2. Nepomuceno v.

Court of Appeals
Succession Cases: October 20, 2020 No. L-62952, October 9, 1985

Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon,

Rizal. He left a last Will and
1. Gallanosa v. Arcangel
Testament where he named and appointed
petitioner Sofia Nepomuceno as his sole
G.R. No. L-29300, 21 June 1978, 83 SCRA 675 and only executor of his estate. It is clearly stated in
the will that the testator was legally
FACTS: married to a certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had
two legitimate children, but since
1952, he had been estranged from his lawfully
Florentino Gallanosa executed a will in 1938 when
wedded wife and had been living with
he was 80 years old. He owned 61 parcels of and
petitioner as husband and wife. In fact, on
at that time. He died in 1939 childless and survived
December 5, 1952, the testator Martin Jugo
by his brother Leon. In his will, he bequethed his
and the petitioner herein, Sofia, were married on
1/2 share of the conjugal estate to his second wife
Tarlac before the Justice of the Peace.
Tecla and if she predecease him (as what
The testator devised to his forced heirs, namely,
occurred), the said share shall be assigned to the
his legal wife Rufina Gomez and his
spouses Gallanosa (Pedro & Corazon). Pedro is
children his entire estate and the free portion
Tecla’s son by her 1st marriage. He also gave 3
thereof to herein petitioner. Subsequently,
parcels of land to Adolfo, his protege.
the petitioner filed a petition for the probate of
the last will and testament of the
The said will was admitted to probate with deceased, but the legal wife of the testator Rufina
Gallanosa as executor. In 1952, thjhe legal heirs and her children filed an opposition
filed an action for the recovery of said 61 parcels of alleging inter alia that the execution of the will was
land. The action was dismissed on the ground of procured by undue and improper
res judicata. Then, 28 years after probate, another influence on the part of the petitioner; that at the
acton agaisnt Gallanosa for annulment of the will, time of the execution of the will, the
recovery of the lands alleging fraud and deceit, was testator was already very sick and that the
filed. As a result, the lower court set aide the 1939 petitioner having admitted her living in
decree of probate. concubinage with the testator, she is wanting
integrity and thus letters testamentary
ISSUE: should not be issued to her.
The lower court denied the probate of the will on
Whether or not a will which has been probated may the ground that as the testator
still be annulled. admitted in his will to cohabiting with the petitioner
because on the face of the will, the
RULING: invalidity of its intrinsic provisions is evident.
The appellate court declared the will to be
No. A final decree of probate is conclusive as to the valid except that the devise in favor of the petitioner
due execution of the will. Due execution means that is null and void.
the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the
time of the execution and that he was not acting ISSUE: Whether or not the donation made by the
under duress, menace, fraud or undue influence. testator in favor of herein petitioner
Finally, that it was executed in accordance with the was valid.
formalities provided by law.
No. There is no question from the records about the
The period for seeking relief under Rule 38 has fact of a prior existing
already expired, hence the judgment may only be marriage when Martin Jugo lived together in an
set aside on the grounds of, 1) lack of jurisdiction or ostensible marital relationship for 22
lack of due process of law, and 2) the judgment years until his death. It is also a fact that Martin
was obtained by means of extrinsic collateral fraud Jugo and Sofia Nepomuceno contracted
(which must be filed within 4 years from the a marriage before the Justice of the Peace of
discovery). Finally, Art. 1410 cannot apply to wills Tarlac. The man was then 51 years old
and testament. while the woman was 48. Nepomuceno contends
that she acted in good faith for 22 Guevara should be disregarded. Both the trial court
years in the belief that she was legally married to and the Court of appeals sustained that theory.
the testator. The records do not
sustain that she acted in good faith for 22 years in ISSUE:
the belief that she was legally
married to the testator, since the last will and Whether or not probate is necessary for Rosario to
testament itself expressly admits be able to claim her legitime as an acknowledged
indubitably on its face the meretricious relationship natural daughter.
between the testator and petitioner,
the devisee.
RULING:
Moreover, the prohibition in Article 739 of the Civil
Code is against the making of
a donation between persons who are living in In the instant case there is no showing that the
adultery or concubinage. It is the donation various legatees other than the present litigants
which becomes void. The giver cannot give even had received their respective legacies or that they
assuming that the recipient may had knowledge of the existence and of the
receive. The very wordings of the will invalidate the provisions of the will. Their right under the will
legacy because the testator cannot be disregarded, nor may those rights be
admitted he was disposing the properties to a obliterated on account of the failure or refusal of the
person with whom he had been living in custodian of the will to present it to the court for
concubinage. probate.

