1.) No.

Although one of the grounds for disinheriting a spouse is when the spouse has given
cause for legal separation (Art. 921 (4)), such as sexual infidelity in this case;
however, under Art. 922 it provides that "a subsequent reconciliation between the
offender and the offended person deprives the latter of the right to disinherit, and
renders ineffectual any disinheritance that may have been made". Balane pointed
out that reconciliation need not be in writing compared to unworthiness which under
Art. 1033 states that it needs to be in writing.

2.) None.

The case does not fall under any of the circumstances mentioned in Art. 920.
Having a different opinion about her son's religious convictions and friends is not a
ground for disinheritance.

3.)

As a general rule, donation to compulsory heirs shall be collated (imputed) to his

legitime (Art. 1061). Exception to that are the following:

a.) donor provides otherwise, in which case it would be imputed to the free portion
donee repudiates the inheritance (Art. 1062)
b.) expenses incurred for support, education, medical attendance, even in
extraordinary illness, apprenticeship, ordinary equipment, or customary gifts (Art.
1067)
c.) expenses incurred by the parents (decedent) in giving their children (heirs) a
professional, vocational or other career (Art. 1068)

In this case, the donations made by Manny for his children's schooling, birthday and
anniversary gifts given to his wife Jinkee may be argued as not subject to collation
using Art. 1067; while the other expenses may be argued as subject to collation
given that it does not fall under the abovementioned exceptions.

While the donation he made in favor of his brother, sister and mother may also be
collated since Manny has legitimate issue (children); hence under the rules of
succession, they are regarded as strangers as heirs on the direct line are preferred
over collateral heirs. The donation made to them is imputed to the free portion and
is not inofficious as long as it does not impair the legitime of the compulsory heirs.

On the other hand, the donations made to Ara and Kristal, as those two are his
alleged paramours, they may be considered void by reason of public policy and law
under Art. 739 (1).

4.)

Preterition happens when there is an omission of one, some, or all of the

compulsory heirs in the direct line (Art. 854). Rosalio, Dionesia's second husband, is
not a compulsory heir in the direct line.
5.)

Contention is wrong. What the law provides is, "an illegitimate child has no right to
inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or
mother" (Art. 992). This is known as "the iron curtain rule"; however, Manolo and
Manolito were instituted as heirs in the will and the prohibition only pertains to
intestacy proceedings, such is not the case here.

6.)

Rosalio can inherit from Dionesia. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio or a

presumption always arises in favor of marriage. Hence, absent any showing that the
marriage between Dionesia and Rosalio is void, Rosalio as the surviving spouse is
considered as a compulsory heir under Art. 887(3).

7. )

Since Manny (legitimate son) was preterited, hence the institution of heir shall be
annulled but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not
inofficious (Art. 854). The rules under Arts 888 to 903 would apply.

Rosalio would receive P6M as conjugal share (1/2 of P12M). The children (Liza,
Domingo, Isidro, Manny, Bobby and Roger) would inherit half of the estate in equal
shares (1/12 each). The surviving spouse (Rosalio) would inherit a share equal of
each legitimate child (also 1/12). Thus, P3.5M would be subdivided equally among
the children and the surviving spouse (7/12 * P6M) and the remainder would be the
free portion (P6M-P3.5M=P250,000).

Although the legacies and devises in a preterition are respected; however, it would
be proportionately reduced as the free portion is only for P250,000. The dance
instructor would get 20.8% of the free portion or P52,000; while the sons and
daughters of Manny would receive 62.5% or P156,250; and Manolito and Manolo
would each receive 8.3% or P20,750 each.

8.

Many should reconsider the following:

a.) will is written in the English language and prior to signing of the will, Jeric shall
translate to him the contents thereof in the Cebuano dialect

Under Art. 804 it provides that "every will must be in writing and executed in a
language or dialect known to the testator". In this case, why would he need a
translation in Cebuano dialect when he can already understand the English
language.

b.) Chavit and Lito may participate in the execution of the will as attesting witnesses
via videoconferencing facilities.

Under Art. 805, the witness is required to sign each and every page, except the last,
and in the attestation clause it must provide that the instrumental witnesses must
sign the will and in the presence of each other. However, it may also be argued that
since only three (3) instrumental witnesses are required hence, even if Chavit and
Lito are disqualified, the remaining three still suffices as witnesses.

c.) Manny's will shall be probated in the court of competent jurisdiction in San
Francisco, California where he maintains a residence.

Rule 73, Sec. 1 provides for the rule of venue for the probate of a will. It provides
that, "if the decedents is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death,
whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration
granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in
which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign
country, the Court of First Instance of any province in which he had estate". Hence,
the venue for the probate of a will cannot be solely dictated by Manny, it needs to
follow the procedural requirements under the law.

9. Jinkee shall receive 1/2 as her conjugal share or P2.375M. The legitimate children
shall receive 1/2 of the net estate divided in equal shares or 1/4. The surviving
spouse, as her legitime, shall receive a share equal to that of each child or 1/4. The
illegitimate, on the other hand, shall receive 1/2 of the share of each legitimate
child or 1/8 in this case. Manolito and Manolo can inherit from their father, Manny,
regardless whether Maxima, mother of Manolito predeceased Manny.

The substitution in favor of Maxima, if Manolito predeceased her, may be

considered as void under Art. 739(1) for the reason that: what you cannot do
directly, you may also not do indirectly (Tawang vs. La Trinidad).

The legacies bequeathed by Manny may only be taken from the free portion of his
estate. By reason of non-fulfillment of a condition (Art. 884 in relation to Art. 1181),
Manolo may not receive the P500,000 legacy bequeathed unto him by Manny. The
fideicommissary substitution stated in the will is ineffective given that under Art.
863 the first heir should be related to the second heir by one degree, Freddie Roach
and Bob Arum are not related. However, Freddie Roach may still receive the legacy
of P1m given that Art. 806 provides, "the nullity of the fideicommissary substitution
does not prejudice the validity of the institution of the heirs first designated; the
fideicommissary clause shall simply be considered as not written".

The legacy of Manny's brother, Roger, is contestable. If the court considers it as an

impossible condition, Roger may still receive the legacy since such condition would
be considered as not imposed (Art. 873). Because an obligation imposing that a
person would marry a particular person may be considered as impossible as it
would amount to forcing a person to enter into a loveless marriage (Pesca vs Pesca);
ultimately, "the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know". (Chua-
Qua vs Clave)