Succession Cases-preterition And Fidei Subs.docx

SUCCESSION CASES PRETERITION G.R. No. L-39247 June 27, 1975 In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will of Leodegaria Julian. FELIX BALANAY, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch VI; AVELINA B. ANTONIO and DELIA B. LANABAN, respondents.

Roberto M. Sarenas for petitioner. Jose B. Guyo for private respondents.

AQUINO, J.: Felix Balanay, Jr. appealed by certiorari from the order of the Court of First Instance of Davao dated February 28, 1974, declaring illegal and void the will of his mother, Leodegaria Julian, converting the testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding and ordering the issuance of the corresponding notice to creditors (Special Case No. 1808). The antecedents of the appeal are as follows:

Felix Balanay, Jr., in his reply to the opposition, attached thereto an affidavit of Felix Balanay, Sr. dated April 18, 1973 wherein he withdrew his opposition to the probate of the will and affirmed that he was interested in its probate. On the same date Felix Balanay, Sr. signed an instrument captioned "Conformation (sic) of Division and Renunciation of Hereditary Rights" wherein he manifested that out of respect for his wife's will he "waived and renounced' his hereditary rights in her estate in favor of their six children. In that same instrument he confirmed the agreement, which he and his wife had perfected before her death, that their conjugal properties would be partitioned in the manner indicated in her will. Avelina B. Antonio, an oppositor, in her rejoinder contended that the affidavit and "conformation" of Felix Balanay, Sr. were void. The lower court in its order of June 18, 1973 "denied" the opposition and reset for hearing the probate of the will. It gave effect to the affidavit and conformity of Felix Balanay, Sr. In an order dated August 28, 1973 it appointed its branch clerk of court as special administrator of the decedent's estate.

Mrs. Antonio moved for the reconsideration of the lower court's order of June 18, 1973 on the grounds (a) that the Leodegaria Julian, a native of Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur, died on testatrix illegally claimed that she was the owner of the February 12, 1973 in Davao City at the age of sixty-seven. southern half of the conjugal lots and (b) that she could She was survived by her husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., and not partition the conjugal estate by allocating portions of by their six legitimate children named Felix Balanay, Jr., the nine lots to her children. Felix Balanay, Jr., through Avelina B. Antonio, Beatriz B. Solamo, Carolina B. Manguiob, his counsel, Hermenegildo Cabreros, opposed that motion. The lower court denied it in its order of October Delia B. Lanaban and Emilia B. Pabaonon. 15, 1973. Felix J. Balanay, Jr. filed in the lower court a petition dated February 27, 1973 for the probate of his mother's notarial will dated September 5, 1970 which is written in English. In that will Leodegaria Julian declared (a) that she was the owner of the "southern half of nine conjugal lots (par. II); (b) that she was the absolute owner of two parcels of land which she inherited from her father (par. III), and (c) that it was her desire that her properties should not be divided among her heirs during her husband's lifetime and that their legitimes should be satisfied out of the fruits of her properties (Par. IV). Then, in paragraph V of the will she stated that after her husband's death (he was eighty-two years old in 1973) her paraphernal lands and all the conjugal lands (which she described as "my properties") should be divided and distributed in the manner set forth in that part of her will. She devised and partitioned the conjugal lands as if they were all owned by her. She disposed of in the will her husband's one half share of the conjugal assets. * Felix Balanay, Sr. and Avelina B. Antonio opposed the probate of the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, preterition of the husband and alleged improper partition of the conjugal estate. The oppositors claimed that Felix Balanay, Jr. should collate certain properties which he had received from the testatrix.

In the meanwhile, another lawyer appeared in the case. David O. Montaña, Sr., claiming to be the lawyer of petitioner Felix Balanay, Jr. (his counsel of record was Atty. Cabreros), filed a motion dated September 25, 1973 for "leave of court to withdraw probate of alleged will of Leodegaria Julian and requesting authority to proceed by intestate estate proceeding." In that motion Montaña claimed to be the lawyer not only of the petitioner but also of Felix Balanay, Sr., Beatriz B. Solamo, Carolina B. Manguiob and Emilia B. Pabaonon. Montaña in his motion assailed the provision of the will which partitioned the conjugal assets or allegedly effected a compromise of future legitimes. He prayed that the probate of the will be withdrawn and that the proceeding be converted into an intestate proceeding. In another motion of the same date he asked that the corresponding notice to creditors be issued. Avelina B. Antonio and Delia B. Lanaban, through Atty. Jose B. Guyo, in their comments dated October 15, 1973 manifested their conformity with the motion for the issuance of a notice to creditors. They prayed that the will be declared void for being contrary to law and that an intestacy be declared.

1

The lower court, acting on the motions of Atty. Montaña, assumed that the issuance of a notice to creditors was in order since the parties had agreed on that point. It adopted the view of Attys. Montaña and Guyo that the will was void. So, in its order of February 28, 1974 it dismissed the petition for the probate, converted the testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding, ordered the issuance of a notice to creditors and set the intestate proceeding for hearing on April 1 and 2, 1974. The lower court did not abrogate its prior orders of June 18 and October 15, 1973. The notice to creditors was issued on April 1, 1974 and published on May 2, 9 and 16 in the Davao Star in spite of petitioner's motion of April 17, 1974 that its publication be held in abeyance. Felix Balanay, Jr., through a new counsel, Roberto M. Sarenas, in a verified motion dated April 15, 1974, asked for the reconsideration of the lower court's order of February 28, 1974 on the ground that Atty. Montaña had no authority to withdraw the petition for the allowance of the will. Attached to the motion was a copy of a letter dated March 27, 1974 addressed to Atty. Montaña and signed by Felix Balanay, Jr., Beatriz V. Solamo, Carolina B. Manguiob and Emilia B. Pabaonon, wherein they terminated Montaña's services and informed him that his withdrawal of the petition for the probate of the will was without their consent and was contrary to their repeated reminder to him that their mother's will was "very sacred" to them. Avelina B. Antonio and Delia B. Lanaban opposed the motion for reconsideration. The lower court denied the motion in its order of June 29, 1974. It clarified that it declared the will void on the basis of its own independent assessment of its provisions and not because of Atty. Montaña's arguments. The basic issue is whether the probate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will, before ruling on its allowance or formal validity, and in declaring it void.

The rule is that "the invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other dispositions, unless it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been made" (Art. 792, Civil Code). "Where some of the provisions of a will are valid and others invalid, the valid parts will be upheld if they can be separated from the invalid without defeating the intention of the testator or interfering with the general testamentary scheme, or doing injustice to the beneficiaries" (95 C.J.S. 873). The statement of the testatrix that she owned the "southern half of the conjugal lands is contrary to law because, although she was a coowner thereof, her share was inchoate and proindiviso (Art. 143, Civil Code; Madrigal and Paterno vs. Rafferty and Concepcion, 38 Phil. 414). But That illegal declaration does not nullify the entire will. It may be disregarded. The provision of the will that the properties of the testatrix should not be divided among her heirs during her husband's lifetime but should be kept intact and that the legitimes should be paid in cash is contrary to article 1080 of the Civil Code which reads: ART. 1080. Should a person make a partition of his estate by an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall be respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs. A parent who, in the interest of his or her family, to keep any agricultural, industrial, or manufacturing enterprise intact, may avail himself of the right granted him in this article, by ordering that the legitime of the other children to whom the property is not assigned be paid in cash. (1056a)

