JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTERTM

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE

2023 JURISTS CIVIL LAW MOCK BAR EXAMINATION

On 1 January 2019, Tim sold his coconut plantation to Ricky for ₱12 million payable on
monthly installments for one year with interest of 6% per annum. Thus, Ricky's installment
payment is ₱1 million per month plus interest of ₱60,000.00. Tim married Grace on 1 July
2019 and they executed an ante-nuptial agreement choosing the regime of conjugal
partnership of gains. At the time of the marriage, Ricky still had a balance on the purchase
price of ₱6 million plus interest. To whom will Ricky's monthly payment go after the
marriage? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The monthly payments of Ricky on the principal amount shall belong to Tim as his
exclusive property while the interests of ₱60,000.00 per month shall accrue to the conjugal
partnership of Tim and Grace beginning 1 July 2019.

Under the Family Code, in the conjugal partnership of gains, the spouses shall retain
the ownership of whatever they bring to the marriage as their own but the income and fruits of
such exclusive properties shall be included in the conjugal partnership.

Here, the right to recover the principal obligation is the exclusive property of Tim since
he brought it to the marriage. However, the fruits or interest of the obligation or the ₱60,000
per month beginning 1 July 2019, the date of the marriage, shall pertain to the conjugal
partnership.

Hence, the monthly payments of Ricky on the principal obligation shall belong to Tim,
while the interests of ₱60,000.00 per month shall belong to the conjugal partnership beginning
1 July 2019.

Same facts as in the preceding problem. Will your answer be the same if Tim and Grace
failed to execute a marriage settlement?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, my answer will not be the same if Tim and Grace failed to execute a marriage
settlement. In such a case, both the payments on the principal and loan will belong to the
absolute community of property of the spouses.

Under the Family Code, the absolute community of property shall consist of all the
property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired by
them thereafter.

Here, since Tim and Grace failed to execute a marriage settlement, they shall be
governed by the regime of absolute community of property.

Hence, the right to recover the principal, which was brought to the marriage, as well as
the fruits or interest on the loan shall pertain to the absolute community.

2023 Jurists Suggested Answers to the Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc.
Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written
consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and
administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 1 of 10
 3

Kate, a Filipina, married John, an Australian national who was domiciled in Canada.
The union was blessed with three sons: Joey, Jess, and Jen. In 2005, John executed a
holographic will in Sydney which was not recognized as a valid form of a will under the laws
of Australia. He instituted Kate as sole heir to his estate. Under Australian law a person may
will his estate to anyone provided the instituted heir is alive at the time of the testator’s death.
The following year, John died in a plane crash. He left an estate worth US$2 million. His will
was presented for probate before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The three sons filed an
opposition to the probate on the following grounds: (a) the laws of Australia do not allow
holographic wills; and (b) they were deprived of their legitimes under Philippine law. Resolve
the opposition.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The opposition to the probate of the holographic will should be denied.

(a) The opposition that a holographic will is not allowed under Australian law is
without merit.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Succession, the will of an alien abroad will be
allowed probate in the Philippines if it is executed in accordance with the Civil Code of the
Philippines.

Here, what was executed was a holographic will which is recognized by our Civil
Code.

Hence, the will was validly executed.

(b) The opposition that the sons were deprived of their legitime under Philippine law
is also without merit.

Under the Law on Succession, the amount of successional rights including provisions
for legitimes shall be governed by the national law of the decedent. [Article 16, Civil Code]

Here, the decedent is a national of Australia whose law does not provide for legitimes
since the testator may will his estate to anyone.

Hence, the institution of Kate as sole heir was valid.

Miguel had a legitimate son named Arturo, while Arturo had a daughter named Angela,
born out of a common law relationship between Arturo and Susan. Arturo died in 1978 while
Miguel died without a will in 1999. May Angela inherit from Miguel?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Angela may inherit from Miguel.

The Supreme Court has held that under the Civil Code provisions on Succession,
grandchildren, whether or not they are legitimate, shall inherit by right of representation and
that the successional barrier between illegitimate children and the legitimate relatives of their
parents under the iron curtain rule does not apply to the right of representation by
grandchildren.

2023 Jurists Suggested Answers to the Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc.
Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written
consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and
administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 2 of 10
 Here, Angela may inherit by right of representation from Miguel since her father Arturo
had predeceased his father Miguel and notwithstanding her illegitimate status since the law
does not distinguish.

Hence, Angela may inherit from Miguel by right of representation. [Art. 982, Civil Code;
Aquino v. Aquino, 7 December 2021, e.b., Leonen, J.]