Even if the decedent left no debts and nobody

3. Guevara v. Guevara raises any question as to the authenticity and due
execution of the will, none of the heirs may sue for
the partition of the estate in accordance with that
G.R. No. L-48840, 29 December 1943, 74:479 will without first securing its allowance or probate
by the court, first, because the law expressly
FACTS: provides that “no will shall pass either real or
personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in
It appears that on August 26, 1931, Victorino L. the proper court”; and, second, because the
Guevara executed a will, apparently with all the probate of a will, which is a proceeding in rem,
formalities of the law. On September 27, 1933, he cannot be dispensed with the substituted by any
died. His last will and testament, however, was other proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial, without
never presented to the court for probate, nor has offending against public policy designed to
any administration proceeding ever been instituted effectuate the testator’s right to dispose of his
for the settlement of his estate. Ever since the property by will in accordance with law and to
death of Victorino L. Guevara, his only legitimate protect the rights of the heirs and legatees under
son Ernesto M. Guevara appears to have the will thru the means provided by law, among
possessed the land adjudicated to him in the which are the publication and the personal notices
registration proceeding and to have disposed of to each and all of said heirs and legatees. Nor may
various portions thereof for the purpose of paying the court approve and allow the will presented in
the debts left by his father. evidence in such an action for partition, which is
one in personam, any more than it could decree the
In the meantime Rosario Guevara, who appears to registration under the Torrens system of the land
have had her father’s last will and testament in her involved in an ordinary action for reinvindicacion or
custody, presented the will to the court, not for the partition.
purpose of having it probated but only to prove that
the deceased Victirino L. Guevara had
acknowledged her as his natural daughter. Upon 4. De la Cerna v. Potot G.R. No. L-20234, 23
that proof of acknowledgment she claimed her
share of the inheritance from him, but on the theory December 1964, 12 SCRA 576
or assumption that he died intestate, because the
will had not been probated, for which reason, she FACTS:
asserted, the betterment therein made by the
testator in favor of his legitimate son Ernesto M.
On May 19, 1939, Spouses Bernabe de la Serna adjudicated de novo — since a joint will is
and Gervasia Rebaca, executed a joint last will and considered a separate will of each testator.
testament where they willed that their 2 parcels of
land together with all improvements thereon be The undivided interest of the wife should pass upon
given to Manuela Rebaca, their niece, whom they her death to her intestate heirs and not to the
have nutured since childhood and that while each testamentary heir. Thus as to the disposition of the
of the testators is yet living, she will continue to wife, the will cannot be given effect.
enjoy the fruits of the two lands.
5. Austria vs. Reyes
Bernabe dela Serna died on August 30, 1939, and
the aforesaid will was submitted to probate by said G.R. No. L-23079 | 1970-02-27
Gervasia and Manuela before the Court of First
Instance of Cebu. By order of Oct. 31, 1939, the By: Karen P. Lustica
Court admitted for probate the said will but only for  
the part of Bernabe.
Facts: Basilia Austria vda. de Cruz filed with the
When Gervasia died, another petition for probate CIF of Rizal  a petition for probate, ante mortem, of
was instituted by Manuela, but because she and her last will and testament. The probate was
her attorney failed to appear in court, the petition opposed by the present petitioners. This opposition
was dismissed. The Court of First Instance ordered was dismissed and the probate of the will was
the petition heard and declared the testament null allowed after due hearing.
and void, for being executed contrary to the
prohibition of joint wills in the Civil Code (Art. 669,  
Civil Code of 1889 and Art. 818, Civil Code of the
Philippines); but on appeal by the testamentary The bulk of the estate of Basilia, admittedly, was
heir, the Court of Appeals reversed, on the ground destined under the will to pass on to the
that the decree of probate in 1939 was issued by a respondents all of whom had been assumed and
court of probate jurisdiction and conclusive on the declared by Basilia as her own legally adopted
due execution of the testament. children.
 