The testatrix in her will made a partition of the entire conjugal estate among her six children (her husband had We are of the opinion that in view of certain unusual renounced his hereditary rights and his one-half conjugal provisions of the will, which are of dubious legality, and share). She did not assign the whole estate to one or because of the motion to withdraw the petition for probate more children as envisaged in article 1080. Hence, she (which the lower court assumed to have been filed with the had no right to require that the legitimes be paid in cash. petitioner's authorization), the trial court acted correctly in On the other hand, her estate may remain undivided only passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its for a period of twenty years. So, the provision that the formal validity had been established. The probate of a will estate should not be divided during her husband's might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to lifetime would at most be effective only for twenty years be intrinsically void. Where practical considerations from the date of her death unless there are compelling demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, reasons for terminating the coownership (Art. 1083, Civil even before it is probated, the court should meet the issue Code). (Nuguid vs. Nuguid, 64 O.G. 1527, 17 SCRA 449. Compare with Sumilang vs. Ramagosa, L-23135, December 26, 1967, Felix Balanay, Sr. could validly renounce his hereditary 21 SCRA 1369; Cacho vs. Udan, L-19996, April 30, 1965, 13 rights and his one-half share of the conjugal partnership SCRA 693).1äwphï1.ñët (Arts. 179[1] and 1041, Civil Code) but insofar as said renunciation partakes of a donation of his hereditary But the probate court erred in declaring, in its order of rights and his one-half share in the conjugal estate (Art. February 28, 1974 that the will was void and in converting 1060[1] Civil Code), it should be subject to the limitations the testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding prescribed in articles 750 and 752 of the Civil Code. A notwithstanding the fact that in its order of June 18, 1973 , portion of the estate should be adjudicated to the it gave effect to the surviving husband's conformity to the widower for his support and maintenance. Or at least his will and to his renunciation of his hereditary rights which legitime should be respected. presumably included his one-half share of the conjugal estate. 2

Subject to the foregoing observations and the rules on collation, the will is intrinsically valid and the partition therein may be given effect if it does not prejudice the creditors and impair the legitimes. The distribution and partition would become effective upon the death of Felix Balanay, Sr. In the meantime, the net income should be equitably divided among the children and the surviving spouse. It should be stressed that by reason of the surviving husband's conformity to his wife's will and his renunciation of his hereditary rights, his one-half conjugal share became a part of his deceased wife's estate. His conformity had the effect of validating the partition made in paragraph V of the will without prejudice, of course, to the rights of the creditors and the legitimes of the compulsory heirs. Article 793 of the Civil Code provides that "property acquired after the making of a will shall only pass thereby, as if the testator had it at the time of making the will, should it expressly appear by the will that such was his intention". Under article 930 of the Civil Code "the legacy or devise of a thing belonging to another person is void, if the testator erroneously believed that the thing pertained to him. But if the thing bequeathed, though not belonging to the testator when he made the will, afterwards becomes his, by whatever title, the disposition shall take effect." In the instant case there is no doubt that the testatrix and her husband intended to partition the conjugal estate in the manner set forth in paragraph V of her will. It is true that she could dispose of by will only her half of the conjugal estate (Art. 170, Civil Code) but since the husband, after the dissolution of the conjugal partnership, had assented to her testamentary partition of the conjugal estate, such partition has become valid, assuming that the will may be probated. The instant case is different from the Nuguid case, supra, where the testatrix instituted as heir her sister and preterited her parents. Her will was intrinsically void because it preterited her compulsory heirs in the direct line. Article 854 of the Civil Code provides that "the preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the 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 annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies, shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious." Since the preterition of the parents annulled the institution of the sister of the testatrix and there were no legacies and devises, total intestacy resulted (.Art. 960[2], Civil Code).1äwphï1.ñët In the instant case, the preterited heir was the surviving spouse. His preterition did not produce intestacy. Moreover, he signified his conformity to his wife's will and renounced his hereditary rights. . It results that the lower court erred in not proceeding with the probate of the will as contemplated in its uncancelled order of June 18, 1973. Save in an extreme case where the will on its face is intrinsically void, it is the probate court's duty to pass first upon the formal validity of the will. Generally, the probate of the will is mandatory (Art. 838, Civil Code; Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil.

479 and 98 Phil. 249; Fernandez vs. Dimagiba, L-23638, October 12, 1967, 21 SCRA 428). As aptly stated by Mr. Justice Barredo, "the very existence of a purported testament is in itself prima facie proof that the supposed testator has willed that his estate should be distributed in the manner therein provided, and it is incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be given effect independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereby" (Resolution, Vda. de Precilla vs. Narciso, L-27200, August 18, 1972, 46 SCRA 538, 565). To give effect to the intention and wishes of the testatrix is the first and principal law in the matter of testaments (Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon, L-24561, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 554, 561). Testacy is preferable to intestacy. An interpretation that will render a testamentary disposition operative takes precedence over a construction that will nullify a provision of the will (Arts. 788 and 791, Civil Code). Testacy is favored. Doubts are resolved in favor of testacy especially where the will evinces an intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate. So compelling is the principle that intestacy should be avoided and that the wishes of the testator should prevail that sometimes the language of the will can be varied for the purpose of giving it effect (Austria vs. Reyes, L-23079, February 27, 1970, 31 SCRA 754, 762). As far as is legally possible, the expressed desire of the testator must be followed and the dispositions of the properties in his will should be upheld (Estorque vs. Estorque, L-19573, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 540, 546). The law has a tender regard for the wishes of the testator as expressed in his will because any disposition therein is better than that which the law can make (Castro vs. Bustos, L-25913, February 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 327, 341). Two other errors of the lower court may be noticed. It erred in issuing a notice to creditors although no executor or regular administrator has been appointed. The record reveals that it appointed a special administrator. A notice to creditors is not in order if only a special administrator has been appointed. Section 1, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, in providing that "immediately after granting letters of testamentary or of administration, the court shall issue a notice requiring all persons having money claims against the decedent to file them in the office of the clerk of said court" clearly contemplates the appointment of an executor or regular administrator and not that of a special administrator. It is the executor or regular administrator who is supposed to oppose the claims against the estate and to pay such claims when duly allowed (See. 10, Rule 86 and sec. 1, Rule 88, Rules of Court). We also take this occasion to point out that the probate court's appointment of its branch clerk of court as special administrator (p. 30, Rollo) is not a salutary practice because it might engender the suspicion that the probate Judge and his clerk of court are in cahoots in milking the decedent's estate. Should the branch clerk of court commit any abuse or devastavit in the course of his administration, the probate Judge might find it difficult to hold him to a strict accountability. A court employee should devote his official time to his official duties and should not have as a sideline the administration of a decedent's estate. WHEREFORE, the lower court's orders of February 28, and June 29, 1974 are set aside and its order of June 18, 1973, setting for 3

hearing the petition for probate, is affirmed. The lower court is directed to conduct further proceedings in Special Case No. 1808 in consonance with this opinion. Costs, against the private respondents. SO ORDERED.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

heir of the deceased, oppositors — who are compulsory heirs of the deceased in the direct ascending line — were illegally preterited and that in consequence the institution is void. On August 29, 1963, before a hearing was had on the petition for probate and objection thereto, oppositors moved to dismiss on the ground of absolute preterition. On September 6, 1963, petitioner registered her opposition to the motion to dismiss.1äwphï1.ñët

Footnotes * The pertinent provisions of the will are as follows: "II. That I am the absolute owner of the southern half of the following conjugal properties which I acquired during my married life with my husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., namely: (Here follows an enumeration of nine lots).1äwphï1.ñët "III. I am the absolute owner of the following paraphernal properties which I inherited from my deceased father, Cecilio Julian, namely: (Here follows a description of two lots). "IV. It is my desire and I direct that in the interest of my family, my properties shall not be divided among my heirs during the lifetime of my husband, Felix Balanay, Sr. but should be kept intact. The respective legitimes of my husband and my children should be paid in cash out of the proceeds of sale of the produce and rents derived from said properties. "V. After the death of my husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., my properties shall be divided and distributed in the manner as follows:" (Here follows a partition of the nine conjugal lots and the two paraphernal lots. The testatrix divided among her six children not only her two paraphernal lots, one of which she devised to Emilia Pabaonon and the other lot to Felix Balanay, Jr., but also the nine conjugal lots. She did not restrict the partition to her one-half conjugal share but included her husband's one-half share.).

PRETERITION G.R. No. L-23445

June 23, 1966

REMEDIOS NUGUID, petitioner and appellant, vs. FELIX NUGUID and PAZ SALONGA NUGUID, oppositors and appellees.

