Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or Sec. 3. Bond to be filed by distributees. - The court,
administration shall be published in a newspaper of before allowing a partition in accordance with the
general circulation in the manner provided in the
provisions of the preceding section, may require the mentally incapacitated, or is in prison or outside the
distributees, if property other than real is to be Philippines, he may present his claim within one (1)
distributed, to file a bond in an amount to be fixed by year after such disability is removed.
court, conditioned for the payment of any just claim
which may be filed under the next succeeding RULE 75
section. PRODUCTION OF WILL;
ALLOWANCE OF WILL NECESSARY
Sec. 4. Liability of distributees and estate. - If it shall
appear at any time within two (2) years after the Sec. 1. Allowances necessary; Conclusive as to
settlement and distribution of an estate in execution. - No will shall pass either real or personal
accordance with the provisions of either of the first estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper
two sections of this rule, that an heir or other person court. Subject to the right of appeal, such allowance
has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation of the will shall be conclusive as to its due execution.
in the estate, such heir or such other person may chanrobles virtua law library
compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in Sec. 2. Custodian of will to deliver. - The person who
the manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of has custody of a will shall, within twenty (20) days
satisfying such lawful participation. And if within the after he knows of the death of the testator, deliver
same time of two (2) years, it shall appear that there the will to the court having jurisdiction, or to the
are debts outstanding against the estate which have executor named in the will.
not been paid, or that an heir or other person has
been unduly deprived of his lawful participation Sec. 3. Executor to present will and accept or refuse
payable in money, the court having jurisdiction of the trust. - A person named as executor in a will shall,
estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, within twenty (20) days after he knows of the death
settle the amount of such debts or lawful of the testator, or within twenty (20) days after knows
participation and order how much and in what that he is named executor if he obtained such
manner each distributee shall contribute in the knowledge after the death of the testator, present
payment thereof, and may issue execution, if such will to the court having jurisdiction, unless the
circumstances require, against the bond provided in will has reached the court in any other manner, and
the preceding section or against the real estate shall, within such period, signify to the court in
belonging to the deceased, or both. Such bond and writing his acceptance of the trust or his refusal to
such real estate shall remain charged with a liability accept it. chanrobles virtual law library
to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full period
of two (2) years after such distribution, Sec. 4. Custodian and executor subject to fine for
notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may neglect. - A person who neglects any of the duties
have been made. required in the two last preceding sections without
excuse satisfactory to the court shall be fined not
Sec. 5. Period for claim of minor or incapacitated exceeding two thousand pesos.
person. - If on the date of the expiration of the period
of two (2) years prescribed in the preceding section Sec. 5. Person retaining will may be committed. - A
the person authorized to file a claim is a minor or person having custody of a will after the death of the
testator who neglects without reasonable cause to Sec. 3. Court to appoint time for proving will. - Notice
deliver the same, when ordered so to do, to the thereof to be published. When a will is delivered to,
court having jurisdiction, may be committed to prison or a petition for the allowance of a will is filed in, the
and there kept until he delivers the will. court having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time
and place for proving the will when all concerned
may appear to contest the allowance thereof, and
RULE 76 shall cause notice of such time and place to be
ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL published three (3) weeks successively, previous to
the time appointed, in a newspaper of general
Sec. 1. Who may petition for the allowance of will. - circulation in the province.
Any executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or
any other person interested in the estate, may, at But no newspaper publication shall be made where
any time after the death of the testator, petition the the petition for probate has been filed by the testator
court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed, himself.
whether the same be in his possession or not, or is
lost or destroyed. Sec. 4. Heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors to
The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition be notified by mail or personally. - The court shall
the court for the allowance of his will. also cause copies of the notice of the time and place
fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the
Sec. 2. Contents of petition. - A petition for the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and
allowance of a will must show, so far as known to devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines at
the petitioner: their places of residence, and deposited in the post
office with the postage thereon prepaid at least
(a) The jurisdictional facts; twenty (20) days before the hearing, if such places
(b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, of residence be known. A copy of the notice must in
legatees, and devisees of the testator or decedent; like manner be mailed to the person named as
executor, if he be not be petitioner; also, to any
(c) The probable value and character of the property person named as co-executor not petitioning, if their
of the estate; places of residence be known. Personal service of
copies of the notice at least ten (10) days before the
(d) The name of the person for whom letters are day of hearing shall be equivalent to mailing.
prayed;
If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will,
(e) If the will has not been delivered to the court, the notice shall be sent only to his compulsory heirs.
name of the person having custody of it.