ISSUE:
More than two years after her will was allowed to
W/N the will may be probated. probate, Basilia died. The respondent Perfecto
Cruz was appointed executor without bond by the
HELD: same court in accordance with the provisions of the
decedent’s will, notwithstanding the blocking
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision and attempt pursued by the petitioner Ruben Austria.
held that once a decree of probate becomes final in
accordance with the rules of procedure, it is res  
judicata. Admittedly the probate of the will in 1939
Finally, the present petitioners filed in the same
was erroneous, however, because it was probated
proceedings a petition in intervention for partition
by a court of competent jurisdiction it has
conclusive effect and a final judgment rendered on alleging in substance that they are the nearest of
a petition for the probate of a will is binding upon kin of Basilia, and that the five respondents
the whole world. There was an error on the court Perfecto Cruz, et al., had not in fact been adopted
but the decree has now become final. by the decedent in accordance with law, in effect
rendering these respondents mere strangers to the
Nevertheless, the probate in 1939 only affected the decedent and without any right to succeed as heirs.
share of Bernabe and could not include the
 
disposition of the share of his wife which was still
alive then, her properties were still not within the Issue: WON the institution of the heirs would retain
jurisdiction of the court. Hence, joint will being efficacy in the event there exists proof that the
prohibited by law, the validity of the will with respect adoption of the same heirs by the decedent was
to her, must be on her death, be re-examined and
false
  she had known that she was not bound by law to
make allowance for legitimes. Her disposition of the
Held: YES.
free portion of her estate (libre disposicion) which
  largely favored the respondent Perfecto Cruz, the
latter’s children, and the children of the respondent
Ratio: Article 850 of the Civil Code which reads, Benita Cruz, shows a perceptible inclination on her
“The statement of a false cause for the institution of part to give to the respondents more than what she
an heir shall be considered as not written, unless it thought the law enjoined her to give to them.
appears from the will that the testator would not Compare this with the relatively small devise of
have made such institution if he had known the land which the decedent had left for her blood
falsity of such cause.” relatives, including the petitioners Consuelo
Before the institution of heirs may be annulled Austria-Benta and Lauro Mozo and the children of
under article 850 of the Civil Code, the following the petitioner Ruben Austria. Were we to exclude
requisites must concur: First, the cause for the the respondents Perfecto Cruz, et al. from the
institution of heirs must be stated in the will; inheritance, then the petitioners and the other
second, the cause must be shown to be false; and nephews and nieces would succeed to the bulk of
third, it must appear from the face of the will that the testate by intestacy — a result which would
the testator would not have made such institution if subvert the clear wishes of the decedent.
he had known the falsity of the cause.  
  6. REYES vs. BARRETTO-DATU G.R. No. L-
From the use of the terms, “sapilitang 17818 January 25, 1967 Topic: Effect of Inclusion
tagapagmana” (compulsory heirs) and “sapilitang of Intruder in Partition
mana” (legitime), that the impelling reason or cause FACTS: Bibiano Barretto was married to Maria
for the institution of the respondents was the Gerardo. During their lifetime they acquired a vast
testatrix’s belief that under the law she could not do estate, consisting of real properties in Manila,
otherwise. If this were indeed what prompted the Pampanga, and Bulacan. When Bibiano died, he
testatrix in instituting the respondents, she did not left his share of these properties in a will to Salud
make it known in her will. Surely if she was aware Barretto, mother of plaintiff's wards, and Lucia
that succession to the legitime takes place by Milagros Barretto and a small portion as legacies to
operation of law, independent of her own wishes, his two sisters Rosa and Felisa and his nephews
she would not have found it convenient to name her and nieces. Usufruct was reserved for his widow.
supposed compulsory heirs to their legitimes. Her The widow then prepared a project of partition
express adoption of the rules on legitimes should which she signed in her own behalf, and as
very well indicate her complete agreement with that guardian of the minor Milagros. This was approved
statutory scheme. But even this, like the petitioners’ by CFI Manila. As a consequence, Salud Barretto
own proposition, is highly speculative of what was took immediate possession of her share and
in the mind of the testatrix when she executed her secured the cancellation of the originals and the
will. One fact prevails, however, and it is that the issuance of new titles in her own name. Upon the
decedent’s will does not state in a specific or widow’s death, it was discovered that she had
unequivocal manner the cause for such institution executed two wills, in the first of which, she
of heirs. We cannot annul the same on the basis of instituted Salud and Milagros as her heirs; and, in
guesswork or uncertain implications. the second, she revoked the same and left all her
  properties in favor of Milagros alone. Thus, the later
will was allowed and the first rejected. Plaintiff then
The phrases, “mga sapilitang tagapagmana” and filed an action for the recovery of one-half portion of
“sapilitang mana,” were borrowed from the properties left for them under Bibiano’s will. This
language of the law on succession and were used, action afforded the defendant an opportunity to set
respectively, to describe the class of heirs instituted up her right of ownership, not only of the fishpond
and the abstract object of the inheritance. They under litigation, but of all theother properties willed
offer no absolute indication that the decedent would and delivered to Salud, for being a spurious heir,
have willed her estate other than the way she did if and not entitled to any share in the estate of
Bibiano, thereby directly attacking thevalidity, not her father's will a share smaller than her legitime
only of the project of partition, but of the decision of does not invalidate the institution of Salud as heir.