Custodio O. Partade for petitioner and appellant. Beltran, Beltran and Beltran for oppositors and appellees. SANCHEZ, J.: Rosario Nuguid, a resident of Quezon City, died on December 30, 1962, single, without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were her legitimate parents, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, and six (6) brothers and sisters, namely: Alfredo, Federico, Remedios, Conrado, Lourdes and Alberto, all surnamed Nuguid. On May 18, 1963, petitioner Remedios Nuguid filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario Nuguid on November 17, 1951, some 11 years before her demise. Petitioner prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letters of administration with the will annexed be issued to her. On June 25, 1963, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, concededly the legitimate father and mother of the deceased Rosario Nuguid, entered their opposition to the probate of her will. Ground therefor, inter alia, is that by the institution of petitioner Remedios Nuguid as universal

The court's order of November 8, 1963, held that "the will in question is a complete nullity and will perforce create intestacy of the estate of the deceased Rosario Nuguid" and dismissed the petition without costs. A motion to reconsider having been thwarted below, petitioner came to this Court on appeal. 1. Right at the outset, a procedural aspect has engaged our attention. The case is for the probate of a will. The court's area of inquiry is limited — to an examination of, and resolution on, the extrinsic validity of the will. The due execution thereof, the testatrix's testamentary capacity, and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities by law prescribed, are the questions solely to be presented, and to be acted upon, by the court. Said court at this stage of the proceedings — is not called upon to rule on the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will, the legality of any devise or legacy therein.1 A peculiar situation is here thrust upon us. The parties shunted aside the question of whether or not the will should be allowed probate. For them, the meat of the case is the intrinsic validity of the will. Normally, this comes only after the court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated.2 But petitioner and oppositors, in the court below and here on appeal, travelled on the issue of law, to wit: Is the will intrinsically a nullity? We pause to reflect. If the case were to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing will be gained. On the contrary, this litigation will be protracted. And for aught that appears in the record, in the event of probate or if the court rejects the will, probability exists that the case will come up once again before us on the same issue of the intrinsic validity or nullity of the will. Result: waste of time, effort, expense, plus added anxiety. These are the practical considerations that induce us to a belief that we might as well meet head-on the issue of the validity of the provisions of the will in question.3 After all, there exists a justiciable controversy crying for solution. 2. Petitioner's sole assignment of error challenges the correctness of the conclusion below that the will is a complete nullity. This exacts from us a study of the disputed will and the applicable statute. Reproduced hereunder is the will: Nov. 17, 1951 4

I, ROSARIO NUGUID, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, having amassed a certain amount of property, do hereby give, devise, and bequeath all of the property which I may have when I die to my beloved sister Remedios Nuguid, age 34, residing with me at 38-B Iriga, Q.C. In witness whereof, I have signed my name this seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-one. (Sgd.) Illegible T/ ROSARIO NUGUID The statute we are called upon to apply in Article 854 of the Civil Code which, in part, provides: ART. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the 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 annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. ... Except for inconsequential variation in terms, the foregoing is a reproduction of Article 814 of the Civil Code of Spain of 1889, which is similarly herein copied, thus — Art. 814. The preterition of one or all of the forced 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 void the institution of heir; but the legacies and betterments 4 shall be valid, in so far as they are not inofficious. ... A comprehensive understanding of the term preterition employed in the law becomes a necessity. On this point Manresa comments: La pretericion consiste en omitar al heredero en el testamento. O no se le nombra siquiera o aun nombrandole como padre, hijo, etc., no se le instituya heredero ni se le deshereda expresamente ni se le asigna parte alguna de los bienes, resultando privado de un modo tacito de su derecho a legitima. Para que exista pretericion, con arreglo al articulo 814, basta que en el testamento omita el testador a uno cualquiera de aquellos a quienes por su muerte corresponda la herencia forzosa. Se necesita, pues, a) Que la omision se refiera a un heredero forzoso. b) Que la omision sea completa; que el heredero forzoso nada reciba en el testamento. It may now appear trite bat nonetheless helpful in giving us a clear perspective of the problem before us, to have on hand a clear-cut definition of the word annul: To "annul" means to abrogate, to make void ... In re Morrow's Estate, 54 A. 342, 343, 204 Pa. 484. 6

The word "annul" as used in statute requiring court to annul alimony provisions of divorce decree upon wife's remarriage means to reduce to nothing; to annihilate; obliterate; blot out; to make void or of no effect; to nullify; to abolish. N.J.S.A. 2:50 — 38 (now N.J.S. 2A:34-35). Madden vs. Madden, 40 A. 2d 611, 614, 136 N..J Eq. 132.7 ANNUL. To reduce to nothing; annihilate; obliterate; to make void or of no effect; to nullify; to abolish; to do away with. Ex parte Mitchell, 123 W. Va. 283, 14 S.E. 2d. 771, 774.8 And now, back to the facts and the law. The deceased Rosario Nuguid left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. But she left forced heirs in the direct ascending line her parents, now oppositors Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid. And, the will completely omits both of them: They thus received nothing by the testament; tacitly, they were deprived of their legitime; neither were they expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of preterition. Such preterition in the words of Manresa "anulara siempre la institucion de heredero, dando caracter absoluto a este ordenamiento referring to the mandate of Article 814, now 854 of the Civil Code.9 The one-sentence will here institutes petitioner as the sole, universal heir — nothing more. No specific legacies or bequests are therein provided for. It is in this posture that we say that the nullity is complete. Perforce, Rosario Nuguid died intestate. Says Manresa: En cuanto a la institucion de heredero, se anula. Lo que se anula deja de existir, en todo o en parte? No se añade limitacion alguna, como en el articulo 851, en el que se expresa que se anulara la institucion de heredero en cuanto prejudique a la legitima del deseheredado Debe, pues, entenderse que la anulacion es completa o total, y que este articulo como especial en el caso que le motiva rige con preferencia al 817. 10 The same view is expressed by Sanchez Roman: — La consecuencia de la anulacion o nulidad de la institucion de heredero por pretericion de uno, varios o todos los forzosos en linea recta, es la apertura de la sucesion intestada total o parcial. Sera total, cuando el testador que comete la pretericion, hubiese dispuesto de todos los bienes por titulo universal de herencia en favor de los herederos instituidos, cuya institucion se anula, porque asi lo exige la generalidad del precepto legal del art. 814, al determinar, como efecto de la pretericion, el de que "anulara la institucion de heredero." ... 11 Really, as we analyze the word annul employed in the statute, there is no escaping the conclusion that the universal institution of petitioner to the entire inheritance results in totally abrogating the will. Because, the nullification of such institution of universal heir — without any other testamentary disposition in the will — amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written. Carefully worded and in clear terms, Article 854 offers no leeway for inferential interpretation. Giving it an expansive meaning will tear up by the roots the fabric of the statute. On this point, Sanchez Roman cites the "Memoria annual 5

del Tribunal Supreme, correspondiente a 1908", which in our opinion expresses the rule of interpretation, viz:

argument fails to appreciate the distinction between pretention and disinheritance.

... El art. 814, que preceptua en tales casos de pretericion la nulidad de la institucion de heredero, no consiente interpretacion alguna favorable a la persona instituida en el sentido antes expuesto aun cuando parezca, y en algun caso pudiera ser, mas o menos equitativa, porque una nulidad no significa en Derecho sino la suposicion de que el hecho o el acto no se ha realizado, debiendo por lo tanto procederse sobre tal base o supuesto, y consiguientemente, en un testamento donde falte la institucion, es obligado llamar a los herederos forzosos en todo caso, como habria que llamar a los de otra clase, cuando el testador no hubiese distribudo todos sus bienes en legados, siendo tanto mas obligada esta consecuencia legal cuanto que, en materia de testamentos, sabido es, segun tiene declarado la jurisprudencia, con repeticion, que no basta que sea conocida la voluntad de quien testa si esta voluntad no aparece en la forma y en las condiciones que la ley ha exigido para que sea valido y eficaz, por lo que constituiria una interpretacion arbitraria, dentro del derecho positivo, reputar como legatario a un heredero cuya institucion fuese anulada con pretexto de que esto se acomodaba mejor a la voluntad del testador, pues aun cuando asi fuese, sera esto razon para modificar la ley, pero no autoriza a una interpretacion contraria a sus terminos y a los principios que informan la testamentifaccion, pues no porque parezca mejor una cosa en el terreno del Derecho constituyente, hay razon para convereste juicio en regla de interpretacion, desvirtuando y anulando por este procedimiento lo que el legislador quiere establecer. 12

Preterition "consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited." 16 Disinheritance, in turn, "is a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law. " 17 In Manresa's own words: "La privacion expresa de la legitima constituye la desheredacion. La privacion tacita de la misma se denomina pretericion." 18 Sanchez Roman emphasizes the distinction by stating that disinheritance "es siempre voluntaria"; preterition, upon the other hand, is presumed to be "involuntaria". 19 Express as disinheritance should be, the same must be supported by a legal cause specified in the will itself. 20

3. We should not be led astray by the statement in Article 854 that, annullment notwithstanding, "the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious". Legacies and devises merit consideration only when they are so expressly given as such in a will. Nothing in Article 854 suggests that the mere institution of a universal heir in a will — void because of preterition — would give the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance. As to him, the will is inexistent. There must be, in addition to such institution, a testamentary disposition granting him bequests or legacies apart and separate from the nullified institution of heir. Sanchez Roman, speaking of the two component parts of Article 814, now 854, states that preterition annuls the institution of the heir "totalmente por la pretericion"; but added (in reference to legacies and bequests) "pero subsistiendo ... todas aquellas otras disposiciones que no se refieren a la institucion de heredero ... . 13 As Manresa puts it, annulment throws open to intestate succession the entire inheritance including "la porcion libre (que) no hubiese dispuesto en virtud de legado, mejora o donacion. 14 As aforesaid, there is no other provision in the will before us except the institution of petitioner as universal heir. That institution, by itself, is null and void. And, intestate succession ensues. 4. Petitioner's mainstay is that the present is "a case of ineffective disinheritance rather than one of preterition". 15From this, petitioner draws the conclusion that Article 854 "does not apply to the case at bar". This

The will here does not explicitly disinherit the testatrix's parents, the forced heirs. It simply omits their names altogether. Said will rather than be labeled ineffective disinheritance is clearly one in which the said forced heirs suffer from preterition. On top of this is the fact that the effects flowing from preterition are totally different from those of disinheritance. Preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code, we repeat, "shall annul the institution of heir". This annulment is in toto, unless in the will there are, in addition, testamentary dispositions in the form of devises or legacies. In ineffective disinheritance under Article 918 of the same Code, such disinheritance shall also "annul the institution of heirs", put only "insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited", which last phrase was omitted in the case of preterition. 21 Better stated yet, in disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the estate of which the disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived. Manresa's expressive language, in commenting on the rights of the preterited heirs in the case of preterition on the one hand and legal disinheritance on the other, runs thus: "Preteridos, adquiren el derecho a todo; desheredados, solo les corresponde un tercio o dos tercios, 22 el caso. 23 5. Petitioner insists that the compulsory heirs ineffectively disinherited are entitled to receive their legitimes, but that the institution of heir "is not invalidated," although the inheritance of the heir so instituted is reduced to the extent of said legitimes. 24 This is best answered by a reference to the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Moran in the Neri case heretofore cited, viz: But the theory is advanced that the bequest made by universal title in favor of the children by the second marriage should be treated as legado and mejora and, accordingly, it must not be entirely annulled but merely reduced. This theory, if adopted, will result in a complete abrogation of Articles 814 and 851 of the Civil Code. If every case of institution of heirs may be made to fall into the concept of legacies and betterments reducing the bequest accordingly, then the provisions of Articles 814 and 851 regarding total or partial nullity of the institution, 6

would. be absolutely meaningless and will never have any application at all. And the remaining provisions contained in said article concerning the reduction of inofficious legacies or betterments would be a surplusage because they would be absorbed by Article 817. Thus, instead of construing, we would be destroying integral provisions of the Civil Code. The destructive effect of the theory thus advanced is due mainly to a failure to distinguish institution of heirs from legacies and betterments, and a general from a special provision. With reference to article 814, which is the only provision material to the disposition of this case, it must be observed that the institution of heirs is therein dealt with as a thing separate and distinct from legacies or betterments. And they are separate and distinct not only because they are distinctly and separately treated in said article but because they are in themselves different. Institution of heirs is a bequest by universal title of property that is undetermined. Legacy refers to specific property bequeathed by a particular or special title. ... But again an institution of heirs cannot be taken as a legacy. 25 The disputed order, we observe, declares the will in question "a complete nullity". Article 854 of the Civil Code in turn merely nullifies "the institution of heir". Considering, however, that the will before us solely provides for the institution of petitioner as universal heir, and nothing more, the result is the same. The entire will is null. Upon the view we take of this case, the order of November 8, 1963 under review is hereby affirmed. No costs allowed. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

PRETERITION G.R. No. 72706 October 27, 1987 CONSTANTINO C. ACAIN, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (Third Special Cases Division), VIRGINIA A. FERNANDEZ and ROSA DIONGSON, respondents.

PARAS, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision * of respondent. Court of Appeals in AC-G.R. SP No. 05744 promulgated on August 30, 1985 (Rollo, p. 108) ordering the dismissal of the petition in Special Proceedings No, 591 ACEB and its Resolution issued on October 23, 1985 (Rollo, p. 72) denying respondents' (petitioners herein) motion for reconsideration. The dispositive portion of the questioned decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted and respondent Regional Trial Court of the Seventh Judicial Region, Branch XIII (Cebu City), is hereby ordered to dismiss the petition in Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB No special pronouncement is made as to costs. The antecedents of the case, based on the summary of the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, (Rollo, pp. 108-109) are as follows: On May 29, 1984 petitioner Constantino Acain filed on the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City Branch XIII, a petition for the probate of the will of the late Nemesio Acain and for the issuance to the same petitioner of letters testamentary, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB (Rollo, p. 29), on the premise that Nemesio Acain died leaving a will in which petitioner and his brothers Antonio, Flores and Jose and his sisters Anita, Concepcion, Quirina and Laura were instituted as heirs. The will allegedly executed by Nemesio Acain on February 17, 1960 was written in Bisaya (Rollo, p. 27) with a translation in English (Rollo, p. 31) submi'tted by petitioner without objection raised by private respondents. The will contained provisions on burial rites, payment of debts, and the appointment of a certain Atty. Ignacio G. Villagonzalo as the executor of the testament.

7

On the disposition of the testator's property, the will provided:

probated and it cannot pass upon the intrinsic validity thereof before it is admitted to probate;

THIRD: All my shares that I may receive from our properties. house, lands and money which I earned jointly with my wife Rosa Diongson shall all be given by me to my brother SEGUNDO ACAIN Filipino, widower, of legal age and presently residing at 357-C Sanciangko Street, Cebu City. In case my brother Segundo Acain pre-deceased me, all the money properties, lands, houses there in Bantayan and here in Cebu City which constitute my share shall be given to me to his children, namely: Anita, Constantino, Concepcion, Quirina, laura, Flores, Antonio and Jose, all surnamed Acain.

(C) The will of Nemesio Acain is valid and must therefore, be admitted to probate. The preterition mentioned in Article 854 of the New Civil Code refers to preterition of "compulsory heirs in the direct line," and does not apply to private respondents who are not compulsory heirs in the direct line; their omission shall not annul the institution of heirs;

Obviously, Segundo pre-deceased Nemesio. Thus it is the children of Segundo who are claiming to be heirs, with Constantino as the petitioner in Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB After the petition was set for hearing in the lower court on June 25, 1984 the oppositors (respondents herein Virginia A. Fernandez, a legally adopted daughter of tile deceased and the latter's widow Rosa Diongson Vda. de Acain filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds for the petitioner has no legal capacity to institute these proceedings; (2) he is merely a universal heir and (3) the widow and the adopted daughter have been pretirited. (Rollo, p. 158). Said motion was denied by the trial judge. After the denial of their subsequent motion for reconsideration in the lower court, respondents filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction which was subsequently referred to the Intermediate Appellate Court by Resolution of the Court dated March 11, 1985 (Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 3; Rollo, p. 159). Respondent Intermediate Appellate Court granted private respondents' petition and ordered the trial court to dismiss the petition for the probate of the will of Nemesio Acain in Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed this present petition for the review of respondent Court's decision on December 18, 1985 (Rollo, p. 6). Respondents' Comment was filed on June 6, 1986 (Rollo, p. 146). On August 11, 1986 the Court resolved to give due course to the petition (Rollo, p. 153). Respondents' Memorandum was filed on September 22, 1986 (Rollo, p. 157); the Memorandum for petitioner was filed on September 29, 1986 (Rollo, p. 177). Petitioner raises the following issues (Memorandum for petitioner, p. 4): (A) The petition filed in AC-G.R. No. 05744 for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction is not the proper remedy under the premises; (B) The authority of the probate courts is limited only to inquiring into the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be

