Spouses M and N executed two (2) separate wills containing the same provisions. After their death, their compulsory heirs filed a petition for joint probate of their wills. One of the voluntary heirs objected because joint probate is invalid. Is the objection tenable?

Related MCQs

• X executed a holographic will dated December 2000. After his death, A and B, the heirs filed a petition for probate, but C, the daughter opposed on the ground that the will is not valid because it is not completely dated.
• X executed a will instituting his heirs. It was discovered 15 years after his death, hence, the heirs consulted you whether they can still file a petition for its probate, considering that they have already extrajudicially settled his estate. What is your advice?
• Preterition or omission of one, some, or all the compulsory heirs, or some of compulsory heirs in the direct line whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator shall:
• Spouses Reynaldo and Ana decided to separate and to voluntary dissolve their conjugal partnership. Hence, they executed a public document wherein they declare that they had no debts, that they were voluntarily dissolving their conjugal partnership, and that each of them would thereafter be free to acquire or dispose of any property independently of the other. Thereafter, they lived apart. Ana engaged in business which unfortunately failed. Reynaldo, on the other hand, continued to be gainfully employed and was able to acquire properties through his own efforts. The creditors of Ana obtained a judgment against the latter which they could not satisfy because Ana was insolvent. Could the creditors of Ana obtain satisfaction of the judgment out of the properties of Reynaldo?
• X during his lifetime sold and conveyed two (2) parcels of land to his heirs. After X’s death and the probate of his will, are the conveyed properties subject to collation for determination of the heirs’ legitime?
• A, while travelling in Cananda executed a will before Philippine Consul B with only two (2) witnesses. Under Canadian Law, two (2) witnesses would suffice. When he arrived in the Philippines he filed a petition for probate. How do you think the court will decide?
• Marvin was married to Charina on February 14, 1990. Charina gave birth to a baby girl she named Noreen. Due to irreconcilable differences, Marvin left the conjugal dwelling. Charina, on the other hand fell in love with David and they decided to live together as husband and wife on May 12, 1992. Six (6) years after or on September 8, 1998, Marvin died in an accident. Free at last, Charina and David decided to get married on February 14, 2000 executing an affidavit that they have been living together as husband and wife for more than five (5) years. The marriage took place but the solemnizing officer failed to execute an affidavit that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties. Two (2) years later, Charina died living a considerable amount of properties. Noreen, assisted by her grandparents, filed a petition questioning the validity of her marriage to David. If you were the judge, how will you decide on the petition?
• Samson, the son of a wealthy family has always claimed that since childhood, he was not a boy. He played with the girls and did not mingle with the boys. After finishing his course at a university in the Philippines, he went to the US to take up his masteral and doctorate degrees. He consulted several doctors of the possibility of sex transmission from that of male to that of a female. The sex transmission was done in Thailand and which was certified as successful by a medical expert in Manila, hence, he claimed to be a woman. He filed a petition for correction of entry of his record of birth from male to female and his name from Samson to Delailah as he was marrying his fiancé. The lower court granted the petition. Is the order of the court correct?
• A & B are married with children C & D, but were living separately from one another. A got married to E and begot children, F & G. After his death, E, F & G filed a petition for settlement of his estate. B, C &D intervened to claim their share of the estate and contended that since F & G are illegitimate as the marriage of A & E is void, their share is only ½ of the share of the legitimates. Is the contention correct?
• The deed of donation by A in favor of B states: “Donation Inter Vivos” but there is a provision that although the land donated shall be delivered to the donee immediately upon perfection of the same with right to enjoy the fruits of the land, it will pass to the donee after the death of the donor. After the donor’s death, the heirs sought to recover the property. Will the action prosper?