aliniel digest

1.Administration of the Estate of Agripino Neri Y Chavez, Eleuterio Neri et al., Petitioner

Vs.

Ignacia Akutin and her children, Respondents

Facts:  Testator in his will left all his property by universal to the children by his second marriage, the respondents, with preterition of the children by his first marriage, the petitioners.  The court annulled the institution of heirs and declared total intestacy.  Motion for reconsideration was filed by the respondents on the ground that there is no preterition and assuming if there was, the effect would not be the annulment of the institution of heirs but simply the reduction of bequest made to them.

Issues: Whether receipt in advance of shares in the properties of the decedent a ground of preterition?

Held:  Upon the findings of facts, all the parcels that corresponds to the decedent is on the hands of the administrator after the inventory was filed in court thus the property of the deceased has remained intact and that no portion has been given to the first marriage. The testator left all his property by universal title to the children by his second marriage and that without expressly disinheriting  the children by first marriage, he left nothing to them upon erroneous belief that he had given them already more shares in his property than those given to the children by the second marriage. This is accordingly a case of preterition governed by Art. 184 of the Civil Code, which provides that the institution of heirs shall be annulled and intestate succession should be declared open.

6.Constantino C. Acain, Petitioner

Vs.

Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, Virginia A Fernandez and Rosa Diongson, Respondents

Facts: On May 29, 1984 petitioner, one of the children of Segundino Acain who was designated to received all the properties of the testator his brother upon his death who however predeceased said testator,  filed a petition for a probate of the will of Nemesio Acain and for the issuance of letters testamentary on the premise that Nemesio Acain died leaving a will in which petitioners and his siblings were instituted as heirs.  Motion to dismiss was filed by the private respondents on the grounds that petitioner has no legal capacity to institute these proceedings as he is merely a universal heir and the widow and adopted daughter were preterited.

Issue:  Whether or not private respondents have been preterited.

Held:  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, they are neither instituted as heir nor are expressly disinherited. Insofar as the widow is concerned, preterition may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from the testator, although she is a compulsory heir and that she is not of the direct line. The adopted daughter however, whose legal adoption has not been questioned by the petitioner cannot be denied that she has totally omitted and preterited in the will and that both were deprived of at least their legitime. Hence, this is a clear case of preterition of the legally adopted child. 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.

2.Rafael Maninang and Soledad Maninang, Petitioners

Vs.

Court of Appeals, Hon. Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. and Bernardo S. Aseneta

Facts: On May 21, 1977, Clemencia Aseneta, single, died leaving a holographic will which provides that all her real and personal properties shall be inherited by Dra. Soledad L. Maninang, after which a petition for the probate of the will was filed by the petitioner at CFI Quezon City while private respondent on the other hand instituted intestate proceedings at CFI Pasig, Rizal being the adopted child and claims to be the sole heir of the decedent.  Both cases were being consolidated in CFI Rizal.  A motion to dismiss the Testate case was filed by the private respondent on the ground that the holographic will was null and void because he as the only compulsory heir was preterited. Petitioner in her opposition averred that it is still the rule that in case for probate of the will, the court’s area of inquiry is limited to an examination of and resolution on the extrinsic validity of the will.  Trial court as sustained by the Court of Appeals denied the opposition thus this case.

Issue:  Whether under the terms of the decedent’s Will, private respondent has been preterited or disinherited and was it a valid disinheritance.

Held:  The court made a distinction between preterition and disinheritance stating that Preterition consist in the omission in the testator’s will of the forced heirs or anyone of them either because they are not mentioned therein or they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited, while, disinheritance is a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heirs of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law. It continued that by virtue of the dismissal of the testate case, the determination of the controversial issue has not been thoroughly considered and opined that the conclusion of the trial court that private respondent was preterited was not indubitable reading it from the face of the will. 

3.Remedios Nuguid, Petitioner

Vs.

Felix Nuguid and Paz Nuguid, Oppositor

Facts:  Rosario Nuguid died single without descendants. Surviving her was her parents the oppositor and six brothers and sisters.  She left a will wherein the petioner submitted for probate and prayed for the letters of administration be issued to her.  On opposition the parents said that by the institution of the petitioner as universal heir of the deceased, compulsory heirs in the direct line were illegally preterited thus the institution is void.

Issue:  Whether the compulsory heirs of the direct line were illegally preterited.

