Article 854 will[2] was annexed to the petition for

probate.

On February 16, 1996, Judge Fernando

[G.R. No. 129505. January 31, 2000] V. Gorospe, Jr. of RTC-Makati, Branch
61 issued an order granting the petition
OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, and allowing the will. The order reads:
vs. PACITA DE LOS REYES
PHILLIPS, respondent. On 03 August 1995, the Court
issued an Order setting the
[G.R. No. 133359. January 31, 2000] hearing of the petition on 12
September 1995, at 8:30 oclock in
OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, the morning, copies of which were
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. served to Arturo de Santos
FERNANDO V. GOROSPE, JR., in his Foundation, Inc. and Ms. Pacita
Official Capacity as Presiding Judge de los Reyes Phillips (Officers
of RTC-Makati, Branch 61, and Return, dated 04 September 1995
PACITA PHILLIPS as the alleged attached to the records). When
executrix of the alleged will of the the case was called for hearing on
late Dr. Arturo de the date set, no oppositor
Santos, respondents. Scmis appeared nor any written
opposition was ever filed and on
DECISION motion of petitioner, he was
allowed to adduce his evidence in
MENDOZA, J.: support of the petition.
These are petitions for review Petitioner personally appeared
on certiorari of the decisions of the before this Court and was placed
Thirteenth and the Special Eighth on the witness stand and was
Divisions of the Court of Appeals which directly examined by the Court
ruled that petitioner has no right to through "free wheeling" questions
intervene in the settlement of the estate and answers to give this Court a
of Dr. Arturo de Santos. The cases were basis to determine the state of
consolidated considering that they mind of the petitioner when he
involve the same parties and some of executed the subject will. After the
the issues raised are the same. examination, the Court is
convinced that petitioner is of
The facts which gave rise to these two sound and disposing mind and not
petitions are as follows: acting on duress, menace and
undue influence or fraud, and that
On July 20, 1995, Dr. Arturo de Santos,
petitioner signed his Last Will and
Filipino and a resident of Makati City,
Testament on his own free and
filed a petition for probate of his will[1] in
voluntary will and that he was
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61,
neither forced nor influenced by
Makati, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. M-
any other person in signing it. Mis
4223. In his petition, Dr. De Santos
sc
alleged that he had no compulsory
heirs; that he had named in his will as Furthermore, it appears from the
sole legatee and devisee the Arturo de petition and the evidence adduced
Santos Foundation, Inc.; that he that petitioner in his lifetime,
disposed by his will his properties with executed his Last Will and
an approximate value of not less than Testament (Exhs. "A", "A-1", "A-
P2,000,000.00; and that copies of said 2", "A-4", "A-5") at his residence
will were in the custody of the named situated at 9 Bauhinia corner
executrix, private respondent Pacita de Intsia Streets, Forbes Park,
los Reyes Phillips. A copy of the
1

Makati City; said Last Will and

Page

Testament was signed in the

presence of his three (3) and voluntarily and that the
witnesses, namely, to wit: Dr. testator has intended that the
Elpidio Valencia (Exhs. "A-6", "A- instrument should be his Will at
7", "A-8", "A-16", "A-16-A"), Atty. the time of affixing his signature
Edward J. Berenguer (Exhs. "A- thereto.
3", "A-3-A", "A-9", "A-10", & "A-
11"), and Atty. Victoria C. delos WHEREFORE, as prayed for by
Reyes (Exhs. "A-12", "A-13", "A- the petitioner (testator himself) the
14", "A-17", & "A-18"), who in turn, petition for the allowance of the
in the presence of the testator and Last Will and Testament of Arturo
in the presence of each and all of de Santos is hereby APPROVED
the witnesses signed the said Last and ALLOWED.
Will and Testament and duly
notarized before Notary Public Shortly after the probate of his will, Dr.
Anna Melissa L. Rosario (Exh. "A- De Santos died on February 26, 1996.
15"); on the actual execution of
the Last Will and Testament, On April 3, 1996, petitioner Octavio S.
pictures were taken (Exhs. "B" to Maloles II filed a motion for intervention
"B-3"). claiming that, as the only child of Alicia
de Santos (testators sister) and Octavio
Petitioner has no compulsory L. Maloles, Sr., he was the sole full-
heirs and Arturo de Santos blooded nephew and nearest of kin of
Foundation, Inc., with address at Dr. De Santos. He likewise alleged that
No. 9 Bauhinia corner Intsia he was a creditor of the testator.
Streets, Forbes Park, Makati City Petitioner thus prayed for the
has been named as sole legatee reconsideration of the order allowing the
and devisee of petitioners will and the issuance of letters of
properties, real and personal, administration in his name. Mis spped
approximately valued at not less
than P2 million, Ms. Pacita de los On the other hand, private respondent
Reyes Phillips was designated as Pacita de los Reyes Phillips, the
executor and to serve as such designated executrix of the will, filed a
without a bond. motion for the issuance of letters
testamentary with Branch 61. Later,
From the foregoing facts, the however, private respondent moved to
Court finds that the petitioner has withdraw her motion. This was granted,
substantially established the while petitioner was required to file a
material allegations contained in memorandum of authorities in support of
his petition. The Last Will and his claim that said court (Branch 61) still
Testament having been executed had jurisdiction to allow his
[3]
and attested as required by law; intervention.
that testator at the time of the
execution of the will was of sane Petitioner filed his memorandum of
mind and/or not mentally authorities on May 13, 1996. On the
incapable to make a Will; nor was other hand, private respondent, who
it executed under duress or under earlier withdrew her motion for the
the influence of fear or threats; issuance of letters testamentary in
that it was in writing and executed Branch 61, refiled a petition for the
in the language known and same purpose with the Regional Trial
understood by the testator duly Court, Makati, which was docketed as
subscribed thereof and attested Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 and assigned to
and subscribed by three (3) Branch 65.
credible witnesses in the
presence of the testator and of Upon private respondents motion,
another; that the testator and all Judge Salvador Abad Santos of Branch
2

the attesting witnesses signed the 65 issued an order, dated June 28,
Page

Last Will and Testament freely

1996, appointing her as special SANTOS pending before this
administrator of Dr. De Santoss estate. Branch.

On July 29, 1996, petitioner sought to There is, however, a case filed by
intervene in Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 and ARTURO DE SANTOS, as
to set aside the appointment of private petitioner under Rule 76 of the
respondent as special administrator. He Rules of Court for the Allowance
reiterated that he was the sole and full of his will during his lifetime
blooded nephew and nearest of kin of docketed as SP. PROC. NO. M-
the testator; that he came to know of the 4223 which was already decided
existence of Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 only on 16 February 1996 and has
by accident; that the probate become final.
proceedings in Sp. Proc. No. M-4223
before Branch 61 of the same court was It is noted on records of Case No.
still pending; that private respondent M-4223 that after it became final,
misdeclared the true worth of the herein Petitioner Pacita de los
testators estate; that private respondent Reyes Phillips filed a MOTION
was not fit to be the special FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
administrator of the estate; and that LETTERS TESTAMENTARY,
petitioner should be given letters of which was subsequently
administration for the estate of Dr. De withdrawn after this Court, during
Santos. the hearing, already ruled that the
motion could not be admitted as
On August 28, 1996, Judge Abad the subject matter involves a
Santos ordered the transfer of Sp. Proc. separate case under Rule 78 of
No. M-4343 to Branch 61, on the ground the Rules of Court, and movant
that "[it] is related to the case before withdrew her motion and filed this
Judge Gorospe of RTC Branch 61 . . ." case (No. 4343).