The Aegis Nursing Institution, Inc. (ANI) was lambasted by Ding in a radio broadcast
as operating a diploma mill churning out ill-trained nursing graduates who had paid their way
through. ANI sued Ding for moral damages. Ding filed an answer where he raised the defense
that a juridical person is not entitled to moral damages because it cannot experience physical
suffering or wounded feelings. Is Ding’s defense meritorious? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Ding’s defense that a juridical person is not entitled to moral damages is not
meritorious.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Torts, moral damages may be recovered in cases
of libel, slander, or any other form of defamation. The Supreme Court has held that the law
does not distinguish whether the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person.

Here, Ding was guilty of libel or defamation when he lambasted ANI in a radio
broadcast.

Hence, he is liable for moral damages to ANI. [Filipinas Broadcasting Corp. v. Ago
Medical and Educational Center, G.R. 141994, 17 Jan 2005; Article 2219(17)]

The land of Oswald is bounded on the east by the Talisay River, on the west by the
Bulacan River, and on the north by Manila Bay. The Talisay River and Bulacan River flow
downstream and meet at Manila Bay. In a span of fifteen years and because of the gradual
and natural action of the two rivers, soil was deposited on the northern tip of Oswald’s land
facing Manila Bay. The northern tip of Oswald’s land thus increased by five hectares. May
Oswald file an application for original registration of the five hectares?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Oswald may not file an application for original registration of the five hectares.

Under the Law on Land Titles, land of the public dominion cannot be the subject of an
application for original registration under the Torrens System.

Here, the accretion belongs not to the riparian owner but to the State since it was
deposited not on the banks of the river but on the foreshore or land adjoining the sea, Manila
Bay being part of the sea. The accretion is thus land of the public dominion. [Art. 4, Spanish
Law of Waters; Estate of Navarro v. IAC, 268 SCRA 74]

Hence, the increased northern tip may not be registered under the Torrens System.

7
Demi borrowed ₱300,000 from Polly. The promissory note signed by Demi in favor of

2023 Jurists Suggested Answers to the Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc.
Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written
consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and
administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 3 of 10
Polly states that the loan is “payable when able.” Four years had lapsed from the grant of the
loan and Demi has yet to pay Polly despite the latter’s written and oral demands. Polly thus
filed a collection suit against Demi before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. Will the suit
prosper?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the collection suit filed by Polly against Demi will not prosper.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, when the debtor binds
himself to pay when his means permit him to do so, the obligation shall be deemed to be one
with a period, which period shall first be fixed by the court before the creditor may demand
fulfillment. [Arts. 1180, 1197; Patente v Omega, 93 Phil. 218].

Here, the debtor Demi bound herself to pay when her means permit her to do so since
the promissory note states that the note is payable when able. Thus, the period should first
be fixed by the court before Polly can demand fulfillment by filing a suit.

Hence, the collection suit will not prosper.

Felipe is the owner of a piece of land, which has no outlet to a public highway because
it is surrounded by a vast track of land owned by Felina. Felipe has been passing through a
pathway across Felina’s land for over thirty-five years. Felina wanted to construct a
commercial building on her land and decided to close the pathway. She offered another way,
which is still through her land, but is more than 500 meters longer. Is Felina barred from
closing the pathway being used by Felipe?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Felina is not barred from closing the pathway being used by Felipe.

Under the Law on Property, a discontinuous easement cannot be acquired by

prescription. [Ronquillo v Roco, 28 Feb 1958; Art. 620, Civil Code]

Here, the fact that Felipe has been using the pathway for over 35 years will not result
in his acquisition by prescription of a right of way. The easement of right of way is a
discontinuous easement because it is used at intervals and depends upon the acts of man.

Hence, Felina is not barred from closing the pathway being used by Felipe.

Lavinia married Humbert in a church ceremony. Humbert discovered that five years
before, Lavinia had married Soros in a civil ceremony. Lavinia, however, did not know at the
time she married Soros that the latter was already married. Upon learning that Soros was
already married, Lavinia immediately left Soros and since then had not seen nor heard from
him. Lavinia, however, did not take any step to have her marriage with Soros judicially
declared void before she married Humbert. Could Humbert successfully sue for a declaration
of nullity of his marriage to Lavinia?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Humbert could successfully sue for a declaration of nullity of his marriage to
Lavinia.

2023 Jurists Suggested Answers to the Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc.
Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written
consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and
administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 4 of 10
 Under the Family Code, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for
purposes of remarriage if there is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void;
otherwise, the subsequent marriage is also void.