the court based thereon. The defendant contends There was no preterition, or total ommission of a
that the Project of Partition from which forced heir.
Saludacquired the fishpond in question is void ab
initio. This was based on Article 1081 of the Civil 7. Aznar v. Duncan
Code of 1889: “A partition in which a person was 17 SCRA 590
believed to be an heir,without being so, has been
included, shall be null and void.” CFI rejected FACTS:
plaintiff’s contention that since Bibiano was free to
dispose of one-third (1/3) of his estate under the old Christensen died testate. The will was admitted to
Civil Code, his will was valid in favor of Salud to the probate. The court declared that Helen Garcia was
extent, at least, of such free part. And it concluded a natural child of the deceased. The Court of First
that, as defendant Milagros was the only true heir Instance equally divided the properties of
the estate of Christensen between
of Bibiano Barretto, she was entitled to recover
Lucy Duncan (whom testator expressly recognized
from Salud, and from the latter's children and
in his will as his daughter) and Helen Garcia. In the
successors, all the Properties received by her from order, the CFI held that Helen Garcia was
Bibiano's estate, in view of the provisions of Art preterited in the will thus, the institution of
1456 of the new Civil Code establishing that Lucy Duncan as heir was annulled and the
property acquired by fraud or mistake is held by its properties passed to both of them as if the
acquirerin implied trust for the real owner. deceased died intestate.
ISSUE: 1. WON the partition between Salud and
ISSUE:
Milagros in the proceedings for the settlement of
the estate of Bibiano is void. Whether the estate, after deducting the legacies,
2. WON there was preterition? HELD: 1. NO The should be equally divided or whether the
agreement of partition was not only ratified by the inheritance of Lucy as instituted heir should be
merely reduced to the extent necessary to cover
court's decree of distribution, but actually
the legitime of Helen Garcia, equivalent to ¼ of the
consummated, so much so that the titles inthe
entire estate.
name of the deceased were cancelled, and new
certificates issued in favor of theheirs, long before HELD:
the decree was attacked. The only instance that we
can think of in which a party interested in a probate The inheritance of Lucy should be merely reduced
proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside is to cover the legitime of Helen Garcia.
when he is left out by reason of circumstances
beyond his control or through mistake or Christensen refused to acknowledge Helen Garcia
inadvertence not imputable to negligence. Even as his natural daughter and limited her share to a
then, the better practice to secure relief isreopening legacy of P3,600.00. When a testator leaves to a
of the same case by proper motion within the forced heir a legacy worth less than the legitime,
reglementary period, insteadof an independent but without referring to the legatee as an heir or
action the effect of which, if successful, would be, even as a relative, and willed the rest of
for another courtor judge to throw out a decision or the estate to other persons, the heir could not ask
order already final and executed and that the institution of the heirs be annulled entirely,
reshuffleproperties long ago distributed and but only that the legitime be completed.
disposed of. Art. 1081 has been misapplied. Salud
admittedly had been instituted heir in the late
8. Heirs of Ureta v. Heirs of Ureta
Bibiano Barretto's last will and testament together
with defendant Milagros; hence,the partition had
between them could not be one such had with a G.R. No. 165748, 14 September 2011
party who was believed to be an heir without really FACTS:
being one, and was not null and void under said
article. 2. NO. The fact that Milagros was allotted in
Alfonso Ureta was financially well-off and owned Partition in their behalf did not result in his
several properties. He begot fourteen children, incapacity to give consent so as to render the
including herein petitioners and Policronio, father of contract voidable, but rather, it rendered the
respondents. For taxation purposes, Alfonso sold, contract valid but unenforceable against Conrado’s
without monetary consideration, several parcels of co-heirs for having been entered into without their
land to four of his children, including Policronio. authority.
Alfonso continued to own, possess and enjoy the
lands and their produce. Upon his death, Liberato
acted as the administrator. The Fernandez Family 9. Seangio v. Hon. Amor Reyes
rented the portion transferred to Policronio. But
even after the fact, the tenants never turned over
the produce of the lands to Policronio or any of this G.R. Nos. 140371-72, 27 November 2006, 508
heirs, but to Alfonso and, later, to the administrators SCRA 177
of his estate. When Policronio died, except for a
portion of one of the parcels of land, neither FACTS:
Policronio nor his heirs ever took possession of the
subject lands. Alfonso’s heirs executed a Deed of On September 21, 1988, private respondents filed
Extra-Judicial Partition,8 which included all the a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate
lands that were covered by the four (4) deeds of of the late Segundo Seangio and praying for the
sale that were previously executed by Alfonso for appointment of private respondent Elisa D.
taxation purposes. Conrado, Policronio’s eldest Seangio–Santos as special administrator and
son, representing the Heirs of Policronio, signed guardian ad litem of petitioner Dy Yieng Seangio.
the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition in behalf of his Petitioners Dy Yieng, Barbara and Virginia, all
co-heirs. Heirs of Policronio allegedly learned about surnamed Seangio, opposed the petition. They
the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition involving contended that Segundo left a holographic will,
Alfonso’s estate when it was published in the July dated September 20, 1995, disinheriting one of the
19, 1995 issue of the Aklan Reporter. The Heirs of private respondents, Alfredo Seangio, for cause. In
Policronio averred that the extra-judicial partition is view of the purported holographic will, petitioners
void because Conrado signed the same without averred that in the event the decedent is found to
written authority form his siblings. have left a will, the intestate proceedings are to be
automatically suspended and replaced by the
ISSUE: proceedings for the probate of the will.

