Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 63 views

    Maninang Vs Ca Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    TJ Merin
    The lower court dismissed Soledad Maninang's petition to probate Clemencia Aseneta's holographic will. Bernardo Aseneta, Clemencia's adopted son, claimed the entire estate through intestacy, arguing the will was invalid because it preterited him as the sole heir. However, the effects of preterition and validity of the will had not been fully examined. The Supreme Court ruled the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the case before a thorough examination of whether preterition invalidated the will or not. Normally probate does not examine a will's validity, and preterition has different effects than disinheritance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Maninang Vs Ca Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    TJ Merin
    63 views2 pages
    The lower court dismissed Soledad Maninang's petition to probate Clemencia Aseneta's holographic will. Bernardo Aseneta, Clemencia's adopted son, claimed the entire estate through intestacy, arguing the will was invalid because it preterited him as the sole heir. However, the effects of preterition and validity of the will had not been fully examined. The Supreme Court ruled the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the case before a thorough examination of whether preterition invalidated the will or not. Normally probate does not examine a will's validity, and preterition has different effects than disinheritance.

    Original Title

    maninang vs ca case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The lower court dismissed Soledad Maninang's petition to probate Clemencia Aseneta's holographic will. Bernardo Aseneta, Clemencia's adopted son, claimed the entire estate through intestacy, arguing the will was invalid because it preterited him as the sole heir. However, the effects of preterition and validity of the will had not been fully examined. The Supreme Court ruled the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the case before a thorough examination of whether preterition invalidated the will or not. Normally probate does not examine a will's validity, and preterition has different effects than disinheritance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    63 views2 pages

    Maninang Vs Ca Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    TJ Merin
    The lower court dismissed Soledad Maninang's petition to probate Clemencia Aseneta's holographic will. Bernardo Aseneta, Clemencia's adopted son, claimed the entire estate through intestacy, arguing the will was invalid because it preterited him as the sole heir. However, the effects of preterition and validity of the will had not been fully examined. The Supreme Court ruled the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the case before a thorough examination of whether preterition invalidated the will or not. Normally probate does not examine a will's validity, and preterition has different effects than disinheritance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Maninang Vs CA

    FACTS:
    On May 21, 1977, Clemencia Aseneta, single, died at the Manila Sanitarium Hospital at age 81. She
    left a holographic will which states that all her real properties located in Manila, Makati, Quezon
    City, Albay and Legaspi City and all her personal properties shall be inherited upon her death by
    Dra. Soledad L. Maninang.

    On June 9, 1977, petitioner Soledad Maninang filed a Petition for probate of the Will of the decedent.

    On July 25, 1977, herein respondent Bernardo Aseneta, who, as the adopted son, claims to be the
    sole heir of decedent Clemencia Aseneta, instituted intestate proceedings.

    On December 23, 1977, the Testate and Intestate Cases were ordered consolidated before Branch
    XI, presided by respondent Judge.

    Respondent Bernardo then filed a Motion to Dismiss the Testate Case on the ground that the
    holographic will was null and void because he, as the only compulsory heir, was preterited and,
    therefore, intestacy should ensue.

    The lower court dismissed the Motion filed by Soledad Maninang.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it dismissed the Testate Case.

    RULING:

    Yes.

    No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in
    accordance with the Rules of Court. 4

    The law enjoins the probate of the Will and public policy requires it, because unless the Will is probated
    and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by Will may be
    rendered nugatory. 5

    Normally, the probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic validity.

    The effects of preterition and disinheritance are also totally different.

    ... The effects flowing from preterition are totally different from those of
    disinheritance. Pretention under Article 854 of the New Civil Code shall annul the
    institution of heir. This annulment is in toto, unless in the wail 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", but only "insofar as it may prejudice the person
    disinherited", which last phrase was omitted in the case of preterition (III Tolentino,
    Civil Code of the Philippines, 1961 Edition, p. 172). Better stated yet, in
    disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the estate of which the
    disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived. 11
    By virtue of the dismissal of the Testate Case, the determination of that controversial issue has not been
    thoroughly considered. We gather from the assailed Order of the trial Court that its conclusion was that
    respondent Bernardo has been preterited We are of opinion, however, that from the face of the Will, that
    conclusion is not indubitable.

    You might also like