Here, there was no final judgment declaring Lavinia’s prior marriage to Soros void.

Hence, the subsequent marriage between Lavinia and Humbert is also void and
Humbert could thus successfully sue for its nullification. [Art. 40, Family Code; Wiegel v.
Sempio-Diy, 143 SCRA 499]

10

In the preceding question, may Lavinia be prosecuted for bigamy?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Lavinia may not be prosecuted for bigamy.

The Supreme Court has held that the nullity of the previous marriage is a defense
against a criminal case for bigamy even if there was no prior judicial declaration of nullity of
the prior marriage.

Here, Lavinia’s prior marriage to Soros was void because it was a bigamous marriage,
Soros being already married. Thus, the nullity of Lavinia’s prior marriage is a defense to the
bigamy charge.

Hence, Lavinia may not be prosecuted for bigamy. [Pulido v. People, 27 July 2021, e.b.,
Hernando, J.]

11

Liza and Enrique were lovers. Though not married, they decided to live together after
Liza became pregnant. During the time that they were together, Enrique gave Liza a signed
birthday card where he wrote, in his own handwriting, how happy he was to be the father of
the baby inside Liza’s womb. When Liza was on her seventh month of pregnancy, Enrique
died in a car accident. Upon Enriquez’s death, Coleen, Enriquez’s ex-girl friend, filed a petition
for the probate of Enriquez’s will. In the said will, which contains only one testamentary
disposition, Enriquez instituted Coleen as the sole heir to his entire estate. Liza opposed the
probate of the will, on behalf of her child who was born a week after Enriquez’s death, on the
ground that the child was preterited. During the hearing on the allowance of the will, Liza
offered as evidence the signed admission of paternity made by Enrique in the birthday card.
After the hearing, the probate court nullified the will on the ground of preterition. Was the child
of Liza preterited?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Liza’s child was preterited.

Under the Law on Succession, there is preterition when a compulsory heir in the direct
line, even if born after the death of the testator, is omitted from the will.

Here, while the conceived child of Liza is an illegitimate child, she is still a compulsory
heir in the direct line and her omission from the will amounts to preterition. [Morales v.
Olondriz (3 February 2016)].
Hence, Liza’s child was preterited.

2023 Jurists Suggested Answers to the Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc.
Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written
consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and
administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 5 of 10
 12

In the preceding problem, did the probate court act correctly when, during the hearing
for the probate of the will, it passed upon the issue of preterition? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the probate court acted correctly when it passed upon the issue of preterition
during the hearing for the probate of the will.

The Supreme Court has held that the probate court may pass upon the issue of
preterition during the probate stage if the will does not contain legacies or devises since the
annulment of the institution of heirs would result in the total abrogation of the will leading to
intestacy.

Here, Enriquez’ will contained no legacy or devise but only the institution of Colleen as
sole heir; thus, the annulment of the institution would result in the total abrogation of the will
leading to intestacy.

Hence, the probate court acted correctly in passing upon the issue of preterition during
the probate stage.

13

Ernesto donated in a public instrument a parcel of land to Demetrio, who accepted it in

the same instrument. The deed of donation stated that the donation shall take effect
immediately, with the donee having the right to take possession of the land and to receive its
fruits. Ernesto also reserved in the same deed his right to sell the property should he decide
to dispose of it at any time – a right which he however did not exercise. After his death,
Ernesto’s heirs brought an action to recover the land from Demetrio. May the heirs recover
the land?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the heirs may recover the land from Demetrio.

Under the Law on Property, a donation mortis causa must comply with the formal
requisites of a testamentary disposition; otherwise, such a donation would be void.

Here, the donation by Ernesto to Demetrio was a donation mortis causa since the donor
Ernesto impliedly reserved the right to revoke the donation by selling the property at his
discretion. It did not matter that Ernesto never exercised the right. The donation is void
because it failed to comply with the formal requisites of a notarial will, including the requirement
of attesting witnesses. Since the donation is void, no right was passed to Demetrio and the
land pertains to Ernesto’s estate.

Hence, the heirs of Ernesto may recover the land from Demetrio.

14

In 18 August 2019, Daimos Corporation, an oil importer, executed a contract wherein it

agreed to deliver 50,000 barrels of Brent crude oil at US$59 per barrel to Petron Corporation
on 18 October 2019. On 10 September 2019, American and Israeli drones bombed Iranian
nuclear facilities causing severe damage and casualties. In retaliation, Iranian submarines
torpedoed U.S. naval ships in the Persian Gulf, sinking two battleships. Due to the crisis, the

2023 Jurists Suggested Answers to the Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc.
Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written
consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and
administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 6 of 10
price of Brent crude oil rocketed to US$129 per barrel. On 18 October 2019, Petron
demanded delivery of the crude oil from Daimos. The latter asserted that it had been relieved
of its obligation to deliver the crude oil because of caso fortuito and under the doctrine of rebus
sic stantibus. Is Daimos’ contention meritorious? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Daimos’ contention that it was relieved of its obligation to deliver the crude oil
because of caso fortuito is not meritorious.