Sec. 5. Proof at hearing. - What sufficient in absence
But no defect in the petition shall render void the of contest. At the hearing compliance with the
allowance of the will, or the issuance of letters provisions of the last two preceding sections must
testamentary or of administration with the will be shown before the introduction of testimony in
annexed. support of the will. All such testimony shall be taken
under oath and reduced to writing. If no person testator and others, as would be pertinent and
appears to contest the allowance of the will, the competent if the original will were present.
court may grant allowance thereof on the testimony
of one of the subscribing witnesses only, if such Sec. 8. Proof when witnesses dead or insane or do
witness testify that the will was executed as is not reside in the Philippines. - If it appears at the
required by law. time fixed for the hearing that the subscribing
witnesses are dead or insane, or that none of them
In the case of a holographic will, it shall be resides in the Philippines, the court may admit the
necessary that at least one witness who knows the testimony of other witnesses to prove the sanity of
handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly the testator, and the due execution of the will; and
declare that the will and the signature are in the as evidence of the execution of the will, it may admit
handwriting of the testator. In the absence of any proof of the handwriting of the testator and of the
such competent witness, and if the court deem it subscribing witnesses, or of any of them.
necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.
Sec. 9. Grounds for disallowing will. - The will shall
Sec. 6. Proof of lost or destroyed will. - Certificate be disallowed in any of the following cases:
thereupon. No will shall be proved as a lost or
destroyed will unless the execution and validity of (a) If not executed and attested as required by law;
the same be established, and the will is proved to (b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally
have been in existence at the time of death of the incapable to make a will, at the time of its execution;
testator, or is shown to have been fraudulently or
accidentally destroyed in the lifetime of the testator (c) If it was executed under duress, or the influence
without his knowledge, nor unless its provisions are of fear, or threats;
clearly and distinctly proved by at least two (2)
credible witnesses. When a lost will is proved, the (d) If it was procured by undue and improper
provisions thereof must be distinctly stated and pressure and influence, on the part of the
certified by the judge, under the seal of the court, beneficiary, or of some other person for his benefit;
and the certificate must be filed and recorded as
other wills are filed and recorded. (e) If the signature of the testator was procured by
fraud or trick, and he did not intend that the
Sec. 7. Proof when witnesses do not reside in instrument should be his will at the time of fixing his
province. - If it appears at the time fixed for the signature thereto.
hearing that none of the subscribing witnesses
resides in the province, but that the deposition of Sec. 10. Contestant to file grounds of contest. -
one or more of them can be taken elsewhere, the Anyone appearing to contest the will must state in
court may, on motion, direct it to be taken, and may writing his grounds for opposing its allowance, and
authorize a photographic copy of the will to be made serve a copy thereof on the petitioner and other
and to be presented to the witness on his parties interested in the estate.
examination, who may be asked the same questions
with respect to it, and to the handwriting of the
Sec. 11. Subscribing witnesses produced or
accounted for where will contested. - If the will is Sec. 13. Certificate of allowance attached to proved
contested, all the subscribing witnesses, and the will. - To be recorded in the Office of Register of
notary in the case of wills executed under the Civil Deeds. If the court is satisfied, upon proof taken and
Code of the Philippines, if present in the Philippines filed, that the will was duly executed, and that the
and not insane, must be produced and examined, testator at the time of its execution was of sound and
and the death, absence, or insanity of any of them disposing mind, and not acting under duress,
must be satisfactory shown to the court. If all or menace, and undue influence, or fraud, a certificate
some of such witnesses are present in the of its allowance, signed by the judge, and attested
Philippines but outside the province where the will by the seal of the court shall be attached to the will
has been filed, their deposition must be taken. If any and the will and certificate filed and recorded by the
or all of them testify against the due execution of the clerk. Attested copies of the will devising real estate
will, or do not remember having attested to it, or are and of certificate of allowance thereof, shall be
otherwise of doubtful credibility, the will may, recorded in the register of deeds of the province in
nevertheless, be allowed if the court is satisfied from which the lands lie.
