II Marilyn claim is incorrect.

Where there is doubt as to which of the two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, first anyone who claims that one died before the other has the burden to prove his allegation. In the absence of proof, the presumption is that they died at the same time and therefore there is no transmission of rights from one to other. In this case, Marilyn has to prove that Dr. Lopez died before Roberto. If she fails to do so, the presumption would be that Dr. Lopez and Roberto died at the same time and, therefore, there is no transmission of rights from Dr. Lopez to Roberto. As such, Marilyn cannot inherit from the 20M estate of Dr. Lopez. On the other hand, her two children with Roberto may inherit from the estate of Dr. Lopez by virtue of their right of representation of their father Roberto. As regards the proceeds of insurance policy, only the named beneficiary who survived Dr. Lopez will be entitled thereto. Thus, only Robertos two siblings name as beneficiaries in Dr. Lopezs insurance policy will be entitled to the proceeds of the policy and neither Marilyn nor her children are entitled to any part of such property or proceeds III a. The marriage of Michael and Ana is void ab ignition. It lacked one of the formal requisites of marriage, a marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. The law requires the presence of the solemnizing officer during the ceremony. Michael and Ana did not appear before the mayor because that mayor was not present in his office where the marriage was supposed to have been celebrated. As such, the marriage was not solemnized by the mayor. b. Since the marriage was void ab initio, the three children were conceived and born out of wedlock. Hence, the children are illegitimate. They will remain so unless their parents, Michael and Ana subsequently contract a valid marriage. c. The property regime governing the properties acquired by Michael and Ana during their cohabitation is as follows: their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal share and the properties acquire by both of them through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their jointefforts works or industry, and shall be owned by them on equal share. A party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the formers effort consisted in the car and maintenance of the family and of the household. Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter-vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after termination of their cohabitation.

IV