Under the Civil Code provisions on obligations and contracts, caso fortuito does not
extinguish an obligation to deliver a generic thing. [Art. 1263]

Here, the obligation to deliver barrels of Brent crude oil was a generic obligation.

Hence, Daimos’ contention is not meritorious.

Daimos’ contention that it was relieved of its obligation to deliver the crude oil under the
doctrine of rebus sic stantibus is also not meritorious.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts, the doctrine of rebus sic
stantibus applies only to a service or obligation to do, not an obligation to give. [Art. 1267].

Here, the obligation to deliver the oil was an obligation to give and not a service or
obligation to do.

Hence, Daimos’ contention is not meritorious.

15

Danica wanted to borrow ₱1,000,000 from Petra. Petra knew that Ding was Danica’s
former employer, so Petra talked with Ding and asked him if it was prudent to lend to Danica.
Ding told Petra that Danica was financially well-off although Ding knew for a fact that Danica
was insolvent. Because of what Ding said, Petra lent ₱1,000,000 to Danica. Petra was unable
to collect the loan because of Danica’s insolvency. Petra filed a complaint against Ding for
damages for misleading him. Will Petra’s complaint prosper? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Petra’s complaint for damages against Ding will not prosper.

Under the Statute of Frauds, a representation as to the credit of a third person is

unenforceable by action if not in writing and may not be proved by oral evidence. [Art.
1403(2)(f)]

Here, Ding had made a representation as to the credit of Danica, a third person, but the
representation was merely oral and not in writing. Thus the representation is unenforceable
by action and not provable by oral evidence.

Hence, Petra’s complaint will not prosper.

16
In 2016, Manuel filed with the RTC an application for judicial confirmation of title over a
one-hectare parcel of agricultural land. He presented sufficient and competent proof that the
land had been declared as alienable and disposable by the government in 1927, that it was

2023 Jurists Suggested Answers to the Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc.
Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written
consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and
administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 7 of 10
not covered by an existing certificate of title or patent, and that he had been in continuous,
open, notorious, and exclusive possession of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership
since 1980. In 2020, the RTC rendered a decision denying the application on the ground that
Manuel was not able to tack his possession back to 12 June 1945 as required by the law.
Manuel appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered a decision in 2022 affirming the RTC
judgment. Was the Court of Appeal’s decision correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the Court of Appeal’s decision affirming the RTC’s denial of Manuel’s application
was not correct.

Under R.A. No. 11573, the period of adverse possession required to acquire alienable
and disposable land in an application for judicial confirmation of title has been shortened from
possession since 12 June 1945 to possession of 20 years preceding the filing of the
application.

Here, Manuel was in adverse possession of the land, which had been classified as
alienable and disposable, since 1980 or for more than 20 years at the time he filed the
application. Although R.A. No. 11573 took effect only on 1 September 2021, the Supreme
Court has held that R.A. No. 11573, being curative in nature, shall apply retroactively to all
applications for judicial confirmation of title which are pending as of 1 September 2021. Thus,
the Court of Appeals should have reversed the RTC and granted Manuel’s application.

Hence, the Court of Appeal’s decision was not correct. [See Republic v. Pasig Rizal
Co., Inc., 15 February 2022, e.b., Caguioa, J.]

17

Cristina, as buyer, and Natividad, as seller, allegedly entered into a contract of sale of
a 771-square-meter portion of Lot No. 512-C with a total area of 1,542 square meters. They
signed a receipt dated 22 October 1990 whereby it was stated that Natividad received the
amount of ₱6,000 as “partial payment the said land lot no. 512-C containing area 1542 Tax
Declaration No. 39. This amount is payment only for two lots.” They also signed another receipt
dated 23 January 1991 also stating that Natividad acknowledged receipt of the amount of
₱6,000 “as partial payment of the said land Lot No. 512-C containing area 1542 Tax
Declaration no. 39. This amount is payment only for two lots.” In 2002, Cristina demanded the
delivery of the properties. Natividad, however, denied that there was a sale.