the testimony of other witnesses and from all the
evidence presented that the will was executed and
attested in the manner required by law.
1. Ernesto and Rosario, legitimate son and natural daughter of the RULING: YES.
deceased Victorino L. Guevara, are litigating here over their
inheritance from the latter. We cannot sanction the procedure adopted by the respondent
Rosario Guevara, it being in our opinion in violation of procedural law and an
2. The action was commenced by Rosario to recover from Ernesto attempt to circumvent and disregard the last will and testament of the
what she claims to be her strict legitime as an acknowledged natural decedent.
daughter of the deceased.
3. It appears that in 1931, their father executed a will wherein he made Sec. 625. Allowance Necessary, and Conclusive as to Execution. — No will
bequests and devises to various persons and he set aside 100 shall pass either the real or personal estate, unless it is proved and allowed
hectares of a land he owns to be disposed of either by him during his in the Court of First Instance, or by appeal to the Supreme Court; and the
lifetime or by his attorney-in-fact Ernesto in order to pay all his allowance by the court of a will of real and personal estate shall be
pending debts and to defray his expenses and those of his family us conclusive as to its due execution.
to the time of his death.
Sec. 626. Custodian of Will to Deliver. — The person who has the custody of
4. Subsequently, a deed was executed by their father selling, a will shall, within thirty days after he knows of the death of the testator,
conveying and transferring to Ernesto the entire parcel of land. deliver the will into the court which has jurisdiction, or to the executor named
in the will.
5. In 1933, Victorino died.
Sec. 627. Executor to Present Will and Accept or Refuse Trust. — A person
6. His last will and testament, however, was never presented to the named as executor in a will, shall within thirty days after he knows of the
court for probate, nor has any administration proceeding ever been death of the testor, or within thirty days after he knows that he is named
instituted for the settlement of his estate. executor, if he obtained such knowledge after knowing of the death of the
testor, present such will to the court which has jurisdiction, unless the will has
7. In the meantime Rosario Guevara, who appears to have had her been otherwise returned to said court, and shall, within such period, signify to
father's last will and testament in her custody, did nothing judicially to the court his acceptance of the trust, or make known in writing his refusal to
invoke the testamentary dispositions made therein in her favor. accept it.
The proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, with notice by
8. Four years after the testor's demise, she (assisted by her husband) publication to the whole world and with personal notice to each of the known
commenced the present action and it was only during the trial of this heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator (section 630, C. c. P., and
case that she presented the will to the court, not for the purpose of sections 3 and 4, Rule 77). Altho not contested (section 5, Rule 77), the due
having it probated but only to prove that the deceased Victorino had execution of the will and the fact that the testator at the time of its execution
acknowledged her as his natural daughter. was of sound and disposing mind and not acting under duress, menace, and
undue influence or fraud, must be proved to the satisfaction of the court, and
only then may the will be legalized and given effect by means of a certificate
9. Upon that proof of acknowledgment she claimed her share of the of its allowance, signed by the judge and attested by the seal of the court;
inheritance from him, but on the theory or assumption that he died and when the will devises real property, attested copies thereof and of the
intestate, because the will had not been probated, for which reason, certificate of allowance must be recorded in the register of deeds of the
she asserted, the betterment therein made by the testator in favor of province in which the land lies.
his legitimate son Ernesto M. Guevara should be disregarded.