WON Conrado Ureta’s lack of capacity to give his The petitioner instituted a petition for the probation
co-heirs’ consent to the Extra-Judicial Partition of the will. Private respondents moved for the
rendered the same voidable. dismissal of the probate proceedings5 primarily on
the ground that the document purporting to be the
RULING: holographic will of Segundo does not contain any
disposition of the estate of the deceased and thus
No. Article 1390 is not applicable in this case. does not meet the definition of a will under Article
Article 1390 (1) contemplates the incapacity of a 783 of the Civil Code. According to private
party to give consent to a contract. What is involved respondents, the will only shows an alleged act of
in the case at bench though is not Conrado’s disinheritance by the decedent of his eldest son,
incapacity to give consent to the contract, but rather Alfredo, and nothing else; that all other compulsory
his lack of authority to do so. Instead, Articles 1403 heirs were not named nor instituted as heir, devisee
(1), 1404, and 1317 of the Civil Code find or legatee, hence, there is preterition which would
application to the circumstances prevailing in this result to intestacy.
case. The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale RTC dismissed the petition for probate proceedings
is not a voidable or an annullable contract under on the reason that there is preterition in the will.
Article 1390 of the New Civil Code. Article 1390
renders a contract voidable if one of the parties is ISSUE:
incapable of giving consent to the contract or if the
contracting party’s consent is vitiated by mistake, Whether the court erred in dismissing the probate
violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. proceeding.
Therefore, Conrado’s failure to obtain authority
from his co-heirs to sign the Deed of Extra-Judicial HELD:
Yes. For disinheritance to be valid, Article 916 of the petition was set for hearing in the lower court,
the Civil Code requires that the same must be Virginia Fernandez and Rosa Diongson, a legally
effected through a will wherein the legal cause adopted daughter and the widow of the deceased
therefor shall be specified. With regard to the respectively, filed a motion to dismiss on the
reasons for the disinheritance that were stated by grounds that: (1) Constantino Acain has no legal
Segundo in his document, the Court believes that capacity to institute the proceedings; (2) he is
the incidents, taken as a whole, can be considered merely a universal heir; and (3) the widow and the
a form of maltreatment of Segundo by his son, adopted daughter have been pretirited. Said motion
Alfredo, and that the matter presents a sufficient was denied as well as the subsequent motion for
cause for the disinheritance of a child or reconsideration. Consequently, Fernandez and
descendant under Article 919 of the Civil Code. Diongson filed with the Supreme Court a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction
Segundo’s document, although it may initially come which was subsequently referred to the
across as a mere disinheritance instrument, Intermediate Appellate Court. IAC granted
conforms to the formalities of a holographic will Fernandez and Diongson’s petition and ordered the
prescribed by law. It is written, dated and signed by trial court to dismiss the petition for probate of the
the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to dispose will. Due to the denial of Acain’s motion for
mortis causa can be clearly deduced from the reconsideration, he then filed a petition for review
terms of the instrument, and while it does not make on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
an affirmative disposition of the latter’s property, the
disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of ISSUE:
disposition in itself. In other words, the
disinheritance results in the disposition of the Whether or not Virginia Fernandez and Rosa
property of the testator Segundo in favor of those Diongson have been preterited.
who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.
HELD:
With regard to the issue on preterition, the Court
believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct line Article 854 of the Civil Code:
were not preterited in the will. It was, in the Court’s
opinion, Segundo’s last expression to bequeath his
The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of
estate to all his compulsory heirs, with the sole
the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether
exception of Alfredo. Also, Segundo did not institute
living at the time of the execution of the will or born
an heir16 to the exclusion of his other compulsory