Based on the receipts dated 22 October 1990 and 23 January 1991, was there a valid
and binding contract of sale between the parties?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, there is no valid and binding contract of sale between Natividad and Cristina.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Contracts, the object of every contract must be
determinate as to its kind; otherwise, the contract would be void.

Here, the receipts do not specifically state what payment of ₱6,000 was for. The exact
portion of Lot 512-C allegedly sold to petitioner was not specified. The phrase “this amount is
payment only for two lots” renders the object of the sale indeterminate because it does not
even define the metes and bounds of the lots which are supposedly the subject of the sale.
Hence, for lack of a determinate object, the sale contract is void. [Seming vs. Alamag,
G.R. No. 202284, March 17, 2021]

2023 Jurists Suggested Answers to the Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc.
Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written
consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and
administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 8 of 10
 18

Mateo was a local agent of Star Ships, a shipping company based in the United States.
For Mateo’s services in recruiting seafarers, he regularly received commissions from his
principal. In 2002, he billed Star Ships his commissions and Star Ships sent instructions to its
US bank to, in turn, wire $1,400.00. Philippine National Bank (PNB), the depositary bank of
Mateo, received the instructions from the affiliated US bank and immediately credited
$14,000.00 to Mateo’s bank account. Eight years later, or in 2010, PNB demanded from Mateo
the return of $12,600 ($14,000 less $1,400) which was credited to his account by mistake. Is
PNB entitled to recover the $12,600 paid to Mateo?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, PNB is not entitled to recover the $12,600 paid to Mateo.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Prescription, an action upon a quasi-contract shall
prescribe in six years from the accrual of the right of action.

Here, the quasi-contract of solutio indebiti arose when an excess amount was credited
by PNB to Mateo’s account by mistake. However, the action to recover the excess was
brought only in 2010 or more than six years from the accrual of the right of action in 2002.
Thus, the action based on quasi-contract had prescribed.

Hence, PNB can no longer recover the $12,600.00 from Mateo. [Article 1145(2), Civil
Code; PNB v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97995, 21 January 1993]

19

Sam sold and delivered a parcel of unregistered land to Brady for ₱1.5 million. Charlie
filed an action for recovery of possession of the parcel of land against Brady arguing that he
(Charlie) was the owner of the parcel of land long before the sale to Brady. Brady wrote a letter
to Sam informing him of the suit but the latter did not reply. In due course, the court rendered
a judgment in favor of Charlie, finding that the owner of the land was Charlie and not Sam and
ordering Brady to deliver possession to Charlie. The judgment became final and executory.
Brady filed a suit against Sam for recovery of the value of the land. You have been retained
as lawyer by Sam. What defense, if any, can you raise on behalf of Sam?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The defense that I would raise on behalf of Sam would be that the warranty against
eviction may not be enforced against him.

Under the Civil Code provisions on Sales, the warranty against eviction may not be
enforced against the seller, unless he was summoned in the eviction suit at the instance of the
buyer. [Art. 1558, Civil Code]

Here, Brady’s suit against Sam for the recovery of the value of the land sold to him is a
suit to enforce the warranty against eviction since it was based on the fact that Brady was
deprived of possession because of a final judgment. Sam was not summoned in the suit for
eviction at the instance of the vendee Brady. The mere writing by Brady of a letter to Sam
regarding the suit was not summoning him in the suit since Sam was neither made a co-
defendant or a third-party defendant.

Hence, the warranty against eviction may not be enforced against the seller Sam and I
would raise such defense on his behalf.

2023 Jurists Suggested Answers to the Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc.
Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written
consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and
administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 9 of 10
 20

Deng executed a will instituting her sons, Fred and Bong, in equal shares to the free
portion of her estate in addition to what they will receive as their legitime. The estate of Deng
at the time of her death in 2020 is ₱4 million. Fred predeceased his mother Deng in 2019
and he left behind two legitimate children, Foxy and Freida. Foxy and Freida claim they are
entitled to ₱2 million since it is their father’s share in Deng’s estate had he not predeceased.
Are they correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Foxy and Freida are not correct in claiming that they are entitled to ₱2 million.

Under the Law on Succession, representation applies only to the legitime of the person
represented and not to the free portion of the estate.

Here, although Fred is a compulsory heir with respect to his legitime of ₱1 million, he
is a voluntary heir with respect to the free portion of ₱1 million bequeathed to him. Thus,
Fred’s daughters can represent him only with respect to his legitime of ₱1 million.

Hence, Foxy and Freida are not correct.

-oOo-

2023 Jurists Suggested Answers to the Civil Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc.
Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written
consent of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and
administrative charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP.
Page 10 of 10