The presentation of a will to the court for probate is mandatory and In the instant case there is no showing that the various legatees other than
its allowance by the court is essential and indispensable to its efficacy. the present litigants had received their respective legacies or that they had
knowledge of the existence and of the provisions of the will. Their right under
the will cannot be disregarded, nor may those rights be obliterated on
Section 1 of Rule 74 provides as follows: account of the failure or refusal of the custodian of the will to present it to the
court for probate.
Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. — If
the decedent left no debts and the heirs and legatees are all of age, Even if the decedent left no debts and nobdy raises any question as to the
or the minors are represented by their judicial guardians, the parties authenticity and due execution of the will, none of the heirs may sue for the
may, without securing letters of administration, divide the estate partition of the estate in accordance with that will without first securing its
among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument allowance or probate by the court, first, because the law expressly provides
filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, that "no will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and
they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one allowed in the proper court"; and, second, because the probate of a will,
heir or one legatee, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by which is a proceeding in rem, cannot be dispensed with the substituted by
means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds. It any other proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial, without offending against
shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a public policy designed to effectuate the testator's right to dispose of his
petition for letters of administration within two years after the death of property by will in accordance with law and to protect the rights of the heirs
the decedent. and legatees under the will thru the means provided by law, among which
are the publication and the personal notices to each and all of said heirs and
legatees. Nor may the court approve and allow the will presented in evidence
in such an action for partition, which is one in personam, any more than it
Section 1 of Rule 74 merely authorizes the extrajudicial or judicial
could decree the registration under the Torrens system of the land involved
partition of the estate of a decedent "without securing letter of
in an ordinary action for reinvindicacion or partition.
administration." It does not say that in case the decedent left a will the heirs
and legatees may divide the estate among themselves without the necessity
of presenting the will to the court for probate. The petition to probate a will
and the petition to issue letters of administration are two different things,
altho both may be made in the same case. the allowance of a will precedes
the issuance of letters testamentary or of administration (section 4, Rule 78).
One can have a will probated without necessarily securing letters
testamentary or of administration. We hold that under section 1 of Rule 74, in
relation to Rule 76, if the decedent left a will and no debts and the heirs and
legatees desire to make an extrajudicial partition of the estate, they must first
present that will to the court for probate and divide the estate in accordance
with the will. They may not disregard the provisions of the will unless those
provisions are contrary to law. Neither may they so away with the
presentation of the will to the court for probate, because such suppression of
the will is contrary to law and public policy. 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, as is attempted to be done in the
instant case. Absent legatees and devisees, or such of them as may have no
knowledge of the will, could be cheated of their inheritance thru the collusion
of some of the heirs who might agree to the partition of the estate among
themselves to the exclusion of others.
iii. Dela Cerna v. Potot, 12 SCRA 576 (1964) pass upon her death to her intestate heirs and not to the testamentary heir,
unless some other valid will is shown to exist in favor of the latter or unless
FACTS: the testamentary heir is the only heir of said wife.
2. Bernabe dela Cerna died on August 30, 1939, and the aforesaid will
was probated on October 31, 1939.
4. The second probate was denied because the will was allegedly
executed contrary to the prohibition of joint wills.
ISSUE
Whether a joint will may be denied subsequent probate after it was admitted
in prior probate proceedings.
RULING: NO.
It is true the law (Art. 669, old Civil Code; Art. 818, new Civil Code) prohibits
the making of a will jointly by two or more persons either for their reciprocal
benefit or for the benefit of a third person.
However, as in the present case, the joint last will and testament has been
admitted to probate by final order of a Court of competent jurisdiction, so that
there seems to be no alternative except to give effect to the provisions
thereof that are not contrary to law. It follows that the validity of the joint will,
in so far as the estate of Gervasia was concerned, must be, on her death,
reexamined and adjudicated de novo, since a joint will is considered a
separate will of each testator.