(D) DICAT TESTATOR ET MERIT LEX. What the testator says will be the law; (E) There may be nothing in Article 854 of the New Civil Code, that suggests that mere institution of a universal heir in the will would give the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance but there is a definite distinct intention of the testator in the case at bar, explicitly expressed in his will. This is what matters and should be in violable. (F) As an instituted heir, petitioner has the legal interest and standing to file the petition in Sp. Proc. No. 591 ACEB for probate of the will of Nemesio Acain and (G) Article 854 of the New Civil Code is a bill of attainder. It is therefore unconstitutional and ineffectual. The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not private respondents have been pretirited. Article 854 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the 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 annul the institution of heir; but the devisees and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not; inofficious. If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall he effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation. Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them either because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited (Nuguid v. Nuguid, 17 SCRA 450 [1966]; Maninang v. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 478 [1982]). Insofar as the widow is concerned, Article 854 of the Civil Code may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from the testator, although she is a compulsory heir. Stated otherwise, even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir, there is no preterition even if she is omitted from the inheritance, for she is not in the direct line. (Art. 854, Civil code) however, the same thing cannot be said of the other respondent Virginia A. Fernandez, whose legal adoption by the testator has not been questioned by petitioner (.Memorandum for the Petitioner, pp. 8-9). Under Article 39 of P.D. No. 603, known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, adoption gives to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes 8

the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. It cannot be denied that she has totally omitted and preterited in the will of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were deprived of at least their legitime. Neither can it be denied that they were not expressly disinherited. Hence, this is a clear case of preterition of the legally adopted child.

course of law (DD Comendador Construction Corporation v. Sayo (118 SCRA 590 [1982]). They are, however, proper remedies to correct a grave abuse of discretion of the trial court in not dismissing a case where the dismissal is founded on valid grounds (Vda. de Bacang v. Court of Appeals, 125 SCRA 137 [1983]).

Pretention annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to intestate succession the entire inheritance including "la porcion libre (que) no hubiese dispuesto en virtual de legado mejora o donacion" Maniesa as cited in Nuguid v. Nuguid, supra; Maninang v. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA [1982]). The only provisions which do not result in intestacy are the legacies and devises made in the will for they should stand valid and respected, except insofar as the legitimes are concerned.

Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB is for the probate of a will. As stated by respondent Court, the general rule is that the probate court's authority is limited only to the extrinsic validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the testator's testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law. The intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the Court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. Said court at this stage of the proceedings is not called upon to rule on the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will (Nuguid v. Nuguid, 17 SCRA 449 [1966]; Sumilang v. Ramagosa, supra; Maninang v. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 478 [1982]; Cayetano v. Leonides, 129 SCRA 522 [1984]; and Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 206 [1985]).

The universal institution of petitioner together with his brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of the testator results in totally abrogating the will because the nullification of such institution of universal heirs-without any other testamentary disposition in the will-amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written. Carefully worded and in clear terms, Article 854 of the Civil Code offers no leeway for inferential interpretation (Nuguid v. Nuguid), supra. No legacies nor devises having been provided in the will the whole property of the deceased has been left by universal title to petitioner and his brothers and sisters. The effect of annulling the "Institution of heirs will be, necessarily, the opening of a total intestacy (Neri v. Akutin, 74 Phil. 185 [1943]) except that proper legacies and devises must, as already stated above, be respected. We now deal with another matter. In order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding he must have an interest iii the estate, or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it either as executor or as a claimant of the estate and an interested party is one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir or one who has a claim against the estate like a creditor (Sumilang v. Ramagosa, 21 SCRA 1369/1967). Petitioner is not the appointed executor, neither a devisee or a legatee there being no mention in the testamentary disposition of any gift of an individual item of personal or real property he is called upon to receive (Article 782, Civil Code). At the outset, he appears to have an interest in the will as an heir, defined under Article 782 of the Civil Code as a person called to the succession either by the provision of a will or by operation of law. However, intestacy having resulted from the preterition of respondent adopted child and the universal institution of heirs, petitioner is in effect not an heir of the testator. He has no legal standing to petition for the probate of the will left by the deceased and Special Proceedings No. 591 A-CEB must be dismissed.

The rule, however, is not inflexible and absolute. Under exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the will (Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals, supra). In Nuguid v. Nuguid the oppositors to the probate moved to dismiss on the ground of absolute preteriton The probate court acting on the motion held that the will in question was a complete nullity and dismissed the petition without costs. On appeal the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the probate court, induced by practical considerations. The Court said: We pause to reflect. If the case were to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing will be gained. On the contrary, this litigation will be protracted. And for aught that appears in the record, in the event of probate or if the court rejects the will, probability exists that the case will come up once again before us on the same issue of the intrinsic validity or nullity of the will. Result: waste of time, effort, expense, plus added anxiety. These are the practical considerations that induce us to a belief that we might as well meet head-on the issue of the validity of the provisions of the will in question. After all there exists a justiciable controversy crying for solution.

In Saguimsim v. Lindayag (6 SCRA 874 [1962]) the motion to dismiss the petition by the surviving spouse was grounded on petitioner's lack of legal capacity to institute the proceedings which was fully substantiated by the evidence during the hearing held in connection with said motion. The Court upheld the probate court's order As a general rule certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal, of dismissal. except when the questioned order is an oppressive exercise of j judicial authority (People v. Villanueva, 110 SCRA 465 In Cayetano v. Leonides, supra one of the issues raised [1981]; Vda. de Caldito v. Segundo, 117 SCRA 573 [1982]; in the motion to dismiss the petition deals with the Co Chuan Seng v. Court of Appeals, 128 SCRA 308 [1984]; validity of the provisions of the will. Respondent Judge and Bautista v. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587 [1985]). It is allowed the probate of the will. The Court held that as on axiomatic that the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are its face the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner not available where the petitioner has the remedy of appeal the respondent judge should have denied its probate or some other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the outright. Where circumstances demand that intrinsic 9

validity of testamentary provisions be passed upon even before the extrinsic validity of the will is resolved, the probate court should meet the issue. (Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals, supra; Nuguid v. Nuguid, supra).

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring:

In the instant case private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition in Sp. Proceedings No. 591 ACEB of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu on the following grounds: (1) petitioner has no legal capacity to institute the proceedings; (2) he is merely a universal heir; and (3) the widow and the adopted daughter have been preterited (Rollo, p. 158). It was denied by the trial court in an order dated January 21, 1985 for the reason that "the grounds for the motion to dismiss are matters properly to be resolved after a hearing on the issues in the course of the trial on the merits of the case (Rollo, p. 32). A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on February 15, 1985 (Rollo, p. 109).

To my mind, an important distinction has to be made as to whether the omission of a forced heir in the will of a testator is by mistake or inadvertence, or voluntary or intentional. If by mistake or inadvertence, there is true preterirton and total intestacy results. The reason for this is the "inability to determine how the testator would have distributed his estate if none of the heirs had been omitted or forgotten (An Outline of Civil Law, J.B.L. Reyes and R.C. Puno, Vol. III, p. 54).

For private respondents to have tolerated the probate of the will and allowed the case to progress when on its face the will appears to be intrinsically void as petitioner and his brothers and sisters were instituted as universal heirs coupled with the obvious fact that one of the private respondents had been preterited would have been an exercise in futility. It would have meant a waste of time, effort, expense, plus added futility. The trial court could have denied its probate outright or could have passed upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions before the extrinsic validity of the will was resolved (Cayetano v. Leonides, supra; Nuquid v. Nuguid, supra. The remedies of certiorari and prohibition were properly availed of by private respondents.

2. The ommission is by mistake or thru an oversight.

Thus, this Court ruled that where the grounds for dismissal are indubitable, the defendants had the right to resort to the more speedy, and adequate remedies of certiorari and prohibition to correct a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, committed by the trial court in not dismissing the case, (Vda. de Bacang v. Court of Appeals, supra) and even assuming the existence of the remedy of appeal, the Court harkens to the rule that in the broader interests of justice, a petition for certiorari may be entertained, particularly where appeal would not afford speedy and adequate relief. (Maninang Court of Appeals, supra).

Pretention is presumed to be only an involuntary omission; that is, that if the testator had known of the existence of the compulsory heir at the time of the execution of the will, he would have instituted such heir. On the other hand, if the testator attempts to disinherit a compulsory heir, the presumption of the law is that he wants such heir to receive as little as possible from his estate. (III Tolentino, Civil Code, 1973 Edition, pp. 174-175).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the questioned decision of respondent Court of Appeals promulgated on August 30, 1985 and its Resolution dated October 23, 1985 are hereby AFFIRMED.

I concur in the result on the basic proposition that preterition in this case was by mistake or inadvertence.

The requisites of preterition are: 1. The heir omitted is a forced heir (in the direct line);

3. The omission is complete so that the forced heir received nothing in the will. (111 Padilla, Civil Code Annotated, 1973 Edition, pp. 224-225) (Parenthetical addendum supplied). On the other hand, if the omission is intentional, the effect would be a defective disinheritance covered by Article 918 of the Civil Code in which case the institution of heir is not wholly void but only insofar as it prejudices the legitime of the person disinherited. Stated otherwise. the nullity is partial unlike in true preterition where the nullity is total.

In the case at bar, there seems to have been mistake or in advertence in the omission of the adopted daughter, hence, my concurrence in the result that total intestacy ensued.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring: I concur in the result on the basic proposition that preterition in this case was by mistake or inadvertence.

Separate Opinions

To my mind, an important distinction has to be made as to whether the omission of a forced heir in the will of a testator is by mistake or inadvertence, or voluntary or 10

intentional. If by mistake or inadvertence, there is true preterirton and total intestacy results. The reason for this is the "inability to determine how the testator would have distributed his estate if none of the heirs had been omitted or forgotten (An Outline of Civil Law, J.B.L. Reyes and R.C. Puno, Vol. III, p. 54). The requisites of preterition are: 1. The heir omitted is a forced heir (in the direct line); 2. The ommission is by mistake or thru an oversight. 3. The omission is complete so that the forced heir received nothing in the will. (111 Padilla, Civil Code Annotated, 1973 Edition, pp. 224-225) (Parenthetical addendum supplied). On the other hand, if the omission is intentional, the effect would be a defective disinheritance covered by Article 918 of the Civil Code in which case the institution of heir is not wholly void but only insofar as it prejudices the legitime of the person disinherited. Stated otherwise. the nullity is partial unlike in true preterition where the nullity is total. Pretention is presumed to be only an involuntary omission; that is, that if the testator had known of the existence of the compulsory heir at the time of the execution of the will, he would have instituted such heir. On the other hand, if the testator attempts to disinherit a compulsory heir, the presumption of the law is that he wants such heir to receive as little as possible from his estate. (III Tolentino, Civil Code, 1973 Edition, pp. 174-175). In the case at bar, there seems to have been mistake or in advertence in the omission of the adopted daughter, hence, my concurrence in the result that total intestacy ensued.

11

heirs of the deceased without prejudice to one-half of the improvements introduced in the properties during the existence of the last conjugal partnership, which should belong to Ignacia Akutin. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with the modification that the will was "valid with respect to the two-thirds part which the testator could freely dispose of. "This judgment of the Court of Appeals is now sought to be reviewed in this petition for certiorari. The decisive question here raised is whether, upon the foregoing facts, the omission of the children of the first marriage annuls the institution of the children of the first marriage as sole heirs of the testator, or whether the will may be held valid, at least with respect to one-third of the estate which the testator may dispose of as legacy and to the other one-third which he may bequeath as betterment, to said children of the second marriage. The Court of Appeals invoked the provisions of article 851 of the Civil Code, which read in part as follows: Disinheritance made without a statement of the cause, or for a cause the truth of which, if contradicted, is not proven, ... shall annul the institution of the heir in so far as it prejudices the person disinherited; but the legacies, betterments, and other testamentary dispositions, in so far as they do no encroach upon the legitime, shall be valid.

PRETERITION G.R. No. L-47799

June 13, 1941

Administration of the estate of Agripino Neri y Chavez. ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL., petitioners, vs. IGNACIA AKUTIN AND HER CHILDREN, respondents.

Ozamiz & Capistrano for petitioners. Gullas, Leuterio, Tanner & Laput for respondents. MORAN, J.: Agripino Neri y Chavez, who died on December 12, 1931, had by his first marriage six children named Eleuterio, Agripino, Agapito, Getulia, Rosario and Celerina; and by his second marriage with Ignacia Akutin, five children named Gracia, Godofredo, Violeta, Estela Maria, and Emma. Getulia, daughter in the first marriage, died on October 2, 1923, that is, a little less than eight years before the death of said Agripino Neri y Chavez, and was survived by seven children named Remedios, Encarnacion, Carmen, Trinidad, Luz, Alberto and Minda. In Agripino Neri's testament, which was admitted to probate on March 21, 1932, he willed that his children by the first marriage shall have no longer any participation in his estate, as they had already received their corresponding shares during his lifetime. At the hearing for the declaration of heirs, the trial court found, contrary to what the testator had declared in his will, that all his children by the first and second marriages intestate

The appellate court thus seemed to have rested its judgment upon the impression that the testator had intended to disinherit, though ineffectively, the children of the first marriage. There is nothing in the will that supports this conclusion. True, the testator expressly denied them any share in his estate; but the denial was predicated, not upon the desire to disinherit, but upon the belief, mistaken though it was, that the children by the first marriage had already received more than their corresponding shares in his lifetime in the form of advancement. Such belief conclusively negatives all inference as to any intention to disinherit, unless his statement to that effect is prove to be deliberately fictitious, a fact not found by the Court of Appeals. The situation contemplated in the above provision is one in which the purpose to disinherit is clear, but upon a cause not stated or not proved, a situation which does not obtain in the instant case. The Court of Appeals quotes Manresa thus: En el terreno de los principios, la solucion mas justa del problema que hemos hecho notar al comentar el articulo, seria distinguir el caso en que el heredero omitido viviese al otorgarse el testamento, siendo conocida su existencia por el testador, de aquel en que, o naciese despues, o se ignorase su existencia, aplicando en el primer caso la doctrina del articulo 851, y en el segundo la del 814. (6 Manresa, 354-355.) But it must be observed that this opinion is founded on mere principles (en el terreno de los principios) and not on the express provisions of the law. Manresa himself admits that according to law, "no existe hoy cuestion alguna en esta materia: la pretericion produce siempre los mismos efectos, ya se refiera a personas vivas al hacer el testamento o nacidas despues. Este ultimo grupo solo puede hacer relacion a los descendientes legitimos, siempre que ademas tengan derecho a legitima." (6 Manresa, 381.)

12

Appellants, on the other hand, maintain that the case is one of voluntary preterition of four of the children by the first marriage, and of involuntary preterition of the children by the deceased Getulia, also of the first marriage, and is thus governed by the provisions of article 814 of the Civil Code, which read in part as follows: The preterition of one or all of the forced 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 void the institution of heir; but the legacies and betterments shall be valid, in so far as they are not inofficious. Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited.(Cf. 6 Manresa, 346.) In the instant case, while the children of the first marriage were mentioned in the will, they were not accorded any share in the heriditary property, without expressly being disinherited. It is, therefore, a clear case of preterition as contended by appellants. The omission of the forced heirs or anyone of them, whether voluntary or involuntary, is a preterition if the purpose to disinherit is not expressly made or is not at least manifest. Except as to "legacies and betterments" which "shall be valid in so far as they are not inofficious" (art. 814 of the Civil Code), preterition avoids the institution of heirs and gives rise to intestate succession. (Art. 814, Civil Code; Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of June 17, 1908 and February 27, 1909.) In the instant case, no such legacies or betterments have been made by the testator. "Mejoras" or betterments must be expressly provided, according to articles 825 and 828 of the Civil Code, and where no express provision therefor is made in the will, the law would presume that the testator had no intention to that effect. (Cf. 6 Manresa, 479.) In the will here in question, no express betterment is made in favor of the children by the second marriage; neither is there any legacy expressly made in their behalf consisting of the third available for free disposal. The whole inheritance is accorded the heirs by the second marriage upon the mistaken belief that the heirs by the first marriage have already received their shares. Were it not for this mistake, the testator's intention, as may be clearly inferred from his will, would have been to divide his property equally among all his children. Judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and that of the trial court affirmed, without prejudice to the widow's legal usufruct, with costs against respondents.Avanceña, C.J., Diaz, Laurel and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

