1 ARTICLE 850

Art 850 Luz Cruz-Salonga, all of whom had been assumed and
declared by Basilia as her own legally adopted children.
Art. 850.
The statement of a false cause On April 23, 1959, more than two years after her will was
 for the institution of an heir shall be allowed to probate, Basilia died. The respondent Perfecto
considered as not written, Cruz was appointed executor without bond by the same
 unless it appears from the will that the court in accordance with the provisions of the
testator would not have made such decedent's will, notwithstanding the blocking attempt
institution pursued by the petitioner Ruben Austria.
 if he had known the falsity of such cause.
(767a)
Finally, on November 5, 1959, the present petitioners filed
in the same proceedings a petition in intervention for
partition alleging in substance that they are the nearest
Republic of the Philippines of kin of Basilia, and that the five respondents Perfecto
SUPREME COURT Cruz, et al., had not in fact been adopted by the
Manila decedent in accordance with law, in effect rendering
these respondents mere strangers to the decedent and
EN BANC without any right to succeed as heirs.

Notwithstanding opposition by the respondent Perfecto

Cruz, as executor of the estate, the court a quo allowed
G.R. No. L-23079 February 27, 1970 the petitioners' intervention by its order of December 22,
1959, couched in broad terms, as follows: "The Petition in
Intervention for Partition filed by the above-named
RUBEN AUSTRIA, CONSUELO AUSTRIA-BENTA and LAURO
oppositors [Ruben Austria, et al.,] dated November 5,
AUSTRIA MOZO, petitioners,
1959 is hereby granted."
vs.
HON. ANDRES REYES, Judge, Court of First Instance of
Rizal, PERFECTO CRUZ, BENITA CRUZ-MENEZ ISAGANI CRUZ, In the meantime, the contending sides debated the
ALBERTO CRUZ and LUZ CRUZ-SALONGA respondents. matter of authenticity or lack of it of the several adoption
papers produced and presented by the respondents. On
motion of the petitioners Ruben Austria, et al., these
Salonga, Ordoñez, Yap, Sicat and Associates for
documents were referred to the National Bureau of
petitioners.
Investigation for examination and advice. N.B.I. report
seems to bear out the genuineness of the documents,
Ruben Austria for himself and co-petitioners. but the petitioners, evidently dissatisfied with the results,
managed to obtain a preliminary opinion from a
De los Santos, De los Santos and De los Santos for Constabulary questioned-document examiner whose
respondent Perfecto Cruz. views undermine the authenticity of the said documents.
The petitioners Ruben Austria, et al., thus moved the lower
Villareal, Almacen, Navarra and Amores for other court to refer the adoption papers to the Philippine
respondents. Constabulary for further study. The petitioners likewise
located former personnel of the court which appeared
to have granted the questioned adoption, and obtained
written depositions from two of them denying any
knowledge of the pertinent adoption proceedings.
CASTRO, J.:
On February 6, 1963, more than three years after they
On July 7, 1956 Basilia Austria vda. de Cruz filed with the were allowed to intervene, the petitioners Ruben Austria,
Court of First Instance of Rizal (Special Proceedings 2457) let al., moved the lower court to set for hearing the
a petition for probate, ante mortem, of her last will and matter of the genuineness of the adoption of the
testament. The probate was opposed by the present respondents Perfecto Cruz, et al., by the late Basilia.
petitioners Ruben Austria, Consuelo Austria-Benta and Before the date set by the court for hearing arrived,
Lauro Austria Mozo, and still others who, like the however, the respondent Benita Cruz-Meñez who
petitioner, are nephews and nieces of Basilia. This entered an appearance separately from that of her
opposition was, however, dismissed and the probate of brother Perfecto Cruz, filed on February 28, 1963 a motion
the will allowed after due hearing. asking the lower court, by way of alternative relief, to
confine the petitioners' intervention, should it be
The bulk of the estate of Basilia, admittedly, was destined permitted, to properties not disposed of in the will of the
under the will to pass on to the respondents Perfecto decedent.
Cruz, Benita Cruz-Meñez, Isagani Cruz, Alberto Cruz, and
2 ARTICLE 850

On March 4, 1963, the lower court heard the respondent The lower court must have assumed that since the
Benita's motion. Both sides subsequently submitted their petitioners nephews and niece are not compulsory heirs,
respective memoranda, and finally, the lower court they do not possess that interest which can be
issued an order on June 4, 1963, delimiting the petitioners' prejudiced by a free-wheeling testamentary disposition.
intervention to the properties of the deceased which The petitioners' interest is confined to properties, if any,
were not disposed of in the will. that have not been disposed of in the will, for to that
extent intestate succession can take place and the
The petitioners moved the lower court to reconsider this question of the veracity of the adoption acquires
latest order, eliciting thereby an opposition, from the relevance.
respondents. On October 25, 1963 the same court denied
the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The petitioners nephews and niece, upon the other hand,
insist that the entire estate should descend to them by
A second motion for reconsideration which set off a long intestacy by reason of the intrinsic nullity of the institution
exchange of memoranda from both sides, was summarily of heirs embodied in the decedent's will. They have thus
denied on April 21, 1964. raised squarely the issue of whether or not such institution
of heirs would retain efficacy in the event there exists
proof that the adoption of the same heirs by the
Hence this petition for certiorari, praying this Court to
decedent is false.
annul the orders of June 4 and October 25, 1963 and the
order of April 21, 1964, all restricting petitioners'
intervention to properties that were not included in the The petitioners cite, as the controlling rule, article 850 of
decedent's testamentary dispositions. the Civil Code which reads:

The uncontested premises are clear. Two interests are The statement of a false cause for the institution of
locked in dispute over the bulk of the estate of the an heir shall be considered as not written, unless it
deceased. Arrayed on one side are the petitioners Ruben appears from the will that the testator would not
Austria, Consuelo Austria-Benta and Lauro Austria Mozo, have made such institution if he had known the
three of a number of nephews and nieces who are falsity of such cause.
concededly the nearest surviving blood relatives of the
decedent. On the other side are the respondents Coming closer to the center of the controversy, the
brothers and sisters, Perfecto Cruz, Benita Cruz-Meñez, petitioners have called the attention of the lower court
Isagani Cruz, Alberto Cruz and Luz Cruz-Salonga, all of and this Court to the following pertinent portions of the
whom heirs in the will of the deceased Basilia, and all of will of the deceased which recite:
whom claim kinship with the decedent by virtue of legal
adoption. At the heart of the controversy is Basilia's last III
will — immaculate in its extrinsic validity since it bears the
imprimatur of duly conducted probate proceedings.
Ang aking mga sapilitang tagapagmana
(herederos forzosos) ay ang aking itinuturing na mga
The complaint in intervention filed in the lower court anak na tunay (Hijos legalmente adoptados) na
assails the legality of the tie which the respondent sina Perfecto, Alberto, Luz, Benita at Isagani, na
Perfecto Cruz and his brothers and sisters claim to have pawang may apelyidong Cruz.
with the decedent. The lower court had, however,
assumed, by its orders in question, that the validity or
xxx xxx xxx
invalidity of the adoption is not material nor decisive on
the efficacy of the institution of heirs; for, even if the
adoption in question were spurious, the respondents Kung ako ay bawian ng Dios ng buhay, ay aking
Perfecto Cruz, et al., will nevertheless succeed not as ipinamamana ang aking mga ari-ariang maiiwan,
compulsory heirs but as testamentary heirs instituted in sa kaparaanang sumusunod:
Basilia's will. This ruling apparently finds support in article,
842 of the Civil Code which reads: A.—Aking ipinamamana sa aking nabanggit na
limang anak na sina Perfecto, Alberto, Luz, Benita at
One who has no compulsory heirs may dispose of by Isagani, na pawang may apelyidong Cruz, na
will all his estate or any part of it in favor of any parepareho ang kaparti ng bawa't isa at walang
person having capacity to succeed. lamangan (en partes iguales), bilang kanilang
sapilitang mana (legiti[ma]), ang kalahati (½) ng
aking kaparti sa lahat ng aming ari-ariang
One who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his
gananciales ng aking yumaong asawang Pedro
estate provided he does not contravene the
Cruz na napapaloob sa Actuacion Especial No. 640
provisions of this Code with regard to the legitime of
ng Hukumang Unang Dulugan ng Rizal at itinutukoy
said heirs.
sa No. 1 ng parafo IV ng testamentong ito, ang
kalahati (½) ng mga lagay na lupa at palaisdaan
3 ARTICLE 850