Effects of validity of joint will as to share of wife who dies later than the
husband.—Where a husband and wife executed a joint will and upon the
death of the husband said will was admitted to probate by a final decree of
the court although erroneous, and the wife dies later, it is held that said first
decree of probate affects only the estate of the husband but cannot affect the
estate of the wife, considering that a joint will is a separate will of each
testator; and a joint will being prohibited by law, the estate of the wife should
iv. Gallanosa v. Arcangel, 83 SCRA 676 (1978)
9. Leon Hitosis, heirs of Florentino's deceased brothers and sisters
FACTS: instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon against
Pedro Gallanosa for the recovery of the said 61 parcels of land.
1. Florentino Hitosis executed a will in the Bicol dialect on June 19,
1938 when he was eighty years old. He died on May 26, 1939 at
10. Hitosis and Heirs:
Irosin, Sorsogon. A childless widower, he as survived by his brother,
Leon Hitosis. His other brothers, named Juan, Tito (Juancito),
- they, by themselves or through their
Leoncio (Aloncio) trial Apolonio and only sister, Teodora, were all
predecessors-in-interest, had been in
dead.
continuous possession of those lands
11. Gallanosa moved to dismiss the above complaint for lack of cause of
2. A petition for the probate of his will was filed in the Court of First action trial on the ground of bar by the prior judgment in the probate
Instance of Sorsogon. The notice of hearing was duly published. proceeding.
3. In that will, Florentino bequeathed his one-half share in the conjugal 12. LC dismiss the complaint. Dismissed their opposition and Ordered
estate to his second wife, Tecla Dollentas, and, should Tecla the probate of his will because the oppositors did not file any appeal
predecease him, as was the case, his one-half share would be within the period fixed by law, despite the fact that they were duly
assigned to the spouses Pedro Gallanosa and Corazon Grecia, the thereof, so that the said decision had become final and it now
reason being that Pedro, Tecla's son by her first marriage, grew up constitutes a bar to any action that the plaintiffs may institute for the
under the care of Florentino; he had treated Pedro as his foster child, purpose of seeking a redetermination of their right to inherit the
and Pedro has rendered services to Florentino and Tecla. properties of the late Florentino Hitosis. In other words, the said
decision of this Court in 1939, which they intervened as parties
4. Leon opposed the probate of the will. oppositors, constitutes a final judicial determination of the issue that
they have no legal rights to succeed to any of the properties of the
5. Trial Court admitted the will to probate and appointed Gallanosa as late Florentino Hitosis; consequently, their present claim to the
executor. Judge Rivera specifically found that the testator executed ownership and possession of the 61 parcels of land in question is
his last will "enjoying good health and mental faculties and not acting without any legal merit or basis.
under threat, fraud or undue influence " [1939 DECREE OF
PROBATE].
WON allowance of will (prayed for in 1967 complaint) is valid given the 1939
6. The testamentary heirs, the Gallanosa spouses submitted a project decree of probate and the 1952 order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 696
of partition covering 61 parcels of land which was approved thus
HELD: NO
confirming the heirs' possession of their respective shares.
Ratio After the finality of the allowance of a will, the issue as to the
7. voluntariness of its execution cannot be raised anymore (Santos vs. De
8. The testator's legal heirs did not appeal from the decree of probate Buenaventura).
(1939) and from the order of partition and distribution (1941) of 61
parcels of land by Gallanosa spouses and Fortajada. The 1939 decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution or
formal validity of the will (Sec. 625, Act 190; sec. 1, Rule 76, now sec. 1,
Rule 75, Rules of Court; Last par. of art. 838, Civil Code). That means that
the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time when he executed
the will and was not acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence;
that the will was signed by him in the presence of the required number of
witnesses, and that the will is genuine and is not a forgery. Accordingly,
these facts cannot again be questioned in a subsequent proceeding, not
even in a criminal action for the forgery of the will. (3 Moran's Comments on
the Rules of Court, 1970 Edition, p. 395; Manahan vs. Manahan).
-Austria vs. Ventenilla > a "petition for annulment of a will" was not
entertained after the decree of probate had become final.