PRETERITION G.R. No. 137287

February 15, 2000

REBECCA VIADO NON, JOSE A. NON and DELIA VIADO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ALICIA N. VIADO, CHERRI VIADO and FE FIDES VIADO,respondents. VITUG, J.: Petitioners, in their petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seek a reversal of the 29th May 1996 decision of the Court of Appeals, basically affirming that rendered on 30 April 1991 by the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Queron City, Branch 23, adjudicating

the property subject matter of the litigation to respondents. The case and the factual settings found by the Court of Appeals do not appear to deviate significantly from that made by the trial court. During their lifetime, the spouses Julian C. Viado and Virginia P. Viado owned several pieces of property, among them a house and lot located at 147 Isarog Street, La Loma, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42682. Virginia P. Viado died on 20 October 1982. Julian C. Viado died three years later on 15 November 1985. Surviving them were their children — Nilo Viado, Leah Viado Jacobs, and herein petitioners Rebecca Viado, married to Jose Non, and Delia Viado. Nilo Viado and Leah Viado Jacobs both died on 22 April 1987. Nilo Viado left behind as his own sole heirs herein respondents — his wife Alicia Viado and their two children Cherri Viado and Fe Fides Viado. Petitioners and respondents shared, since 1977, a common residence at the Isarog property. Soon, however, tension would appear to have escalated between petitioner Rebecca Viado and respondent Alicia Viado after the former had asked that the property be equally divided between the two families to make room for the growing children. Respondents, forthwith, claimed absolute ownership over the entire property and demanded that petitioners vacate the portion occupied by the latter. On 01 February 1988, petitioners, asserting co-ownership over the property in question, filed a case for partition before the Quezon City RTC (Branch 93).1âwphi1.nêt Respondents predicated their claim of absolute ownership over the subject property on two documents — a deed of donation executed by the late Julian Viado covering his one-half conjugal share of the Isarog property in favor of Nilo Viado and a deed of extrajudicial settlement in which Julian Viado, Leah Viado Jacobs (through a power of attorney in favor of Nilo Viado) and petitioner Rebecca Viado waived in favor of Nilo Viado their rights and interests over their share of the property inherited from Virginia Viado. Both instruments were executed on 26 August 1983 and registered on 07 January 1988 by virtue of which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42682 was cancelled and new Transfer Certificate of Title No. 373646 was issued to the heirs of Nilo Viado. Petitioners, in their action for partition, attacked the validity of the foregoing instruments, contending that the late Nilo Viado employed forgery and undue influence to coerce Julian Viado to execute the deed of donation. Petitioner Rebecca Viado, in her particular case, averred that her brother Nilo Viado employed fraud to procure her signature to the deed of extrajudicial settlement. She added that the exclusion of her retardate sister, Delia Viado, in the extrajudicial settlement, resulted in the latter's preterition that should warrant its annulment. Finally, petitioners asseverated that the assailed instruments, although executed on 23 August 1983, were registered only five years later, on 07 January 1988, when the three parties thereto, namely, Julian Viado, Nilo Viado and Leah Viado Jacobs had already died. 13

Assessing the evidence before it, the trial court found for respondents and adjudged Alicia Viado and her children as being the true owners of the disputed property. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification by ordering the remand of the records of the case to the court a quo for further proceedings to determine the value of the property and the amount respondents should pay to petitioner Delia Viado for having been preterited in the deed of extrajudicial settlement. Petitioners are now before the Supreme Court to seek the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ruled correctly. When Virginia P. Viado died intestate in 1982, her part of the conjugal property, the Isarog property in question included, was transmitted to her heirs — her husband Julian and their children Nilo Viado, Rebecca Viado, Leah Viado and Delia Viado. The inheritance, which vested from the moment of death of the decedent,1 remained under a co-ownership regime2 among the heirs until 3 partition. Every act intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees would be a partition although it would purport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, a donation or an extrajudicial settlement.4 In debunking the continued existence of a co-ownership among the parties hereto, respondents rely on the deed of donation and deed of extrajudicial settlement which consolidated the title solely to Nilo Viado. Petitioners assail the due execution of the documents on the grounds heretofore expressed. Unfortunately for petitioners, the issues they have raised boil down to the appreciation of the evidence, a matter that has been resolved by both the trial court and the appellate court. The Court of Appeals, in sustaining the court a quo, has found the evidence submitted by petitioners to be utterly wanting, consisting of, by and large, self-serving testimonies. While asserting that Nilo Viado employed fraud, forgery and undue influence in procuring the signatures of the parties to the deeds of donation and of extrajudicial settlement, petitioners are vague, however, on how and in what manner those supposed vices occurred. Neither have petitioners shown proof why Julian Viado should be held incapable of exercising sufficient judgment in ceding his rights and interest over the property to Nilo Viado. The asseveration of petitioner Rebecca Viado that she has signed the deed of extrajudicial settlement on the mistaken belief that the instrument merely pertained to the administration of the property is too tenuous to accept. It is also quite difficult to believe that Rebecca Viado, a teacher by profession, could have misunderstood the tenor of the assailed document.

its contents against all third persons.6 Among the parties, the instruments remained completely valid and binding. The exclusion of petitioner Delia Viado, alleged to be a retardate, from the deed of extrajudicial settlement verily has had the effect of preterition. This kind of preterition, however, in the absence of proof of fraud and bad faith, does not justify a collateral attack on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 373646. The relief, as so correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, instead rests on Article 1104 of the Civil Code to the effect that where the preterition is not attended by bad faith and fraud, the partition shall not be rescinded but the preterited heir shall be paid the value of the share pertaining to her. Again, the appellate court has thus acted properly in ordering the remand of the case for further proceedings to make the proper valuation of the isarog property and ascertainment of the amount due petitioner Delia Viado.1âwphi1.nêt WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED, and the decision, dated 29 May 1996, in CA-G.R. No. 37272 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. No special pronouncement on costs. SO ORDERED.

Melo, Panganiban, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes 1

See Baritua vs. CA, 183 SCRA 565.

2

There is co-ownership when the title of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons (see Article 484, Civil Code). 3

Partition is the division between two or more persons of real or personal property which they own as co-partners, co-tenants or tenants in common, effected by the setting apart of such interests so that they may enjoy and possess it in severalty. (Vilamor vs. CA, 162 SCRA 574.) 4

See Favor vs. CA, 194 SCRA 308.

5

The registrar of deeds is not authorized to determine whether or not fraud was committed in the deed sought to be registered. (In re Consults of Vicente J. Francisco on behalf of Cabantog, 67 Phil. 222.) People vs. Reyes, 175 SCRA 597, 604, citing Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590; Garcia vs. CA, 95 SCRA 380; Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. vs. Pauli, et al., 161 SCRA 634. 6

The fact alone that the two deeds were registered five years after the date of their execution did not adversely affect their validity nor would such circumstance alone be indicative of fraud. The registration of the documents was a ministerial act5 and merely created a constructive notice of 14

FIDEICOMMISSARY SUBSTITUTION G.R. No. L-31703

February 13, 1930

CARMEN G. DE PEREZ, trustee of the estate of Ana Maria Alcantara, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANO GARCHITORENA, and JOSE CASIMIRO, Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Manila,defendants-appellants.

L. D. Lockwood and Jose M. Casal for appellants. Eduardo Gutierrez Repide and Leoncio B. Monzon for appellee. ROMUALDEZ, J.: The amount of P21,428.58 is on deposit in the plaintiff's name with the association known as La Urbana in Manila, as the final payment of the liquidated credit of Ana Maria Alcantara, deceased, whose heiress is said plaintiff, against Andres Garchitorena, also deceased, represented by his son, the defendant Mariano Garchitorena. And as said Mariano Garchitorena held a judgment for P7,872.23 against Joaquin Perez Alcantara, husband of the plaintiff, Carmen G. de Perez, the sheriff pursuant to the writ of execution issued in said judgment, levied an attachment on said amount deposited with La Urbana. The plaintiff, alleging that said deposit belongs to the fideicommissary heirs of the decedent Ana Maria Alcantara, secured a preliminary injunction restraining the execution of said judgment on the sum so attached. The defendants contend that the plaintiff is the decedent's universal heiress, and pray for the dissolution of the injunction. The court below held that said La Urbana deposit belongs to the plaintiff's children as fideicommissary heirs of Ana Maria Alcantara, and granted a final writ of injunction. The defendants insist in their contentions, and, in their appeal from the decision of the trial court, assign the following errors: 1. The lower court erred in holding that a trust was created by the will of Doña Ana Maria Alcantara. 2. The lower court erred in concluding and declaring that the amount of P21,428.58 deposited with La Urbana is the property of the children of the plaintiff as "herederos fidei-comisarios." 3. The lower court erred in making the injunction permanent and condemning defendant to pay the costs. The question here raised is confined to the scope and meaning of the institution of heirs made in the will of the late Ana Maria Alcantara already admitted to probate, and whose legal force and effect is not in dispute.

15

The clauses of said will relevant to the points in dispute, between the parties are the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, quoted below: Ninth. Being single and without any forced heir, to show my gratitude to my niece-in-law, Carmen Garchitorena, of age, married to my nephew, Joaquin Perez Alcantara, and living in this same house with me, I institute her as my sole and universal heiress to the remainder of my estate after the payment of my debts and legacies, so that upon my death and after probate of this will, and after the report of the committee on claims and appraisal has been rendered and approved, she will receive from my executrix and properties composing my hereditary estate, that she may enjoy them with God's blessing and my own. Tenth. Should my heiress Carmen Garchitorena die, I order that my whole estate shall pass unimpaired to her surviving children; and should any of these die, his share shall serve to increase the portions of his surviving brothers (and sisters) by accretion, in such wise that my estate shall never pass out of the hands of my heiress or her children in so far as it is legally possible. Eleventh. Should my aforesaid heiress, Carmen Garchitorena, die after me while her children are still in their minority, I order that my estate be administered by my executrix, Mrs. Josefa Laplana, and in her default, by Attorney Ramon Salinas and in his default, by his son Ramon Salinas; but the direction herein given must not be considered as an indication of lack of confidence in my nephew Joaquin Perez Alcantara, whom I relieve from the duties of administering my estate, because I recognize that his character is not adapted to management and administration. The appellants contend that in these clauses the testatrix has ordered a simple substitution, while the appellee contends that it is a fideicommissary substitution. This will certainly provides for a substitution of heirs, and of the three cases that might give rise to a simple substitution (art. 774, Civil Code), only the death of the instituted heiress before the testatrix would in the instant case give place to such substitution, inasmuch as nothing is said of the waiver of inheritance, or incapacity to accept it. As a matter of fact, however, clause XI provides for the administration of the estate in case the heiress instituted should die after the testatrix and while the substitute heirs are still under age. And it is evident that, considering the nature of simple substitution by the heir's death before the testator, and the fact that by clause XI in connection with clause X, the substitution is ordered where the heiress instituted dies after the testatrix, this cannot be a case of simple substitution. The existence of a substitution in the will is not and cannot be denied, and since it cannot be a simple substitution in the light of the considerations above stated, let us now see whether the instants case is a fideicommissary substitution. In clause IX, the testatrix institutes the plaintiff herein her sole and universal heiress, and provides that upon her death (the testatrix's) and after probate of the will and

approval of the report of the committee on claims and appraisal, said heiress shall receive and enjoy the whole hereditary estate. Although this clause provides nothing explicit about substitution, it does not contain anything in conflict with the idea of fideicommissary substitution. The fact that the plaintiff was instituted the sole and universal heiress does not prevent her children from receiving, upon her death and in conformity with the express desire of the testatrix, the latter's hereditary estate, as provided in the following (above quoted) clauses which cannot be disregarded if we are to give a correct interpretation of the will. The word sole does not necessarily exclude the idea of substitute heirs; and taking these three clauses together, such word means that the plaintiff is the sole heiress instituted in the first instance. The disposition contained in clause IX, that said heiress shall receive and enjoy the estate, is not incompatible with a fideicommissary substitution (it certainly is incompatible with the idea of simple substitution, where the heiress instituted does not receive the inheritance). In fact the enjoyment of the inheritance is in conformity with the idea of fideicommissary substitution, by virtue of which the heir instituted receives the inheritance and enjoys it, although at the same time he preserves it in order to pass it on the second heir. On this point the illustrious Manresa, in his Civil Code (Vol. 6, pp. 142 and 143, 5th ed.), says: Or, what amounts to the same thing, the fideicommissary substitution, as held in the Resolution of June 25, 1895, February 10, 1899, and July 19, 1909, requires three things: 1. A first heir called primarily to the enjoyment of the estate. 2. An obligation clearly imposed upon him to preserve and transmit to a third person the whole or a part of the estate. 3. A second heir. To these requisites, the decision of November 18, 1918 adds another, namely that the fideicommissarius be entitled to the estate from the time the testator dies, since he is to inherit from the latter and not from the fiduciary. (Emphasis ours.) It appears from this quotation that the heir instituted or the fiduciary, as referred to in articles 783 of the Civil Code, is entitled to enjoy the inheritance. And it might here be observed, as a timely remark, that the fideicommissum arising from a fideicommissary substitution, which is of Roman origin, is not exactly equivalent to, nor may it be confused with, the English "trust." It should also be noted that said clause IX vests in the heiress only the right to enjoy but not the right to dispose of the estate. It says, she may enjoy it, but does not say she may dispose of it. This is an indication of the usufruct inherent in fideicommissary substitution. 16

Clause X expressly provides for the substitution. It is true that it does not say whether the death of the heiress herein referred to is before or after that of the testatrix; but from the whole context it appears that in making the provisions contained in this clause X, the testatrix had in mind a fideicommissary substitution, since she limits the transmission of her estate to the children of the heiress by this provision, "in such wise that my estate shall never pass out of the hands of my heiress or her children in so far as it is legally possible." Here it clearly appears that the testatrix tried to avoid the possibility that the substitution might later be legally declared null for transcending the limits fixed by article 781 of the Civil Code which prescribed that fideicommissary substitutions shall be valid "provided they do not go beyond the second degree."

heir does not inherit from the heir first instituted, but from the testator.

Another clear and outstanding indication of fideicommissary substitution in clause X is the provision that the whole estate shall pass unimpaired to the heiress's children, that is to say the heiress is required to preserve the whole estate, without diminution, in order to pass it on in due time to the fideicommissary heirs. This provision complies with another of the requisites of fideicommissary substitution according to our quotation from Manresa inserted above.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant, Mariano Garchitorena. So ordered.Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and

By virtue of this consequence, the inheritance in question does not belong to the heiress instituted, the plaintiff herein, as her absolute property, but to her children, from the moment of the death of the testatrix, Ana Maria Alcantara. Therefore, said inheritance, of which the amount referred to at the beginning, which is on deposit with the association known as La Urbana in the plaintiff's name, is a part, does not belong to her nor can it be subject to the execution of the judgment against Joaquin Perez, who is not one of the fideicommissary heirs.

Villa-Real, JJ., concur. Street, J., reserves his vote.

Lastly, clause XI more clearly indicates the idea of fideicommissary substitution, when a provision is therein made in the event the heiress should die after the testatrix. That is, said clause anticipates the case where the instituted heiress should die after the testatrix and after receiving and enjoying the inheritance. The foregoing leads us to the conclusion that all the requisites of a fideicommissary substitution, according to the quotation from Manresa above inserted, are present in the case of substitution now under consideration, to wit: 1. At first heir primarily called to the enjoyment of the estate. In this case the plaintiff was instituted an heiress, called to the enjoyment of the estate, according to clause IX of the will. 2. An obligation clearly imposed upon the heir to preserve and transmit to a third person the whole or a part of the estate. Such an obligation is imposed in clause X which provides that the "whole estate shall pass unimpaired to her (heiress's) surviving children;" thus, instead of leaving the heiress at liberty to dispose of the estate by will, or of leaving the law to take its course in case she dies intestate, said clause not only disposes of the estate in favor of the heiress instituted, but also provides for the disposition thereof in case she should die after the testatrix. 3. A second heir. Such are the children of the heiress instituted, who are referred to as such second heirs both in clause X and in clause XI. Finally, the requisite added by the decision of November 18, 1918, to wit, that the fideicommissarius or second heir should be entitled to the estate from the time of the testator's death, which in the instant case, is, rather than a requisite, a necessary consequence derived from the nature of the fideicommissary substitution, in which the second 17