It appears, however, that in Sp. Proc. Octavio de Santos Maloles [II]

No. M-4223, Judge Gorospe had denied filed a MOTION FOR
on August 26, 1996 petitioners motion INTERVENTION before Case No.
for intervention. Petitioner brought this M-4223 and this motion was
matter to the Court of Appeals which, in already DENIED in the order
a decision[4] promulgated on February (Branch 61) of 26 August 1996
13, 1998, upheld the denial of likewise for the same grounds that
petitioners motion for intervention. the matter is for a separate case
to be filed under Rule 78 of the
Meanwhile, Judge Gorospe issued an Rules of Court and cannot be
order, dated September 4, 1996, included in this case filed under
returning the records of Sp. Proc. No. Rule 76 of the Rules of Court.
M-4343 to Branch 65 on the ground that
there was a pending case involving the It is further noted that it is a matter
Estate of Decedent Arturo de Santos of policy that consolidation of
pending before said court. The order cases must be approved by the
reads: Spped Presiding Judges of the affected
Branches.
Acting on the ORDER dated 28
August 1996 of Branch 65, this Initially, in his decision dated September
Court, transferring this case to this 23, 1996,[5] Judge Abad Santos
Branch 61 on the ground that this appeared firm in his position that " . . . it
case is related with a case before would be improper for (Branch 65) to
this Court, let this case be hear and resolve the petition (Sp. Proc.
returned to Branch 65 with the No. M-4343)," considering that the
information that there is no related probate proceedings were commenced
3

case involving the ESTATE OF with Branch 61. He thus ordered the
Page

DECEDENT ARTURO DE transfer of the records back to the latter

branch. However, he later recalled his an order allowing the will of Dr.
decision and took cognizance of the Arturo de Santos
case "to expedite the proceedings."
Thus, in his Order, dated October 21, 2. Whether or not the Honorable
1996, he stated: (Regional Trial Court - Makati,
Branch 65) acquired jurisdiction
Considering the refusal of the over the petition for issuance of
Hon. Fernando V. Gorospe, Jr. of letters testamentary filed by
Branch 61 to continue hearing this (private) respondent.
case notwithstanding the fact that
said branch began the probate 3. Whether or not the petitioner,
proceedings of the estate of the being a creditor of the late Dr.
deceased and must therefore Arturo de Santos, has a right to
continue to exercise its jurisdiction intervene and oppose the petition
to the exclusion of all others, until for issuance of letters
the entire estate of the testator testamentary filed by the
had been partitioned and respondent.
distributed as per Order dated 23
September 1996, this branch 4. Whether or not (private)
(Regional Trial Court Branch 65) respondent is guilty of forum
shall take cognizance of the shopping in filing her petition for
petition if only to expedite the issuance of letters testamentary
proceedings, and under the with the Regional Trial Court -
concept that the Regional Trial Makati, Branch 65 knowing fully
Court of Makati City is but one well that the probate proceedings
court. Jo spped involving the same testate estate
of the decedent is still pending
Furnish a copy of this order to the with the Regional Trial Court -
Office of the Chief justice and the Makati, Branch 61. Spped jo
Office of the Court Administrator,
of the Supreme Court; the Hon. First. Petitioner contends that the
Fernando V. Gorospe, Jr.; Pacita probate proceedings in Branch 61 of
De Los Reyes Phillips, Petitioner; RTC-Makati did not terminate upon the
and Octavio de Santos Maloles, issuance of the order allowing the will of
Intervenor. Dr. De Santos. Citing the cases
of Santiesteban v.
[7]
On November 4, 1996, Judge Abad Santiesteban and Tagle v.
[8]
Santos granted petitioners motion for Manalo, he argues that the
intervention. Private respondent moved proceedings must continue until the
for a reconsideration but her motion was estate is fully distributed to the lawful
denied by the trial court. She then filed a heirs, devisees, and legatees of the
petition for certiorari in the Court of testator, pursuant to Rule 73, 1 of the
Appeals which, on February 26, 1997, Rules of Court. Consequently, petitioner
rendered a decision[6] setting aside the contends that Branch 65 could not
trial courts order on the ground that lawfully act upon private respondents
petitioner had not shown any right or petition for issuance of letters
interest to intervene in Sp. Proc. No. M- testamentary.
4343.
The contention has no merit.
Hence, these petitions which raise the
following issues: In cases for the probate of wills, it is
well-settled that the authority of the
1. Whether or not the Honorable court is limited to ascertaining the
Regional Trial Court - Makati, extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether
Branch 61 has lost jurisdiction to the testator, being of sound mind, freely
4

proceed with the probate executed the will in accordance with the
Page

proceedings upon its issuance of formalities prescribed by law.[9]

Ordinarily, probate proceedings are the same be in his
instituted only after the death of the possession or not, or is lost
testator, so much so that, after or destroyed.
approving and allowing the will, the
court proceeds to issue letters The testator himself may,
testamentary and settle the estate of the during his lifetime, petition
testator. The cases cited by petitioner in the court for the
are of such nature. In fact, in most allowance of his will.
jurisdictions, courts cannot entertain a
petition for probate of the will of a living The rationale for allowing the probate of
testator under the principle of wills during the lifetime of testator has
[10] been explained by the Code
ambulatory nature of wills.
Commission thus:
However, Art. 838 of the Civil Code
authorizes the filing of a petition for Most of the cases that
probate of the will filed by the testator reach the courts involve
himself. It provides: either the testamentary
capacity of the testator or
Civil Code, Art. 838. No will shall the formalities adopted in
pass either real or personal the execution of wills. There
property unless it is proved and are relatively few cases
allowed in accordance with the concerning the intrinsic
Rules of Court. validity of testamentary
dispositions. It is far easier
The testator himself may, during for the courts to determine
his lifetime, petition the court the mental condition of a
having jurisdiction for the testator during his lifetime
allowance of his will. In such case, than after his death. Fraud,
the pertinent provisions of the intimidation and undue
Rules of Court for the allowance influence are minimized.
of wills after the testators death Furthermore, if a will does
shall govern. Miso not comply with the
requirements prescribed by
The Supreme Court shall law, the same may be
formulate such additional Rules of corrected at once. The
Court as may be necessary for probate during the testators
the allowance of wills on petition life, therefore, will lessen
of the testator. the number of contest upon
wills. Once a will is
Subject to the right of appeal, the probated during the lifetime
allowance of the will, either during of the testator, the only
the lifetime of the testator or after questions that may remain
his death, shall be conclusive as for the courts to decide after
to its due execution. the testators death will refer
to the intrinsic validity of the
Rule 76, 1 likewise provides: testamentary dispositions. It
is possible, of course, that
Sec. 1 Who may petition for even when the testator
the allowance of will. - Any himself asks for the
executor, devisee, or allowance of the will, he
legatee named in a will, or may be acting under duress
any other person interested or undue influence, but
in the estate, may, at any these are rare cases.
time after the death of the
testator, petition the court After a will has been
having jurisdiction to have
5

probated during the lifetime

Page

the will allowed, whether of the testator, it does not

 necessarily mean that he Petitioner, who defends the order of
cannot alter or revoke the Branch 65 allowing him to intervene,
same before his death. cites Rule 73, 1 which states:
Should he make a new will,
it would also be allowable Where estate of deceased
on his petition, and if he persons settled. - If the
should die before he has decedent is an inhabitant of
had a chance to present the Philippines at the time
such petition, the ordinary of his death, whether a
probate proceeding after citizen or an alien, his will
the testators death would shall be proved, or letters of
be in order.[11] administration granted, and
his estate settled, in the
Thus, after the allowance of the will of Court of First Instance in
Dr. De Santos on February 16, 1996, the province in which he
there was nothing else for Branch 61 to resides at the time of his
do except to issue a certificate of death, and if he is an
allowance of the will pursuant to Rule inhabitant of a foreign
73, 12 of the Rules of Court. There is, country, the Court of First
therefore, no basis for the ruling of Instance of any province in
Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65 of which he had estate. The
RTC-Makati that -Nex old court first taking cognizance
of the settlement of the
Branch 61 of the Regional estate of a decedent, shall
Trial Court of Makati having exercise jurisdiction to the
begun the probate exclusion of all other courts.
proceedings of the estate of The jurisdiction assumed by
the deceased, it continues a court, so far as it depends
and shall continue to on the place of residence of
exercise said jurisdiction to the decedent, or of the
the exclusion of all others. It location of his estate, shall
should be noted that not be contested in a suit or
probate proceedings do not proceeding, except in an
cease upon the allowance appeal from that court, in
or disallowance of a will but the original case, or when
continues up to such time the want of jurisdiction
that the entire estate of the appears on the record.
testator had been
partitioned and distributed. The above rule, however, actually
provides for the venue of actions for the
The fact that the will was settlement of the estate of deceased
allowed during the lifetime persons. In Garcia Fule v. Court of
of the testator meant merely Appeals, it was held:[13]
that the partition and
distribution of the estate The aforequoted Section 1,
was to be suspended until Rule 73 (formerly Rule 75,
the latters death. In other Section 1), specifically the
words, the petitioner, clause "so far as it depends
instead of filing a new on the place of residence of
petition for the issuance of the decedent, or of the
letters testamentary, should location of the state," is in
have simply filed a reality a matter of venue, as
manifestation for the same the caption of the Rule
purpose in the probate indicates: "Settlement of
court.[12] Estate of Deceased
6