"Wills; Probate; Alleged Fraudulent Will; Appeal. V. died. His will was
admitted to probate without objection. No appeal was taken from said
order. It was admitted that due and legal notice had been given to all
parties. Fifteen months after the date of said order, a motion was
presented in the lower court to have said will declared null and void, for the
reason that fraud had been practiced upon the deceased in the making of
his will.
"Held: That under section 625 of Act No. 190, the only time given parties
who are displeased with the order admitting to probate a will, for an appeal
is the time given for appeals in ordinary actions; but without deciding
whether or not an order admitting a will to probate will be opened for fraud,
after the time allowed for an appeal has expired, when no appeal is taken
from an order probating a will, the heirs can not, in subsequent litigation in
the same proceedings, raise questions relating to its due execution. The
probate of a will is conclusive as to its due execution and as to the
testamentary capacity of the testator." (See Austria vs. Heirs of Ventenilla,
99 Phil. 1069).
v. Nepomuceno v. CA, 139 SCRA 206 (1985) ISSUE
WON the respondent court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after
FACTS: declaring the last Will and Testament of the deceased Martin Jugo validly
drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary
1. Martin Jugo died with last Will and Testament with all the formalities provision in favor of herein petitioner.
required by law.
HELD: NO.
2. In the said Will, the testator named and appointed herein petitioner
Sofia J. Nepomuceno as his sole and only executor of his estate. The general rule is that in probate proceedings, the court's area of
inquiry is limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of
3. It is clearly stated in the Will that the testator was legally married to a the Will. The rule, however, is not inflexible and absolute. Given exceptional
certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children, circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation
Oscar and Carmelita, but since 1952, he had been estranged from constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the Will.
his lawfully wedded wife and had been living with petitioner as
husband and wife. Reasoning:
4. In fact, on December 5, 1952, the testator Martin Jugo and the a. In Nuguid v. Nuguid, the testator instituted the petitioner as universal
petitioner herein, Sofia J. Nepomuceno were married in Victoria, heir and completely preterited her surviving forced heirs. A will of this
Tarlac before the Justice of the Peace. nature, no matter how valid it may appear extrinsically, would be null
and void. Separate or latter proceedings to determine the intrinsic
5. The testator devised to his forced heirs, namely, his legal wife Rufina validity of the testamentary provisions would be superfluous.
Gomez and his children Oscar and Carmelita his entire estate and
the free portion thereof to herein petitioner. b. The prohibition in Article 739 of the Civil Code is against the making
of a donation between persons who are living in adultery or
6. The petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the last Will and concubinage. It is the donation which becomes void. The giver
Testament of the deceased Martin Jugo in the CFI Rizal and asked cannot give even assuming that the recipient may receive. The very
for the issuance to her of letters testamentary. wordings of the Will invalidate the legacy because the testator
admitted he was disposing the properties to a person with whom he
7. The legal wife of the testator, Rufina Gomez and her children filed an had been living in concubinage.
opposition.
(Note: The defense of Nepomuceno that she was not aware that
LC: The lower court denied the probate of the Will on the ground that as the Jugo was married was not believed by the court.)
testator admitted in his Will to cohabiting with the petitioner from December
1952 until his death on July 16, 1974, the Will's admission to probate will be
an idle exercise because on the face of the Will, the invalidity of its intrinsic
provisions is evident.
CA: set aside the decision of the CFI of Rizal denying the probate of the will.
The CA declared the Will to be valid except that the devise in favor of the
petitioner is null and void pursuant to Article 7391 in relation with Article 1028.
FACTS:
1. Rosario Nuguid died without descendants, legitime or illegitimate. Nov. 17, 1951
2. Surviving her were her legitimate parents, Felix Nuguid and Paz
SalongaNuguid, and six (6) brothers and sisters, namely: Alfredo,
I, ROSARIO NUGUID, being of sound and disposing
Federico, Remedios, Conrado, Lourdes and Alberto, all surnamed
mind and memory, having amassed a certain amount of
Nuguid.
property, do hereby give, devise and bequeath all of the
property which I may have when I die to my beloved sister
RemediosNuguid, age 34, residing with me at 38-B Iriga, Q.C.