Held: Studying the facts and the law applicable to the case, oppositors received nothing by the testament; tacitly, they were deprived of their legitime neither they were expressly disinherited – a clear case of preterition.  The one-sentence will of the testator institute the petitioner as the sole, universal heir nothing more. No specific legacies or bequests are therein provided for.  It is in this posture that the court says that the nullity is complete. There is no escaping the conclusion that the universal institution of petitioner to the entire inheritance results in totally abrogating the will.

4.J.L.T Agro, Inc. represented by Julian L. Teves, Petitioner

Vs.

Antonio Balansag and Hilaria Cadayday, Respondents

Facts:  The controversy involves a parcel of land registered in the name of conjugal partnership of Don Julian and Antonia (first wife).  When Antonia died an action for partition of properties including the said land was filed.  A compromise agreement was reached in which in the event of death of Don Julian the properties adjudicated to Josefa Teves and Emilio Teves shall be understood as including not only their ½ share which they inherited from their mother but also the legitimes and other successional rights which would correspond to them of the other half belonging to their father meaning, the properties selected and adjudicated to Julian Teves shall exclusively be adjudicated to the wife of second marriage. On the other hand the second wife took possession of the same land in controversy and entered a lease agreement with the spouses respondent which subsequently bought the same. While trying to register the deed of absolute sale, respondent discovered that it was registered in the name of the petitioner. Thus seeking declaration of nullity and cancellation of petitioner’s title.  Trial court however dismissed the case but was reversed by the court of Appeals when it ruled that the adjudication in favor of the heirs from the second marriage became automatically operative upon the approval of the Compromise Agreement, thereby vesting them the right to validly dispose the lot in question in favor of the respondents.

Issue:  Whether Don Julian had validly transferred ownership of the subject lot during his lifetime.

Held:  The lower court ruled that he had done so through the Supplemental Deed.  The appellate court disagreed holding that the supplemental deed is not valid, containing as it does a prohibited preterition of Don Julian’s heirs from the second marriage.  Petitioner contends that the ruling of the Court of Appeals is erroneous.  The contention is well-founded.  Don Julian did not execute a will since what he resorted to was a partition inter vivos making it premature if not irrelevant to speak of preterition prior to the death of Don Julian in the absence of a will depriving a legal heir of his legitime.  Besides, there are other properties which the heirs from the second marriage could inherit from Don Julian upon his death.  However, on the facts involving the proper transfer of title thru the supplemental deed, the appellate court was upheld in taking into consideration the process done in registering the land in the petitioner’s name where even if it be considered a donation inter vivos and the deed was in a public instrument, the absence of the acceptance by the done in the same deed or even in a separate document is a glaring violation of the requirement. Thus court of appeals decision is affirmed.

5.Donato Lajom, Petitioner

Vs.

Hon. Jose N. Leuterio, and Rafael Viola, Respondents

Facts:  Petitioner Donato Lajom was declared natural child of the late Maximo Viola.  He filed a complaint for the nullification of the agreement of partition and distribution executed by the legitimate children of the decedent.  A demurrer was also filed by private respondents on the ground that the will was already probated.  Decision in favor of the petitioner was rendered and a motion for the execution of judgment and collation of all properties of the decedent was filed. After submission of the inventory as required, petitioner noticed that a certain parcel of rice field and its fruits were not being reported which was allegedly donated by the decedent to the private respondent. Petitioner asked that the property be included in the report and also in the redistribution to which the private respondent objected.

Issues:  Whether other properties should be collated or not for future determination.

Held:    Respondent Judge was merely enforcing a decision that had already become final.  Any order directing what was not required in the said decision - and the same contained no pronouncement with respect to the rice land adverted

Above – would be in excess of his jurisdiction and therefore null and void.  It is also alleged that the petitioner having been the victim of preterition, the institution of heirs made by the deceased became ineffective and the original complaint was thereby converted into an intestate proceedings for the settlement of his estate. This contention is clearly untenable.  There might have been merit therein if we were dealing with special proceedings for the settlement of the testate estate of the deceased person, which, in consequence of said preterition, would thereby acquire the character of a proceeding for the intestate estate, with jurisdiction over any and all properties of the deceased.  But civil case 8077 is an ordinary civil action, and the authority of the court having jurisdiction over the same is limited to the properties described in the pleadings, which admittedly do not include the land in controversy.