after the death of the testator, shall annul the
heirs. Considering that the questioned document is
institution of heir; but the devisees and legacies
Segundo’s holographic will, and that the law favors
shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious.
testacy over intestacy, the probate of the will
cannot be dispensed with. Article 838 of the Civil
Code provides that no will shall pass either real or If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before
personal property unless it is proved and allowed in the testator, the institution shall be effectual,
accordance with the Rules of Court. Thus, unless without prejudice to the right of representation.
the will is probated, the right of a person to dispose Preterition consists in the omission in the testator’s
of his property may be rendered nugatory. 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
10. Acain v. IAC are expressly disinherited. Insofar as the widow is
concerned, Article 854 may not apply as she does
not ascend or descend from the testator, although
G.R. No. 72706, 27 October 1987, 155 SCRA 100 she is a compulsory heir. However, the same thing
cannot be said of the legally adopted daughter.
FACTS: 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
Constantino Acain filed on the Regional Trial Court
a petition for the probate of the will of his late he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes
the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. It
Uncle, Nemesio Acain, on the premise that the
latter died leaving a will in which the former and his cannot be denied that she was totally omitted and
preterited in the will and that both the adopted child
brothers and sisters were instituted as heirs. After
and the widow were deprived of at least their parents, and her holographic will does not explicitly
legitime. Neither can it be denied that they were not disinherit them but simply omits their names
expressly disinherited. Hence, this is a clear case altogether, the case is one of preterition of the
of preterition of the legally adopted child. parents, not a case of ineffective disinheritance.
The universal institution of Acain together with his
brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of the Preterition “consists in the omission in the testator’s
testator results in totally abrogating the will because will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either
the nullification of such institution of universal heirs because they are not mentioned therein, or,
without any other testamentary disposition in the through mentioned, they are neither instituted as
will amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was heirs nor are expressly disinherited”.
written. Disinheritance, in turn, “is a testamentary
disposition depriving any compulsory heir of his
11. Nuguid vs Nuguid, No. L-23445, June 23, 1966; share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law”.
17 SCRA 449, digested
Where the one sentence will institutes the petitioner
Posted by Pius Morados on January 4, 2012 as the sole, universal heir and preterits the parents
(Special Proceedings – Difference between of the testatrix, and it contains no specific legacies
Preterition and Disinheritance) or bequests, such universal institution of petitioner,
by itself, is void. And intestate succession ensues.
Facts: Rosario died without descendants,
legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were her 12. Araceli Mayuga vs Antonio Atienza
legitimate parents – Felix and Paz, and 6 brothers Facts:
and sisters.
Araceli Mayuga instituted a petition for
Remedios, one of the sister filed in court a cancellation and recall of free patent application
holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario and reconveyance against Antonio Atienza.
instituting the former as the sole, universal heir of Petitioner alleged that through manipulation and
all her properties. She prayed that said will be misrepresentation with intent to defraud a co-heir,
admitted to probate and that letter of administration respondent Antonio L. Atienza was able to secure a
be issued to her. free patent. Defendant submitted an answer
Felix and Paz opposed to the probate of the will on stating, among others, that the free patent titles
the ground that by the institution of Remedios as have become indefeasible after the lapse of one
universal heir of the deceased, oppositors – who year from its issuance in 1992 and that they and
are compulsory heirs in the direct ascending line – their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
were illegally preterited and that in consequence, public, continuous possession of the subject
the institution is void. property for over 30 years.

Article 854 provides that preterition of one, some or The RTC ruled in favor of Araceli. It ruled
all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, that the application by the defendants of a free
whether living at the time of the execution of the will patent is tainted with fraud because said application
or born after the death of the testator, shall annul was processed without plaintiff’s knowledge. When
the institution of heir. the defendants appealed, it was granted by the CA.
According to the CA, the RTC erred in ordering the
Petitioners contention is that the present is a case reconveyance of 1/3 of the subject properties to the
of ineffective disinheritance rather than one of petitioner since she failed to establish her title and
preterition drawing the conclusion that Article 854 ownership over such portion.
does not apply in the case at bar.
Issue:  WON the institution of one of the sister of
the deceased as the sole, universal heir preterited Issue:
the compulsory heirs.
Held: Yes.  Where the deceased left no
descendants, legitimate or illegitimate, but she left
forced heirs in the direct ascending line – her
I. Should the petition for cancellation and recall of Civil Code, “[s]hould a person make a partition of
free patent application and reconveyance be his estate by an act inter vivos, or by will, such
granted partition shall be respected, insofar as it does not
prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs.”
II. Can Araceli claim preterition?

Since the Civil Code allows partition inter

Held:
vivos, it is incumbent upon the compulsory heir
questioning its validity to show that his legitime is
impaired. Unfortunately, Araceli has not shown to
The action for declaration of nullity of the what extent the Confirmation Affidavit prejudiced
free patents issued in favor of the respondents and her legitime.
the action for reconveyance must fail.

Araceli could not also claim preterition by

As correctly pointed out by the CA and virtue of the Confirmation Affidavit on the
stated earlier, an action for reconveyance involving assumption that the disputed two lots pertained to
land that is titled pursuant to a free patent is one Perfecto’s inheritance, he had only three legal heirs
that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully and he left Araceli with no share in the two lots. Art.
registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner 853 of the Civil Code partly provides: “[t]he
or to one with a better title. As such, two facts must preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the
be alleged in the complaint and proved during the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at
trial, namely: (1) the plaintiff was the owner of the the time of the execution of the will or born after the
land or possessed it in the concept of owner, and death of the testator, shall annul the institution of
(2) the defendant illegally divested him of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid
ownership and dispossessed him of the land. insofar as they are not inofficious.”

Apparently, Araceli had taken the position Although Araceli was a compulsory heir in
that being one of the surviving compulsory heirs of the direct descending line, she could not have been
their late father, Perfecto, she was entitled to 1/3 of preterited. Firstly, Perfecto left no will. As
the disputed lots on the assumption that the contemplated in Art. 854, the presence of a will is
decedent left only three legal heirs (his children necessary. Secondly, before his death, Perfecto
Araceli, Benjamin, Sr. and Armando) and that the had properties in Limon, Rizal which was almost
disputed lots were part of the inheritance left by 50 hectares, part of which was developed for
their father when he died in 1978. Araceli, however, residential and agricultural purposes, and in
overlooked the fact that Perfecto executed that Odiongan. Araceli could not have been totally
Confirmation Affidavit dated June 22, 1973 almost excluded in the inheritance of Perfecto even if she
five years prior to his dead on June 1, 1978. Araceli was not allegedly given any share in the disputed
did not even bother to provide the Court a copy two lots.
thereof so that the Court could make a
determination of its legal import. And the CA
correctly accorded the Confirmation Affidavit the
If Araceli’s share in the inheritance of
legal presumption of validity, being a duly notarized
Perfecto as claimed by her was indeed impaired,
document, where its validity could not be impugned
she could have instituted an action for partition or a
by mere self-serving allegations.
settlement of estate proceedings instead of her
complaint of free patent and reconveyance.

Assuming that Perfecto owned the disputed 13. Testate Estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez
lots and the Confirmation Affidavit was a deed of Maria Luisa Palacios v. Marcelle vda. de
partition, Perfecto could have legally partitioned his Ramirez, et.al.
estate during his lifetime. Under Art. 1080 of the
G.R. No. L-27952, 15 February 1982 G.R. Nos. L-27936 and L-27937, 29 March 1974,
Abad Santos, J. 56 SCRA 266

FACTS FACTS:
Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in
Spain with only his widow as compulsory heir. His Linnie Jane Hodges, an American citizen from
will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Texas, made a will in 1952.
Instance of Manila, Branch X. The administratrix of Unfortunately, she passed away in 1957 while she
was domiciled in Iloilo City.
the estate submitted a project of partition giving one
In her will, she left all her estate in favor of her
part of the estate to the widow “en pleno
husband, Charles Newton Hodges. Linnie,
dominio” in satisfaction of her legitime while the however, also stated in her will that should her
other part of the “free portion” to his two husband later die, said estate shall be turned over
grandnephews Roberto and Jorge Ramirez. to her brother and sister.
Furthermore, one third of the free portion is
charged with the widow’s usufruct and the In 1962, Charles died (it appears he was also
remaining two thirds (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of domiciled in the Philippines).
Wanda Wrobleski. While the probate proceeding on the will of Linnie
was pending, Atty. Leon Gellada, the lawyer of
Jorge and Roberto Ramirez opposed the project of Charles, filed a motion before the probate court so
partition, as well as the substitutions provided by that a certain Avelina Magno may be appointed as
the testator as to the usufructs of the widow and of the administratrix of the estate. The latter was the
Wanda. Nonetheless, the lower court approved the trusted employee of the Hodges when they were
project of partition in its order dated May 1967. alive.
Jorge and Roberto appealed before the Supreme
Court. Atty. Gellada manifested that Charles himself left a
will but the same was in an iron trunk in Charles’
ISSUE office. Hence, in the meantime, he would like to
Whether or not the usufruct over real property in have Magno appointed as administratrix. The said
favor of Wanda violates the Constitutional motion was approved by Judge Venicio Escolin.
prohibition against ownership of lands by alien.
Later, Charles’ will was found and so a new petition
HELD for probate was filed for the said will. Since said will
basically covers the same estate, Magno, as
The Court upheld the validity of the usufruct given admininistratrix of Linnie’s estate opposed the said
to Wanda on the ground that the Constitution petition.
covers not only succession by operation of law, but
also testamentary succession. Any alien would be Eventually, the probate of Charles’ will was
able to circumvent the prohibition by paying money granted. Eventually still, the Philippine Commercial
to a Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise and Industrial Bank was appointed as
of a piece of land. In the present case, the usufruct administrator. But Magno refused to turn over the
in favor of Wanda, although a real right, does not estate.
vest title to the land in the usufructuary. It is the Magno contended that in her will, Linnie wanted
vesting of title in favor of aliens which is proscribed Charles to turn over the property to Linnie’s brother
by the Constitution. and sister and since that is her will, the same must
be respected.
RULING
Magno also contended that Linnie was a Texan at
Estate of Eugenio Ramirez was distributed
the time of her death (an alien testator); that under
according to the SC’s order. Article 16 of the Civil Code, successional rights are
governed by Linnie’s national law; that under Texas
14. Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank law, Linnie’s will shall be respected regardless of
the presence of legitimes (Charles’ share in the
v. Escolin estate).
PCIB argued that the law of Texas refers the matter
back to Philippine laws because Linnie was
domiciled outside Texas at the time of her death
(applying the renvoi doctrine).

ISSUE:

WON Texas Law should apply.

HELD:

The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the

lower court since both parties failed to adduce proof
as to the law of Texas.

The Supreme Court held that for what the Texas

law is on the matter, is a question of fact to be
resolved by the evidence that would be presented
in the probate court. The Supreme Court further
emphasized that Texas law is the applicable law at
the time of Linnie’s death.