3. Petitioner Remedios Nuguid filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal
In witness whereof, I have signed my name this seventeenth
a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario Nuguid some 11 years
before her demise. day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.
4. Petitioner prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letters of
administration with the will annexed be issued to her.
Sgd. (Illegible)
5. On June 25, 1963, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, concededly T/ ROSARIO NUGUID
the legitimate father and mother of the deceased Rosario Nuguid,
entered their opposition to the probate of her will.
6. They stated that by the institution of petitioner RemediosNuguid as The statute we are called upon to apply is Article 854 of the Civil Code which, in
universal heir of the deceased, oppositors - who are compulsory heirs part, provides:
of the deceased in the direct ascending line - were illegally preterited
and that in consequence the institution is void.
7. Oppositors moved to dismiss on the ground of absolute preterition ART. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some or all of
before a hearing was had on the petition for probate and objection. 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 heirs, but the devises and
LC: held that "the will in question is a complete nullity and will perforce create
legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious.
intestacy of the estate of the deceased Rosario Nuguid" and dismissed the
petition without cost.
ISSUE: WON the will is null and void ANNUL. To reduce to nothing; annihilate; obliterate; to make
void or of no effect; to nullify; to abolish; to do away with.
(Citations omitted.)
HELD: Yes.
In this case, 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 SalongaNuguid. 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. 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 the court says that the nullity is complete.
Perforce, Rosario Nuguid died intestate. Says Manresa:
The statement in Article 854 that, annulment notwithstanding, 'the devices and
legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious." Legacies and devices
merit consideration only when they are so expressly given as such in a will.
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
The disputed order 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 provides for the institution of petitioner as universal heir,
and nothing more, the result is the same. The entire will is null.
vii. Maloles v. Phillips, G.R. Nos. 129505 and 133359, - that the probate proceedings in Sp. Proc.
31 January 2000 No. M-4223 before Branch 61 of the same
court was still pending;
FACTS: - that private respondent misdeclared the true
worth of the testator’s estate;
1. Dr. Arturo de Santos, Filipino and a resident of Makati City, filed a
- that private respondent was not fit to be the
petition for probate of his will1in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61,
special administrator of the estate; and
Makati.
- that petitioner should be given letters of
2. Dr. De Santos alleged that he had no compulsory heirs; that he had administration for the estate of Dr. De
named in his will as sole legatee and devisee the Arturo de Santos Santos.
Foundation, Inc. -
3. and that copies of said will were in the custody of the named 9. Judge Abad Santos ordered the transfer of case to Branch 61, on the
executrix, private respondent Pacita de los Reyes Phillips. A copy of ground that “[it] is related to the case before Judge Gorospe of RTC
the will2 was annexed to the petition for probate. Branch 61.
LC: granted the petition, allowed the will 10. Judge Gorospe issued an order, dated September 4, 1996, returning
the records of case to Branch 65 on the ground that there was a
4. Shortly after the probate of his will, Dr. De Santos died. pending case involving the Estate of Decedent Arturo de Santos
pending before said court.
5. Petitioner Octavio S. Maloles II filed a motion for intervention
claiming that he was the sole full-blooded nephew and nearest of kin 11. LC granted his Motion for Intervention.
of Dr. De Santos. He likewise alleged that he was a creditor of the 12. Pacita: MR; denied
testator. Petitioner thus prayed for the reconsideration of the order 13. CA set aside the trial court’s order on the ground that Maloles had
allowing the will and the issuance of letters of administration in his not shown any right or interest to intervene
name.
10. PROBATE COURT set the hearing on the intrinsic validity of the will
for March 25, 1980, but upon objection of PASTOR, JR. and SOFIA
ix. Coso v. Fernandez, 42 Phil 596 (1921)