Persons. Venue and

Page

Processes." It could not

 have been intended to branches comprising each court in one
define the jurisdiction over judicial region do not possess
the subject matter, because jurisdictions independent of and
[14]
such legal provision is incompatible with each other.
contained in a law of
procedure dealing merely It is noteworthy that, although Rule 73, 1
with procedural matters. applies insofar as the venue of the
Procedure is one thing, petition for probate of the will of Dr. De
jurisdiction over the subject Santos is concerned, it does not bar
matter is another. The other branches of the same court from
power or authority of the taking cognizance of the settlement of
court over the subject the estate of the testator after his death.
matter "existed was fixed As held in the leading case of Bacalso v.
before procedure in a given Ramolote:[15]
cause began." That power
or authority is not altered or The various branches of the
changed by procedure, Court of First Instance of
which simply directs the Cebu under the Fourteenth
manner in which the power Judicial District, are a
or authority shall be fully coordinate and co-equal
and justly exercised. There courts, and the totality of
are cases though that if the which is only one Court of
power is not exercised First Instance. The
conformably with the jurisdiction is vested in the
provisions of the procedural court, not in the judges. And
law, purely, the court when a case is filed in one
attempting to exercise it branch, jurisdiction over the
loses the power to exercise case does not attach to the
it legally. However, this branch or judge alone, to
does not amount to a loss the exclusion of the other
of jurisdiction over the branches. Trial may be held
subject matter. Rather, it or proceedings continue by
means that the court may and before another branch
thereby lose jurisdiction or judge. It is for this reason
over the person or that the that Section 57 of the
judgment may thereby be Judiciary Act expressly
rendered defective for lack grants to the Secretary of
of something essential to Justice, the administrative
sustain it. The appearance right or power to apportion
of this provision in the the cases among the
procedural law at once different branches, both for
raises a strong presumption the convenience of the
that it has nothing to do with parties and for the
the jurisdiction of the court coordination of the work by
over the subject matter. In the different branches of the
plain words, it is just a same court. The
matter of method, of apportionment and
convenience to the distribution of cases does
parties. Mani kx not involve a grant or
limitation of jurisdiction, the
Indeed, the jurisdiction over probate jurisdiction attaches and
proceedings and settlement of estates continues to be vested in
with approximate value of over the Court of First Instance
P100,000.00 (outside Metro Manila) or of the province, and the
P200,000.00 (in Metro Manila) belongs trials may be held by any
7

to the regional trial courts under B.P. branch or judge of the

Page

Blg. 129, as amended. The different court.

Necessarily, therefore, Branch 65 of the not relevant to the question
RTC of Makati City has jurisdiction over of her competency to act as
Sp. Proc. No. M-4343. executor. Section 2, Rule
76 of the Rules of Court
Second. Petitioner claims the right to requires only an allegation
intervene in and oppose the petition for of the probable value and
issuance of letters testamentary filed by character of the property of
private respondent. He argues that, as the estate. The true value
the nearest next of kin and creditor of can be determined later on
the testator, his interest in the matter is in the course of the
material and direct. In ruling that settlement of the estate.[16]
petitioner has no right to intervene in the
proceedings before Branch 65 of RTC- Rule 79, 1 provides:
Makati City, the Court of Appeals held:
Opposition to issuance of
The private respondent letters testamentary.
herein is not an heir or Simultaneous petition for
legatee under the will of the administration. - Any person
decedent Arturo de Santos. interested in a will may
Neither is he a compulsory state in writing the grounds
heir of the latter. As the only why letters testamentary
and nearest collateral should not issue to the
relative of the decedent, he persons named therein as
can inherit from the latter executors, or any of them,
only in case of intestacy. and the court, after hearing
Since the decedent has left upon notice, shall pass
a will which has already upon the sufficiency of such
been probated and grounds. A petition may, at
disposes of all his the same time, be filed for
properties the private letters of administration with
respondent can inherit only the will annexed.
if the said will is annulled.
His interest in the Under this provision, it has been held
decedents estate is, that an "interested person" is one who
therefore, not direct or would be benefited by the estate, such
immediate. Maniks as an heir, or one who has a claim
against the estate, such as a creditor,
His claim to being a creditor and whose interest is material and
of the estate is a belated direct, not merely incidental or
one, having been raised for contingent.[17]
the first time only in his
reply to the opposition to his Even if petitioner is the nearest next of
motion to intervene, and, as kin of Dr. De Santos, he cannot be
far as the records show, not considered an "heir" of the testator. It is
supported by evidence. a fundamental rule of testamentary
succession that one who has no
. . . . [T]he opposition must compulsory or forced heirs may dispose
come from one with a direct of his entire estate by will. Thus, Art.
interest in the estate or the 842 of the Civil Code provides:
will, and the private
respondent has none. One who has no
Moreover, the ground cited compulsory heirs may
in the private respondents dispose by will of all his
opposition, that the estate or any part of it in
petitioner has deliberately favor of any person having
8

misdeclared the truth worth capacity to

Page

and value of the estate, is succeed. Manikan

 One who has compulsory disposal of his estate. The
heirs may dispose of his curtailment of this right may
estate provided he does not be considered a curtailment
contravene the provisions of the right to dispose.
of this Code with regard to
the legitimate of said heirs. Only if the appointed executor is
incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to
Compulsory heirs are limited to the give bond may the court appoint other
testators - persons to administer the
[20]
estate. None of these circumstances
(1) Legitimate children and is present in this case.
descendants, with respect
to their legitimate parents Third. Petitioner contends that private
and ascendants; respondent is guilty of forum shopping
when she filed the petition for issuance
(2) In default of the of letters testamentary (Sp. Proc. No. M-
foregoing, legitimate 4343) while the probate proceedings
parents and ascendants, (Sp. Proc. No. M-4223) were still
with respect to their pending. According to petitioner, there is
legitimate children and identity of parties, rights asserted, and
descendants; reliefs prayed for in the two actions
which are founded on the same facts,
(3) The widow or widower; and a judgment in either will result in res
judicata in the other.
(4) Acknowledged natural
children, and natural This contention has no merit. As stated
children by legal fiction; earlier, the petition for probate was filed
by Dr. De Santos, the testator, solely for
(5) Other illegitimate the purpose of authenticating his will.
children referred to in Upon the allowance of his will, the
Article 287 of the Civil proceedings were terminated. Oldmis o
Code.[18]
On the other hand, the petition for
Petitioner, as nephew of the testator, is issuance of letters testamentary was
not a compulsory heir who may have filed by private respondent, as executor
been preterited in the testators will. of the estate of Dr. De Santos, for the
purpose of securing authority from the
Nor does he have any right to intervene Court to administer the estate and put
in the settlement proceedings based on into effect the will of the testator. The
his allegation that he is a creditor of the estate settlement proceedings
deceased. Since the testator instituted commenced by the filing of the petition
or named an executor in his will, it is terminates upon the distribution and
incumbent upon the Court to respect the delivery of the legacies and devises to
desires of the testator. As we stated the persons named in the will. Clearly,
in Ozaeta v. Pecson:[19] there is no identity between the two
petitions, nor was the latter filed during
The choice of his executor the pendency of the former. There was,
is a precious prerogative of consequently, no forum shopping.
a testator, a necessary
concomitant of his right to WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED
dispose of his property in and the decisions of the Court of
the manner he wishes. It is Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.
natural that the testator
should desire to appoint SO ORDERED.
one of his confidence, one
who can be trusted to carry
9
Page

out his wishes in the

G.R. No. 72706 October 27, 1987 allegedly executed by Nemesio Acain
on February 17, 1960 was written in
CONSTANTINO C. ACAIN, petitioner, Bisaya (Rollo, p. 27) with a translation in
vs. English (Rollo, p. 31) submi'tted by
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE petitioner without objection raised by
COURT (Third Special Cases private respondents. The will contained
Division), VIRGINIA A. FERNANDEZ provisions on burial rites, payment of
and ROSA DIONGSON, respondents. debts, and the appointment of a certain
Atty. Ignacio G. Villagonzalo as the
executor of the testament. On the
disposition of the testator's property, the
PARAS, J.: will provided:

This is a petition for review on certiorari THIRD: All my shares that I

of the decision * of respondent. Court of may receive from our
Appeals in AC-G.R. SP No. 05744 properties. house, lands
promulgated on August 30, 1985 (Rollo, and money which I earned
p. 108) ordering the dismissal of the jointly with my wife Rosa
petition in Special Proceedings No, 591 Diongson shall all be given
ACEB and its Resolution issued on by me to my brother
October 23, 1985 (Rollo, p. 72) denying SEGUNDO ACAIN Filipino,
respondents' (petitioners herein) motion widower, of legal age and
for reconsideration. presently residing at 357-C
Sanciangko Street, Cebu
The dispositive portion of the questioned City. In case my brother
decision reads as follows: Segundo Acain pre-
deceased me, all the
WHEREFORE, the petition money properties, lands,
is hereby granted and houses there in Bantayan
respondent Regional Trial and here in Cebu City
Court of the Seventh which constitute my share
Judicial Region, Branch XIII shall be given to me to his
(Cebu City), is hereby children, namely: Anita,
ordered to dismiss the Constantino, Concepcion,
petition in Special Quirina, laura, Flores,
Proceedings No. 591 ACEB Antonio and Jose, all
No special pronouncement surnamed Acain.
is made as to costs.
Obviously, Segundo pre-deceased
The antecedents of the case, based on Nemesio. Thus it is the children of
the summary of the Intermediate Segundo who are claiming to be heirs,
Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, with Constantino as the petitioner in
(Rollo, pp. 108-109) are as follows: Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB
On May 29, 1984 petitioner Constantino After the petition was set for hearing in
Acain filed on the Regional Trial Court of the lower court on June 25, 1984 the
Cebu City Branch XIII, a petition for the oppositors (respondents herein Virginia
probate of the will of the late Nemesio A. Fernandez, a legally adopted
Acain and for the issuance to the same daughter of tile deceased and the
petitioner of letters testamentary, latter's widow Rosa Diongson Vda. de
docketed as Special Proceedings No. Acain filed a motion to dismiss on the
591 ACEB (Rollo, p. 29), on the premise following grounds for the petitioner has
that Nemesio Acain died leaving a will in no legal capacity to institute these
which petitioner and his brothers proceedings; (2) he is merely a
Antonio, Flores and Jose and his sisters universal heir and (3) the widow and the
10

Anita, Concepcion, Quirina and Laura adopted daughter have been pretirited.
Page

were instituted as heirs. The will

(Rollo, p. 158). Said motion was denied (C) The will of Nemesio
by the trial judge. Acain is valid and must
therefore, be admitted to
After the denial of their subsequent probate. The preterition
motion for reconsideration in the lower mentioned in Article 854 of
court, respondents filed with the the New Civil Code refers to
Supreme Court a petition for certiorari preterition of "compulsory
and prohibition with preliminary heirs in the direct line," and
injunction which was subsequently does not apply to private
referred to the Intermediate Appellate respondents who are not
Court by Resolution of the Court dated compulsory heirs in the
March 11, 1985 (Memorandum for direct line; their omission
Petitioner, p. 3; Rollo, p. 159). shall not annul the
institution of heirs;
Respondent Intermediate Appellate
Court granted private respondents' (D) DICAT TESTATOR ET
petition and ordered the trial court to MERIT LEX. What the
dismiss the petition for the probate of testator says will be the law;
the will of Nemesio Acain in Special
Proceedings No. 591 ACEB (E) There may be nothing in
Article 854 of the New Civil
His motion for reconsideration having Code, that suggests that
been denied, petitioner filed this present mere institution of a
petition for the review of respondent universal heir in the will
Court's decision on December 18, 1985 would give the heir so
(Rollo, p. 6). Respondents' Comment instituted a share in the
was filed on June 6, 1986 (Rollo, p. inheritance but there is a
146). definite distinct intention of
the testator in the case at
On August 11, 1986 the Court resolved bar, explicitly expressed in
to give due course to the petition (Rollo, his will. This is what matters
p. 153). Respondents' Memorandum and should be in violable.
was filed on September 22, 1986 (Rollo,
p. 157); the Memorandum for petitioner (F) As an instituted heir,
was filed on September 29, 1986 (Rollo, petitioner has the legal
p. 177). interest and standing to file
the petition in Sp. Proc. No.
Petitioner raises the following issues 591 ACEB for probate of
(Memorandum for petitioner, p. 4): the will of Nemesio Acain
and
(A) The petition filed in AC-
G.R. No. 05744 for (G) Article 854 of the New
certiorari and prohibition Civil Code is a bill of
with preliminary injunction is attainder. It is therefore
not the proper remedy unconstitutional and
under the premises; ineffectual.

(B) The authority of the The pivotal issue in this case is whether
probate courts is limited or not private respondents have been
only to inquiring into the pretirited.
extrinsic validity of the will
sought to be probated and it Article 854 of the Civil Code provides:
cannot pass upon the
intrinsic validity thereof Art. 854. The preterition or
before it is admitted to omission of one, some, or
11

probate; all of the compulsory heirs

Page

in the direct line, whether

 living at the time of the intestate succession the entire
execution of the will or born inheritance including "la porcion libre
after the death of the (que) no hubiese dispuesto en virtual de
testator, shall annul the legado mejora o donacion" Maniesa as
institution of heir; but the cited in Nuguid v. Nuguid, supra;
devisees and legacies shall Maninang v. Court of Appeals, 114
be valid insofar as they are SCRA [1982]). The only provisions
not; inofficious. which do not result in intestacy are the
legacies and devises made in the will for
If the omitted compulsory they should stand valid and respected,
heirs should die before the except insofar as the legitimes are
testator, the institution shall concerned.
he effectual, without
prejudice to the right of The universal institution of petitioner
representation. together with his brothers and sisters to
the entire inheritance of the testator
Preterition consists in the omission in results in totally abrogating the will
the testator's will of the forced heirs or because the nullification of such
anyone of them either because they are institution of universal heirs-without any
not mentioned therein, or, though other testamentary disposition in the
mentioned, they are neither instituted as will-amounts to a declaration that
heirs nor are expressly disinherited nothing at all was written. Carefully
(Nuguid v. Nuguid, 17 SCRA 450 worded and in clear terms, Article 854 of
[1966]; Maninang v. Court of Appeals, the Civil Code offers no leeway for
114 SCRA 478 [1982]). Insofar as the inferential interpretation (Nuguid v.
widow is concerned, Article 854 of the Nuguid), supra. No legacies nor devises
Civil Code may not apply as she does having been provided in the will the
not ascend or descend from the testator, whole property of the deceased has
although she is a compulsory heir. been left by universal title to petitioner
Stated otherwise, even if the surviving and his brothers and sisters. The effect
spouse is a compulsory heir, there is no of annulling the "Institution of heirs will
preterition even if she is omitted from be, necessarily, the opening of a total
the inheritance, for she is not in intestacy (Neri v. Akutin, 74 Phil. 185
the direct line. (Art. 854, Civil code) [1943]) except that proper legacies and
however, the same thing cannot be said devises must, as already stated above,
of the other respondent Virginia A. be respected.
Fernandez, whose legal adoption by the
testator has not been questioned by We now deal with another matter. In
petitioner (.Memorandum for the order that a person may be allowed to
Petitioner, pp. 8-9). Under Article 39 of intervene in a probate proceeding he
P.D. No. 603, known as the Child and must have an interest iii the estate, or in
Youth Welfare Code, adoption gives to the will, or in the property to be affected
the adopted person the same rights and by it either as executor or as a claimant
duties as if he were a legitimate child of of the estate and an interested party is
the adopter and makes the adopted one who would be benefited by the
person a legal heir of the adopter. It estate such as an heir or one who has a
cannot be denied that she has totally claim against the estate like a creditor
omitted and preterited in the will of the (Sumilang v. Ramagosa, 21 SCRA
testator and that both adopted child and 1369/1967). Petitioner is not the
the widow were deprived of at least their appointed executor, neither a devisee or
legitime. Neither can it be denied that a legatee there being no mention in the
they were not expressly disinherited. testamentary disposition of any gift of an
Hence, this is a clear case of preterition individual item of personal or real
of the legally adopted child. property he is called upon to receive
12