na nasa Obando at Polo, Bulacan, na namana ko Article 850 of the Civil Code, quoted above, is a positive
sa aking yumaong ama na si Calixto Austria, at ang injunction to ignore whatever false cause the testator
kalahati (½) ng ilang lagay na lupa na nasa may have written in his will for the institution of heirs. Such
Tinejeros, Malabon, Rizal, na aking namana sa institution may be annulled only when one is satisfied,
yumao kong kapatid na si Fausto Austria. after an examination of the will, that the testator clearly
would not have made the institution if he had known the
The tenor of the language used, the petitioners argue, cause for it to be false. Now, would the late Basilia have
gives rise to the inference that the late Basilia was caused the revocation of the institution of heirs if she had
deceived into believing that she was legally bound to known that she was mistaken in treating these heirs as her
bequeath one-half of her entire estate to the legally adopted children? Or would she have instituted
respondents Perfecto Cruz, et al. as the latter's legitime. them nonetheless?
The petitioners further contend that had the deceased
known the adoption to be spurious, she would not have The decedent's will, which alone should provide the
instituted the respondents at all — the basis of the answer, is mute on this point or at best is vague and
institution being solely her belief that they were uncertain. The phrases, "mga sapilitang tagapagmana"
compulsory heirs. Proof therefore of the falsity of the and "sapilitang mana," were borrowed from the
adoption would cause a nullity of the institution of heirs language of the law on succession and were used,
and the opening of the estate wide to intestacy. Did the respectively, to describe the class of heirs instituted and
lower court then abuse its discretion or act in violation of the abstract object of the inheritance. They offer no
the rights of the parties in barring the petitioners nephews absolute indication that the decedent would have willed
and niece from registering their claim even to properties her estate other than the way she did if she had known
adjudicated by the decedent in her will? that she was not bound by law to make allowance for
legitimes. Her disposition of the free portion of her estate
Before the institution of heirs may be annulled under (libre disposicion) which largely favored the respondent
article 850 of the Civil Code, the following requisites must Perfecto Cruz, the latter's children, and the children of the
concur: First, the cause for the institution of heirs must be respondent Benita Cruz, shows a perceptible inclination
stated in the will; second, the cause must be shown to be on her part to give to the respondents more than what
false; and third, it must appear from the face of the will she thought the law enjoined her to give to them.
that the testator would not have made such institution if Compare this with the relatively small devise of land
he had known the falsity of the cause. which the decedent had left for her blood relatives,
including the petitioners Consuelo Austria-Benta and
Lauro Mozo and the children of the petitioner Ruben
The petitioners would have us imply, from the use of the
Austria. Were we to exclude the respondents Perfecto
terms, "sapilitang tagapagmana" (compulsory heirs) and
Cruz, et al. from the inheritance, then the petitioners and
"sapilitang mana" (legitime), that the impelling reason or
the other nephews and nieces would succeed to the
cause for the institution of the respondents was the
bulk of the testate by intestacy — a result which would
testatrix's belief that under the law she could not do
subvert the clear wishes of the decedent.
otherwise. If this were indeed what prompted the testatrix
in instituting the respondents, she did not make it known
in her will. Surely if she was aware that succession to the Whatever doubts one entertains in his mind should be
legitime takes place by operation of law, independent of swept away by these explicit injunctions in the Civil Code:
her own wishes, she would not have found it convenient "The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which
to name her supposed compulsory heirs to their legitimes. will give to every expression some effect, rather than one
Her express adoption of the rules on legitimes should very which will render any of the expressions inoperative; and
well indicate her complete agreement with that statutory of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred
scheme. But even this, like the petitioners' own which will prevent intestacy." 1
proposition, is highly speculative of what was in the mind
of the testatrix when she executed her will. One fact Testacy is favored and doubts are resolved on its side,
prevails, however, and it is that the decedent's will does especially where the will evinces an intention on the part
not state in a specific or unequivocal manner the cause of the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate,2
for such institution of heirs. We cannot annul the same on as was done in this case. Moreover, so compelling is the
the basis of guesswork or uncertain implications. principle that intestacy should be avoided and the wishes
of the testator allowed to prevail, that we could even
And even if we should accept the petitioners' theory that vary the language of the will for the purpose of giving it
the decedent instituted the respondents Perfecto Cruz, et effect.3 A probate court has found, by final judgment,
al. solely because she believed that the law that the late Basilia Austria Vda. de Cruz was possessed of
commanded her to do so, on the false assumption that testamentary capacity and her last will executed free
her adoption of these respondents was valid, still such from falsification, fraud, trickery or undue influence. In this
institution must stand. situation, it becomes our duty to give full expression to her
will.4
4 ARTICLE 850

At all events, the legality of the adoption of the

respondents by the testatrix can be assailed only in a
separate action brought for that purpose, and cannot be
the subject of a collateral attack.5

To the petitioners' charge that the lower court had no

power to reverse its order of December 22, 1959, suffice it
to state that, as borne by the records, the subsequent
orders complained of served merely to clarify the first —
an act which the court could legally do. Every court has
the inherent power to amend and control its processes
and orders so as to make them conformable to law and
justices.6 That the court a quo has limited the extent of
the petitioners' intervention is also within its powers as
articulated by the Rules of Court.7

ACCORDINGLY, the present petition is denied, at

petitioners cost.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal,

Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ.,
concur.

Footnotes

1 Article 791.

2 53 Cal. Jur. 2d 678.

3 Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals, L-28734, March 24,

1969, 27 SCRA 546, 552; Solla v. Ascueta, 49 Phil. 333,
347-348.

4 Ibid, citing Barrera v. Tampoco, 94 Phil. 346, 353.

5 See Gomez v. Concepcion, 47 Phil. 717; Ramos v.

Mañalac, 89 Phil. 270; Santos v. Aranzaso, L-23828,
Feb. 28, 1966 16 SCRA 352.

6 Sec. 5, par. (g), Rules of Court.

7 Sec. 2, par. (b), Ibid; Seva, et al. v. Rivera, etc., 73

Phil. 477, 479-480, cited in Moran, Comments on the
Rules of Court, 1963 edition, Vol. I, pp. 354-355.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation