, executed a

will, bequeathing all her properties she inherited from her parents to her sister Miguela. Upon her death, the

will was probated. Jorge opposed the 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. (a)How would you rule on

the opposition of Jorge? (b) is he entitled to his legitime? (c) What about Miguela, can she receive anything?

(d) Is Jorge considered as preterited?

Answer: P. 354 of the reviewer

5.What is a disposition captatoria? Is it valid?

Answer: p. 357

6. What is reserve troncal? Who are the characters of reserve troncal? Can the reservista sell the reservable

property? If so what is the nature of the sale? Can the reservista execute a will disposing the reservable

property?

Answer: p. 365

7.When may a nephew of a person inherit from the decedent? Explain.

Answer: p. 382

8. On April 18, 1972, petitioners Carolina Abad Gonzales, Dolores de Mesa Abad and Cesar de Mesa Tioseco

sought the settlement of the intestate estate of their brother, Ricardo de Mesa Abad, before the then Court of First

Instance of Manila. In their petition, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 86792, petitioners claimed that they were

the only heirs of Ricardo de Mesa Abad, as the latter allegedly died a bachelor, leaving no descendants or

ascendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate. On May 9, 1972, petitioners amended their petition by alleging that

the real properties covered by TCT Nos. 13530, 53671, and 64021, listed therein as belonging to the decedent, were

actually only administered by the latter, the true owner being their late mother, Lucila de Mesa. On June 16, 1972,

the trial court appointed Cesar de Mesa Tioseco as administrator of the intestate estate of Ricardo de Mesa Abad.

Meanwhile, on May 2, 1972, petitioners executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of their late mother Lucila

de Mesa, copying therein the technical descriptions of the lots covered by TCT Nos. 13530, 53671, and 64021. By

virtue thereof, the Register of Deeds cancelled the above-mentioned TCTs in the name of Ricardo Abad and issued,

in lieu thereof, TCT No. 108482 in the name of Dolores de Mesa Abad, TCT No. 108483 in the name of Cesar de

Mesa Tioseco and TCT No. 108484 in the name of Carolina Abad Gonzales. The three promptly executed real estate

mortgages over the real properties in favor of Mrs. Josefina Viola, the wife of their counsel, Escolastico Viola.

On July 7, 1972, private respondents Honoria Empaynado, Cecilia Abad Empaynado, and Marian Abad Empaynadofiled a motion to set aside proceedings and for leave to file opposition in Special Proceedings No. 86792. In their

motion, they alleged that Honoria Empaynado had been the common-law wife of Ricardo Abad for twenty-seven

years before his death, or from 1943 to 1971, and that during this period, their union had produced two children,

Cecilia Abad Empaynado and Marian Abad Empaynado. Private respondents also disclosed the existence of

Rosemarie Abad, a child allegedly fathered by Ricardo Abad with another woman, Dolores Saracho. As the law

awards the entire estate to the surviving children to the exclusion of collateral relatives, private respondents charged


6/7

petitioners with deliberately concealing the existence of said three children in other to deprive the latter of their

rights to the estate of Ricardo Abad.

On July 24, 1972, private respondents filed a motion to withdraw their first motion and, in lieu thereof, filed a

motion for reconsideration praying that Cecilia Abad be appointed administrator instead of Cesar Tioseco. The trial

court denied private respondents' motion to remove Cesar Tioseco as administrator, but allowed them to appear inthe proceedings to establish their right as alleged heirs of Ricardo Abad.

Private respondents later discovered that petitioners had managed to cancel TCT Nos. 13530, 53671, and 64021

through the stratagem of extra-judicially partitioning their mother's estate. Accordingly, on October 4, 1973, private

respondents filed a motion to annul the extra-judicial partition executed by petitioners, as well as TCT Nos. 108482,

108483, and 108484, the Torrens titles issued in substitution of TCT Nos. 13530, 53671, and 64021 and the real

estate mortgages constituted by the latter on said properties.

After due trial, the lower court, on November 2, 1973, rendered the following judgment:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

(1) Declaring Cecilia E. Abad, Marian E. Abad and Rosemarie S. Abad

acknowledged natural children of the deceased Ricardo M. Abad;

(2) Declaring said acknowledged natural children, namely: Cecilia E. Abad,

Marian E. Abad, and Rosemarie S. Abad the only surviving legal heirs of the

deceased Ricardo M. Abad and as such entitled to succeed to the entire estate of

said deceased, subject to the rights of Honoria Empaynado, if any, as co-owner

of any of the property of said estate that may have been acquired thru her joint

efforts with the deceased during the period they lived together as husband and

wife;

(3) Denying the petition of decedent's collateral relatives, namely: Dolores M.

Abad, Cesar M. Tioseco and Carolina M. Abad to be declared as heirs and

excluding them from participating in the administration and settlement of the

estate of Ricardo Abad;

(4) Appointing Honoria Empaynado as the administratrix in this intestacy with a

bond of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) PESOS; and

(5) Ordering Cesar Tioseco to surrender to the new administratrix all property or

properties, monies and such papers that came into his possession by virtue of his

appointment as administrator, which appointment is hereby revoked.1

Question: (a)Is the judgment of the court correct?

(b) May the brothers and sisters of the decedent inherit from their brother if the decedent has illigetimate

children?


7/7

Answer: p. 382 and see CAROLINA ABAD GONZALES,petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, HONORIA EMPAYNADO, CECILIA H. ABAD, MARIAN H. ABAD and

ROSEMARIE S. ABAD, respondents.G.R. No. 117740 October 30, 1998

9.(a)When is the right of representation proper and up to what extent?

(b) A and B are married. They have two children C and D. D is married to X and they have a son, E. A

and B predeceased their children. In case D predeceases his brother C, can E inherit from C in case he

dies? If so, in what manner?

Answer: p. 385

10.How shall the estate of A be distributed if he died with a will, leaving as his survivors, B, his wife; C

and D, his parents; and an illegitimate child E?

ANSWER: P. 370

quiz in civil law review

Documents