(Article 782, Civil Code). At the outset,

Pretention annuls the institution of an he appears to have an interest in the will
Page

heir and annulment throws open to as an heir, defined under Article 782 of
the Civil Code as a person called to the [1984]; and Nepomuceno v. Court of
succession either by the provision of a Appeals, 139 SCRA 206 [1985]).
will or by operation of law. However,
intestacy having resulted from the The rule, however, is not inflexible and
preterition of respondent adopted child absolute. Under exceptional
and the universal institution of heirs, circumstances, the probate court is not
petitioner is in effect not an heir of the powerless to do what the situation
testator. He has no legal standing to constrains it to do and pass upon certain
petition for the probate of the will left by provisions of the will (Nepomuceno v.
the deceased and Special Proceedings Court of Appeals, supra). In Nuguid v.
No. 591 A-CEB must be dismissed. Nuguid the oppositors to the probate
moved to dismiss on the ground of
As a general rule certiorari cannot be a absolute preteriton The probate court
substitute for appeal, except when the acting on the motion held that the will in
questioned order is an oppressive question was a complete nullity and
exercise of j judicial authority (People v. dismissed the petition without costs. On
Villanueva, 110 SCRA 465 [1981]; Vda. appeal the Supreme Court upheld the
de Caldito v. Segundo, 117 SCRA 573 decision of the probate court, induced
[1982]; Co Chuan Seng v. Court of by practical considerations. The Court
Appeals, 128 SCRA 308 [1984]; and said:
Bautista v. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587
[1985]). It is axiomatic that the remedies We pause to reflect. If the
of certiorari and prohibition are not case were to be remanded
available where the petitioner has the for probate of the will,
remedy of appeal or some other plain, nothing will be gained. On
speedy and adequate remedy in the the contrary, this litigation
course of law (DD Comendador will be protracted. And for
Construction Corporation v. Sayo (118 aught that appears in the
SCRA 590 [1982]). They are, however, record, in the event of
proper remedies to correct a grave probate or if the court
abuse of discretion of the trial court in rejects the will, probability
not dismissing a case where the exists that the case will
dismissal is founded on valid grounds come up once again before
(Vda. de Bacang v. Court of Appeals, us on the same issue of the
125 SCRA 137 [1983]). intrinsic validity or nullity of
the will. Result: waste of
Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB is time, effort, expense, plus
for the probate of a will. As stated by added anxiety. These are
respondent Court, the general rule is the practical considerations
that the probate court's authority is that induce us to a belief
limited only to the extrinsic validity of the that we might as well meet
will, the due execution thereof, the head-on the issue of the
testator's testamentary capacity and the validity of the provisions of
compliance with the requisites or the will in question. After all
solemnities prescribed by law. The there exists a justiciable
intrinsic validity of the will normally controversy crying for
comes only after the Court has declared solution.
that the will has been duly
authenticated. Said court at this stage of In Saguimsim v. Lindayag (6 SCRA 874
the proceedings is not called upon to [1962]) the motion to dismiss the petition
rule on the intrinsic validity or efficacy of by the surviving spouse was grounded
the provisions of the will (Nuguid v. on petitioner's lack of legal capacity to
Nuguid, 17 SCRA 449 [1966]; Sumilang institute the proceedings which was fully
v. Ramagosa, supra; Maninang v. Court substantiated by the evidence during the
hearing held in connection with said
13

of Appeals, 114 SCRA 478 [1982];

Cayetano v. Leonides, 129 SCRA 522 motion. The Court upheld the probate
Page

court's order of dismissal.

In Cayetano v. Leonides, supra one of certiorari and prohibition were properly
the issues raised in the motion to availed of by private respondents.
dismiss the petition deals with the
validity of the provisions of the will. Thus, this Court ruled that where the
Respondent Judge allowed the probate grounds for dismissal are indubitable,
of the will. The Court held that as on its the defendants had the right to resort to
face the will appeared to have preterited the more speedy, and adequate
the petitioner the respondent judge remedies of certiorari and prohibition to
should have denied its probate outright. correct a grave abuse of discretion,
Where circumstances demand that amounting to lack of jurisdiction,
intrinsic validity of testamentary committed by the trial court in not
provisions be passed upon even before dismissing the case, (Vda. de Bacang v.
the extrinsic validity of the will is Court of Appeals, supra) and even
resolved, the probate court should meet assuming the existence of the remedy of
the issue. (Nepomuceno v. Court of appeal, the Court harkens to the rule
Appeals, supra; Nuguid v. that in the broader interests of justice, a
Nuguid, supra). petition for certiorari may be entertained,
particularly where appeal would not
In the instant case private respondents afford speedy and adequate relief.
filed a motion to dismiss the petition in (Maninang Court of Appeals, supra).
Sp. Proceedings No. 591 ACEB of the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu on the PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition
following grounds: (1) petitioner has no is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and
legal capacity to institute the the questioned decision of respondent
proceedings; (2) he is merely a Court of Appeals promulgated on
universal heir; and (3) the widow and August 30, 1985 and its Resolution
the adopted daughter have been dated October 23, 1985 are hereby
preterited (Rollo, p. 158). It was denied AFFIRMED.
by the trial court in an order dated
January 21, 1985 for the reason that SO ORDERED.
"the grounds for the motion to dismiss
are matters properly to be resolved after
a hearing on the issues in the course of
the trial on the merits of the case (Rollo,
p. 32). A subsequent motion for
reconsideration was denied by the trial
court on February 15, 1985 (Rollo, p.
109).

For private respondents to have

tolerated the probate of the will and
allowed the case to progress when on
its face the will appears to be
intrinsically void as petitioner and his
brothers and sisters were instituted as
universal heirs coupled with the obvious
fact that one of the private respondents
had been preterited would have been an
exercise in futility. It would have meant a
waste of time, effort, expense, plus
added futility. The trial court could have
denied its probate outright or could have
passed upon the intrinsic validity of the
testamentary provisions before the
14

extrinsic validity of the will was resolved

(Cayetano v. Leonides, supra; Nuquid v.
Page

Nuguid, supra. The remedies of

[G.R. No. 141882. March 11, 2005] action for partition and damages
docketed as Civil Case No. 3443
J.L.T. AGRO, INC., represented by its entitled Josefa Teves Escao v. Julian
Manager, JULIAN L. Teves, Emilio B. Teves, et al.[4] Milagros
TEVES, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO Donio, the second wife of Don Julian,
BALANSAG and HILARIA participated as an intervenor.
CADAYDAY, respondents. Thereafter, the parties to the case
entered into a Compromise
DECISION Agreement[5] which embodied the
partition of all the properties of Don
TINGA, J.: Julian.

Once again, the Court is faced with On the basis of the compromise
the perennial conflict of property claims agreement and approving the same, the
between two sets of heirs, a conflict Court of First Instance (CFI) of Negros
ironically made grievous by the fact that Oriental, 12th Judicial District, rendered
the decedent in this case had resorted a Decision[6] dated 31 January 1964.
to great lengths to allocate which The CFI decision declared a tract of
properties should go to which set of land known as Hacienda Medalla
heirs. Milagrosa as property owned in
common by Don Julian and his two (2)
This is a Rule 45 petition assailing children of the first marriage. The
the Decision[1] dated 30 September property was to remain undivided during
1999 of the Court of Appeals which the lifetime of Don Julian.[7] Josefa and
reversed the Decision[2] dated 7 May Emilio likewise were given other
1993 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), properties at Bais, including the electric
Branch 45, of Bais City, Negros plant, the movie property, the
Oriental. commercial areas, and the house where
Don Julian was living. The remainder of
The factual antecedents follow. the properties was retained by Don
Julian, including Lot No. 63.
Don Julian L. Teves (Don Julian)
contracted two marriages, first with Paragraph 13 of the Compromise
Antonia Baena (Antonia), and after her Agreement, at the heart of the present
death, with Milagros Donio Teves dispute, lays down the effect of the
(Milagros Donio). Don Julian had two eventual death of Don Julian vis--vis his
children with Antonia, namely: Josefa heirs:
Teves Escao (Josefa) and Emilio Teves
(Emilio). He had also four (4) children 13. That in the event of death of Julian
with Milagros Donio, namely: Maria L. Teves, the properties hereinafter
Evelyn Donio Teves (Maria Evelyn), adjudicated to Josefa Teves Escaňo
Jose Catalino Donio Teves (Jose and Emilio B. Teves, (excluding the
Catalino), Milagros Reyes Teves properties comprised as Hacienda
(Milagros Reyes) and Pedro Reyes Medalla Milagrosa together with all its
Teves (Pedro).[3] accessories and accessions) shall be
understood as including not only their
The present controversy involves a one-half share which they inherited from
parcel of land covering nine hundred their mother but also the legitimes and
and fifty-four (954) square meters, other successional rights which would
known as Lot No. 63 of the Bais correspond to them of the other half
Cadastre, which was originally belonging to their father, Julian L.
registered in the name of the conjugal Teves. In other words, the properties
partnership of Don Julian and Antonia now selected and adjudicated to
under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) Julian L. Teves (not including his
No. 5203 of the Registry of Deeds of share in the Hacienda Medalla
15

Bais City. When Antonia died, the land Milagrosa) shall exclusively be
Page

was among the properties involved in an adjudicated to the wife in second

marriage of Julian L. Teves and his four was already registered in the name of
minor children, namely, Milagros Donio petitioner in 1979, respondents bought
Teves, his two acknowledged natural Lot No. 63 from Milagros Donio as
children Milagros Reyes Teves and evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale
Pedro Reyes Teves and his two of Real Estate[16] dated 9 November
legitimated children Maria Evelyn Donio 1983.
Teves and Jose Catalino Donio Teves.
(Emphasis supplied) At the Register of Deeds while trying
to register the deed of absolute sale,
On 16 November 1972, Don Julian, respondents discovered that the lot was
Emilio and Josefa executed a Deed of already titled in the name of petitioner.
Assignment of Assets with Assumption Thus, they failed to register the deed.[17]
of Liabilities[8] in favor of J.L.T. Agro, Inc.
(petitioner). Less than a year later, Don Respondents, as vendees of Lot No.
Julian, Josefa and Emilio also executed 63, filed a complaint before the RTC
an instrument entitled Supplemental to Branch 45 of Bais City, seeking the
the Deed of Assignment of Assets with declaration of nullity and cancellation of
the Assumption of Liabilities TCT No. T-375 in the name of petitioner
(Supplemental Deed)[9] dated 31 July and the transfer of the title to Lot No. 63
1973. This instrument which constitutes in their names, plus damages.[18]
a supplement to the earlier deed of
assignment transferred ownership over After hearing, the trial court
Lot No. 63, among other properties, in dismissed the complaint filed by
favor of petitioner.[10] On 14 April 1974, respondents. The dispositive portion of
Don Julian died intestate. the decision reads:

On the strength of WHEREFORE, premises considered, by

the Supplemental Deed in its favor, preponderance of evidence, this Court
petitioner sought the registration of the finds judgment in favor of the defendant
subject lot in its name. A court, so it and against the plaintiff, and thus
appeared, issued an order[11] cancelling hereby orders:
OCT No. 5203 in the name of spouses
Don Julian and Antonia on 12 (1) That complaint be dismissed;
November 1979, and on the same date
TCT No. T-375 was issued in the name (2) That plaintiffs vacate the
of petitioner.[12] Since then, petitioner subject land, particularly
has been paying taxes assessed on the identified as Lot No. 63
subject lot.[13] registered under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-
Meanwhile, Milagros Donio and her 375;
children had immediately taken
possession over the subject lot after the (3) That plaintiffs pay costs.
execution of the Compromise
Agreement. In 1974, they entered into a Finding no basis on the counterclaim by
yearly lease agreement with spouses defendant, the same is hereby ordered
Antonio Balansag and Hilaria Cadayday, dismissed.[19]
respondents herein.[14] On Lot No. 63,
respondents temporarily established The trial court ruled that the
their home and constructed a lumber resolution of the case specifically hinged
yard. Subsequently, Milagros Donio and on the interpretation of paragraph 13 of
her children executed a Deed of the Compromise Agreement.[20] It added
Extrajudicial Partition of Real that the direct adjudication of the
[15]
Estate dated 18 March 1980. In the properties listed in the Compromise
deed of partition, Lot No. 63 was allotted Agreement was only in favor of Don
to Milagros Donio and her two (2) Julian and his two children by the first
16

children, Maria Evelyn and Jose marriage, Josefa and

[21]
Page

Catalino. Unaware that the subject lot Emilio. Paragraph 13 served only as
an amplification of the terms of the years earlier, OCT No. 5203 had
adjudication in favor of Don Julian and already been cancelled and replaced by
his two children by the first marriage. TCT No. T-375 in the name of petitioner,
the trial court added.[27]
According to the trial court, the
properties adjudicated in favor of Josefa The Court of Appeals, however,
and Emilio comprised their shares in the reversed the trial courts decision. The
estate of their deceased mother decretal part of the appellate decision
Antonia, as well as their potential share reads:
in the estate of Don Julian upon the
latters death. Thus, upon Don Julians WHEREFORE, premises considered,
death, Josefa and Emilio could not claim the decision appealed from is hereby
any share in his estate, except their REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new
proper share in the Hacienda Medalla one is entered declaring the Transfer
Milagrosa which was adjudicated in Certificate of Title No. T-375 registered
favor of Don Julian in the Compromise in the name of J.L.T. Agro, Inc. as null
Agreement. As such, the properties and void.
adjudicated in favor of Don Julian,
except Hacienda Medalla Milagrosa, With costs against defendant J.L.T.
were free from the forced legitimary Agro, Inc. represented by its Manager,
rights of Josefa and Emilio, and Don Julian L. Teves.
Julian was under no impediment to
allocate the subject lot, among his other SO ORDERED.[28]
properties, to Milagros Donio and her
four (4) children.[22] Per the appellate court,
the Compromise
The trial court further stressed that Agreement incorporated in CFI decision
with the use of the words shall be, the dated 31 January 1964, particularly
adjudication in favor of Milagros Donio paragraph 13 thereof, determined,
and her four (4) children was not final adjudicated and reserved to Don Julians
and operative, as the lot was still subject two sets of heirs their future legitimes in
to future disposition by Don Julian his estate except as regards his (Don
during his lifetime.[23] It cited paragraph Julians) share in Hacienda Medalla
14[24] of the Compromise Agreement in Milagrosa.[29] The two sets of heirs
support of his conclusion.[25] With Lot acquired full ownership and possession
No. 63 being the conjugal property of of the properties respectively
Don Julian and Antonia, the trial court adjudicated to them in the CFI decision
also declared that Milagros Donio and and Don Julian himself could no longer
her children had no hereditary rights dispose of the same, including Lot No.
thereto except as to the conjugal share 63. The disposition in the CFI decision
of Don Julian, which they could claim constitutes res judicata.[30] Don Julian
only upon the death of the latter.[26] could have disposed of only his conjugal
share in the Hacienda Medalla
The trial court ruled that at the time Milagrosa.[31]
of Don Julians death on 14 April 1974,
Lot No. 63 was no longer a part of his The appellate court likewise
estate since he had earlier assigned it to emphasized that nobody in his right
petitioner on 31 July 1973. judgment would preterit his legal heirs
Consequently, the lot could not be a by simply executing a document like
proper subject of extrajudicial partition the Supplemental Deed which
by Milagros Donio and her children, and practically covers all properties which
not being the owners they could not Don Julian had reserved in favor of his
have sold it. Had respondents exercised heirs from the second marriage. It also
prudence before buying the subject lot found out that the blanks reserved for
by investigating the registration of the the Book No. and Page No. at the upper
17

same with the Registry of Deeds, they right corner of TCT No. T-375, to identify
Page

would have discovered that five (5) the exact location where the said title
was registered or transferred, were not exclusively be adjudicated to the wife
filled up, thereby indicating that the TCT in second marriage of Julian L. Teves
is spurious and of dubious origin.[32] and his four minor children, namely,
Milagros Donio Teves, his two
Aggrieved by the appellate courts acknowledged natural children
decision, petitioner elevated it to this Milagros Reyes Teves and Pedro
Court via a petition for review Reyes Teves and his two legitimated
on certiorari, raising pure questions of children Maria Evelyn Donio Teves
law. and Jose Catalino Donio
Teves. (Emphasis supplied)
Before this Court, petitioner assigns
as errors the following rulings of the With the quoted paragraph as basis,
appellate court, to wit: (a) that future the Court of Appeals ruled that the
legitime can be determined, adjudicated adjudication in favor of the heirs of Don
and reserved prior to the death of Don Julian from the second marriage
Julian; (b) that Don Julian had no right became automatically operative upon
to dispose of or assign Lot No. 63 to the approval of the Compromise
petitioner because he reserved the Agreement, thereby vesting on them the
same for his heirs from the second right to validly dispose of Lot No. 63 in
marriage pursuant to the Compromise favor of respondents.
Agreement; (c) that the Supplemental
Deed was tantamount to a preterition of Petitioner argues that the appellate
his heirs from the second marriage; and court erred in holding that future legitime
(d) that TCT No. T-375 in the name of can be determined, adjudicated and
petitioner is spurious for not containing reserved prior to the death of Don
entries on the Book No. and Page No.[33] Julian. The Court agrees. Our
declaration in Blas v. Santos[34] is
While most of petitioners legal relevant, where we defined future
arguments have merit, the application of inheritance as any property or right not
the appropriate provisions of law to the in existence or capable of
facts borne out by the evidence on determination at the time of the
record nonetheless warrants the contract, that a person may in the
affirmance of the result reached by the future acquire by succession. Article
Court of Appeals in favor of 1347 of the New Civil Code explicitly
respondents. provides:

Being the key adjudicative provision, ART. 1347. All things which are not
paragraph 13 of the Compromise outside the commerce of men, including
Agreement has to be quoted again: future things, may be the object of a
contract. All rights which are not
13. That in the event of death of Julian intransmissible may also be the object
L. Teves, the properties herein of contracts.
adjudicated to Josefa Teves Escao and
Emilio B. Teves, (excluding the No contract may be entered into upon
properties comprised as Hacienda future inheritance except in cases
Medalla Milagrosa together with all its expressly authorized by law.
accessories and accessions) shall be
understood as including not only their All services which are not contrary to
one-half share which they inherited from law, morals, good customs, public order
their mother but also the legitimes and or public policy may likewise be the
other successional rights which would object of a contract.
correspond to them of the other half
belonging to their father, Julian L.Teves. Well-entrenched is the rule that all
In other words, the properties now things, even future ones, which are not
selected and adjudicated to Julian L. outside the commerce of man may be
18

Teves (not including his share in the the object of a contract. The exception is
Page

Hacienda Medalla Milagrosa) shall that no contract may be entered into

with respect to future inheritance, and determination of the part to be given to
the exception to the exception is the each heir.[39]
partition inter vivos referred to in Article
1080.[35] The historical antecedent of Article
1080 of the New Civil Code is Article
For the inheritance to be considered 1056[40] of the old Civil Code. The only
future, the succession must not have change in the provision is that Article
been opened at the time of the 1080 now permits any person (not a
contract.[36] A contract may be classified testator, as under the old law) to
as a contract upon future inheritance, partition his estate by act inter vivos.
prohibited under the second paragraph This was intended to abrogate the then
of Article 1347, where the following prevailing doctrine that for a testator to
requisites concur: partition his estate by an act inter vivos,
he must first make a will with all the
(1) That the succession has not yet formalities provided by law.[41]
been opened;
Article 1056 of the old Civil Code
(2) That the object of the (now Article 1080) authorizes a testator
contract forms part of the to partition inter vivos his property, and
inheritance; and distribute them among his heirs, and this
partition is neither a donation nor a
(3) That the promissor has, with respect testament, but an instrument of a
to the object, an expectancy of a right special character, sui generis, which
which is purely hereditary in nature.[37] is revocable at any time by
the causante during his lifetime, and
The first paragraph of Article 1080, does not operate as a conveyance of
which provides the exception to the title until his death. It derives its
exception and therefore aligns with the binding force on the heirs from the
general rule on future things, reads: respect due to the will of the owner of
the property, limited only by his creditors
ART. 1080. Should a person make a and the intangibility of the legitime of the
partition of his estate by an act inter forced heirs.[42]
vivos, or by will, such partition shall be
respected, insofar as it does not The partition inter vivos of the
prejudice the legitime of the compulsory properties of Don Julian is undoubtedly
heirs. valid pursuant to Article 1347. However,
considering that it would become legally
.... operative only upon the death of Don
Julian, the right of his heirs from the
In interpreting this provision, Justice second marriage to the properties
Edgardo Paras advanced the opinion adjudicated to him under the
that if the partition is made by an compromise agreement was but a mere
act inter vivos, no formalities are expectancy. It was a bare hope of
prescribed by the Article.[38] The succession to the property of their
partition will of course be effective father. Being the prospect of a future
only after death. It does not necessarily acquisition, the interest by its nature
require the formalities of a will for after was inchoate. It had no attribute of
all it is not the partition that is the mode property, and the interest to which it
of acquiring ownership. Neither will the related was at the time nonexistent and
formalities of a donation be required might never exist.[43]
since donation will not be the mode of
acquiring the ownership here after Evidently, at the time of the
death; since no will has been made it execution of the deed of assignment
follows that the mode will be succession covering Lot No. 63 in favor of
(intestate succession). Besides, the petitioner, Don Julian remained the
19

partition here is merely the physical owner of the property since ownership
Page

over the subject lot would only pass to

his heirs from the second marriage at was a partition inter vivos of his
the time of his death. Thus, as the properties, as evidenced by the court
owner of the subject lot, Don Julian approved Compromise Agreement.
retained the absolute right to dispose of Thus, it is premature if not irrelevant to
it during his lifetime. His right cannot be speak of preterition prior to the death of
challenged by Milagros Donio and her Don Julian in the absence of a will
children on the ground that it had depriving a legal heir of his legitime.
already been adjudicated to them by Besides, there are other properties
virtue of the compromise agreement. which the heirs from the second
marriage could inherit from Don Julian
Emerging as the crucial question in upon his death. A couple of provisions in
this case is whether Don Julian had the Compromise Agreement are
validly transferred ownership of the indicative of Don Julians desire along
subject lot during his lifetime. The lower this line.[48] Hence, the total omission
court ruled that he had done so through from inheritance of Don Julians heirs
the Supplemental Deed. The appellate from the second marriage, a
court disagreed, holding that requirement for preterition to exist, is
the Supplemental Deed is not valid, hardly imaginable as it is unfounded.
containing as it does a prohibited
preterition of Don Julians heirs from the Despite the debunking of
second marriage. Petitioner contends respondents argument on preterition,
that the ruling of the Court of Appeals is still the petition would ultimately rise or
erroneous. The contention is well- fall on whether there was a valid transfer
founded. effected by Don Julian to petitioner.
Notably, Don Julian was also the
Article 854 provides that the president and director of petitioner, and
preterition or omission of one, some, or his daughter from the first marriage,
all of the compulsory heirs in the direct Josefa, was the treasurer thereof. There
line, whether living at the time of the is of course no legal prohibition against
execution of the will or born after the such a transfer to a family corporation.
death of the testator, shall annul the Yet close scrutiny is in order, especially
institution of heir; but the devises and considering that such transfer would
legacies shall be valid insofar as they remove Lot No. 63 from the estate from
are not inofficious. Manresa defines which Milagros and her children could
preterition as the omission of the heir in inherit. Both the alleged transfer deed
the will, either by not naming him at all and the title which necessarily must
or, while mentioning him as father, son, have emanated from it have to be
etc., by not instituting him as heir subjected to incisive and detailed
without disinheriting him expressly, nor examination.
assigning to him some part of the
properties.[44] It is the total omission of a Well-settled, of course, is the rule
compulsory heir in the direct line from that a certificate of title serves as
inheritance.[45] It consists in the silence evidence of an indefeasible title to the
of the testator with regard to a property in favor of the person whose
compulsory heir, omitting him in name appears therein.[49] A certificate of
the testament, either by not mentioning title accumulates in one document a
him at all, or by not giving him anything precise and correct statement of the
in the hereditary property but without exact status of the fee held by its owner.
expressly disinheriting him, even if he is The certificate, in the absence of fraud,
mentioned in the will in the latter is the evidence of title and shows
case.[46] But there is no preterition where exactly the real interest of its owner.[50]
the testator allotted to a descendant a
share less than the legitime, since there To successfully assail the juristic
was no total omission of a forced heir.[47] value of what a Torrens title establishes,
a sufficient and convincing quantum of
20

In the case at bar, Don Julian did not evidence on the defect of the title must
Page

execute a will since what he resorted to be adduced to overcome the

predisposition in law in favor of a holder duplicate of the grantors certificate shall
of a Torrens title. Thus, contrary to the be stamped cancelled. The deed of
appellate courts ruling, the appearance conveyance shall be filed and
of a mere thumbmark of Don Julian endorsed with the number and the
instead of his signature in place of registration of the certificate
the Supplemental Deed would not affect of title of the land conveyed.
the validity of petitioners title for this (Emphasis supplied)
Court has ruled that a thumbmark is a
recognized mode of signature.[51] As petitioner bases its right to the
subject lot on the Supplemental Deed, it
The truth, however, is that the should have presented it to the Register
replacement of OCT No. 5203 in the of Deeds to secure the transfer of the
name of Julian by T.C.T. No. T-375 is title in its name. Apparently, it had not
marred by a grave irregularity which is done so. There is nothing on OCT No.
also an illegality, as it contravenes the 5203 or on the succeeding TCT No. T-
orthodox, conventional and normal 375 either which shows that it had
process established by law. And, worse presented the Supplemental Deed. In
still, the illegality is reflected on the face fact, there is absolutely no mention of a
of both titles. Where, as in this case, the reference to said document in the
transferee relies on a voluntary original and transfer certificates of title. It
instrument to secure the issuance of a is in this regard that the finding of the
new title in his name such instrument Court of Appeals concerning the
has to be presented to the Registry of absence of entries on the blanks
Deeds. This is evident from Sections 53 intended for the Book No. and Page No.
and 57 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. gains significant relevance. Indeed, this
1529 or the Property Registration aspect fortifies the conclusion that the
Decree. The sections read, thus: cancellation of OCT No. 5203 and the
consequent issuance of TCT No. T-375
SEC. 53. Presentation of owners in its place are not predicated on a valid
duplicate upon entry of new certificate. transaction.
No voluntary instrument shall be
registered by the Register of Deeds What appears instead on OCT No.
unless the owners duplicate certificate 5203 is the following pertinent entry:
is presented with such instrument,
except in cases expressly provided for Entry No. 1374: Kind: Order: Executed
in this Decree or upon order of the court, in favor of J.L.T. AGRO, INC.
for cause shown. (Emphasis supplied)
CONDITIONS: Lost owners duplicate
.... is hereby cancelled, and null and void
and a new Certificate of Title No. 375
SEC. 57. Procedure in registration of is issued per Order of the Court of
conveyances. An owner desiring to First Instance on file in this office.
convey his registered land in fee simple
shall execute and register a deed of Date of Instrument: November 12,
conveyance in a form sufficient in 1979
law. The Register of Deeds shall
thereafter make out in the registration Date of Inscription: Nov. 12, 1979
book a new certificate of title to the 4:00 P.M.
grantee and shall prepare and deliver to
him an owners duplicate certificate. The (SGD)
Register of Deeds shall note upon the MANUE
original and duplicate certificate the date L C.
of transfer, the volume and page of the MONTE
registration book in which the new SA
certificate is registered and a reference
21

by number to the last preceding

Page

certificate. The original and the owners

 Acting Deputy registered land in fee simple in a form
Register of sufficient in law, as required by Section
Deeds II 57 of P.D. No. 1529.

(Emphasis A plain reading of the pertinent

supplied)[52] provisions of the Supplemental
Deed discloses that the assignment is
What the entry indicates is that the not supported by any consideration. The
owners duplicate of OCT No. 5203 was provision reads:
lost, a petition for the reconstitution of
the said owners duplicate was filed in ....
court, and the court issued an order for
the reconstitution of the owners WHEREAS, in the Deed of Assignment
duplicate and its replacement with a of Assets with the Assumption of
new one. But if the entry is to be Liabilities executed by Julian L. Teves,
believed, the court concerned (CFI, Emilio B. Teves and Josefa T. Escao at
according to the entry) issued an order Dumaguete City on 16th day of
for the issuance of a new title which is November 1972 and ratified in the City
TCT No. T-375 although the original of of Dumaguete before Notary Public
OCT No. 5203 on file with the Registry Lenin Victoriano, and entered in the
of Deeds had not been lost. latters notarial register as Doc. No. 367;
Page No. 17; Book No. V; series of
Going by the legal, accepted and 1972, Julian L. Teves, Emilio B. Teves
normal process, the reconstitution court and Josefa T. Escao, transferred,
may order the reconstitution and conveyed and assigned unto J.L.T.
replacement of the lost title only, nothing AGRO, INC., all its assets and liabilities
else. Since what was lost is the owners as reflected in the Balance Sheet of the
copy of OCT No. 5203, only that owners former as of December 31, 1971.
copy could be ordered replaced. Thus,
the Register of Deeds exceeded his WHEREAS, on the compromise
authority in issuing not just a agreement, as mentioned in the
reconstituted owners copy of the original Decision made in the Court of First
certificate of title but a new transfer Instance of Negros Oriental, 12th Judicial
certificate of title in place of the original District Branch II, on Dec. 31, 1964
certificate of title. But if the court order, pertaining to Civil Case No. 3443 the
as the entry intimates, directed the following properties were adjudicated to
issuance of a new transfer certificate of Don Julian L. Teves. We quote.
titleeven designating the very number of
the new transfer certificate of title From the properties at Bais
itselfthe order would be patently
unlawful. A court cannot legally order Adjudicated to Don Julian L.Teves
the cancellation and replacement of the
original of the O.C.T. which has not ....
been lost,[53] as the petition for
reconstitution is premised on the loss Lot No. 63, Tax Dec. No. 33, Certificate
merely of the owners duplicate of the of Title No. 5203, together with all
OCT improvements. Assessed value -
P2,720.00
Apparently, petitioner had resorted
to the court order as a convenient ....
contrivance to effect the transfer of title
to the subject lot in its name, instead of WHEREAS, this Deed of Assignment is
the Supplemental Deed which should be executed by the parties herein in order
its proper course of action. It was so to effect the registration of the transfer
constrained to do because of the above corporation.
22

the Supplemental Deed does not

Page

constitute a deed of conveyance of the

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in Those contracts lack an essential
consideration of the above premises the element and they are not only voidable
ASSIGNOR hereby transfers, conveys, but void or inexistent pursuant to Article
and assigns unto J.L.T. AGRO, INC., 1409, paragraph (2).[59] The absence of
the above described parcel of the usual recital of consideration in a
land[s] with a fair market value of transaction which normally should be
EIGHTY-FOUR THOUSAND PESOS supported by a consideration such as
(P84,000.00), Philippine Currency, and the assignment made by Don Julian of
which transfer, conveyance and all nineteen (19) lots he still had at the
assignment shall become absolute upon time, coupled with the fact that the
signing.[54] (Emphasis supplied) assignee is a corporation of which Don
Julian himself was also the President
The amount of P84,000.00 adverted and Director, forecloses the application
to in the dispositive portion of the of the presumption of existence of
instrument does not represent the consideration established by law.[60]
consideration for the assignment made
by Don Julian. Rather, it is a mere Neither could the Supplemental
statement of the fair market value Deed validly operate as a donation.
of all the nineteen (19) properties Article 749 of the New Civil Code is
enumerated in the instrument, of which clear on the point, thus:
Lot No. 63 is just one, that were
transferred by Don Julian in favor of Art. 749. In order that the donation of
petitioner. Consequently, the the immovable may be valid, it must be
[55]
testimony of petitioners accountant made in a public document, specifying
that the assignment is supported by therein the property donated and the
consideration cannot prevail over the value of the charges which the donee
clear provision to the contrary in must satisfy.
the Supplemental Deed.
The acceptance may be made in the
The Court of Appeals, on the other same deed of donation or in a separate
hand, apparently considered the 1948 public document, but it shall not take
mortgage which is annotated on the effect unless it is done during the
back of the TCT No. T-375 as the lifetime of the donor.
consideration for the
[56] If the acceptance is made in a separate
assignment. However, the said
[57] instrument, the donor shall be notified
annotation shows that the mortgage
was actually executed in favor of thereof in an authentic form, and this
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, not step shall be noted in both instruments.
of petitioner.[58] Clearly, said mortgage,
executed as it was in favor of the In Sumipat, et al v. Banga, et
[61]
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation and al., this Court declared that title to
there being no showing that petitioner immovable property does not pass from
itself paid off the mortgate obligation, the donor to the donee by virtue of a
could not have been the consideration deed of donation until and unless it has
for the assignment to petitioner. been accepted in a public instrument
and the donor duly notified thereof. The
Article 1318 of the New Civil Code acceptance may be made in the very
enumerates the requisites of a valid same instrument of donation. If the
contract, namely: (1) consent of the acceptance does not appear in the
contracting parties; (2) object certain same document, it must be made in
which is the subject matter of the another. Where the deed of donation
contract; and (3) Cause of the obligation fails to show the acceptance, or where
which is established. the formal notice of the acceptance,
made in a separate instrument, is either
Thus, Article 1352 declares that not given to the donor or else not noted
23

contracts without cause, or with unlawful in the deed of donation and in the
Page

cause produce no effect whatsoever.

separate acceptance, the donation is
null and void.

In the case at bar, although

the Supplemental Deed appears in a
public document,[62] the absence of
acceptance by the donee in the same
deed or even in a separate document is
a glaring violation of the requirement.

One final note. From the substantive

and procedural standpoints, the cardinal
objectives to write finis to a protracted
litigation and avoid multiplicity of suits
are worth pursuing at all times.[63] Thus,
this Court has ruled that appellate courts
have ample authority to rule on specific
matters not assigned as errors or
otherwise not raised in an appeal, if
these are indispensable or necessary to
the just resolution of the pleaded
issues.[64] Specifically, matters not
assigned as errors on appeal but
consideration of which are necessary in
arriving at a just decision and complete
resolution of the case, or to serve the
interest of justice or to avoid dispensing
piecemeal justice.[65]

In the instant case, the correct

characterization of the Supplemental
Deed, i.e., whether it is valid or void, is
unmistakably determinative of the
underlying controversy. In other words,
the issue of validity or nullity of the
instrument which is at the core of the
controversy is interwoven with the
issues adopted by the parties and the
rulings of the trial court and the
appellate court.[66] Thus, this Court is
also resolute in striking down the
alleged deed in this case, especially as
it appears on its face to be a blatant
nullity.

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises

considered, the Decision dated 30
September 1999 of the Court of Appeals
is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner J.L.T. Agro, Inc.

SO ORDERED.
24
Page
G.R. Nos. 140371-72 Yieng is still very healthy and in full
November 27, 2006 command of her faculties; 2) the
deceased Segundo executed a general
DY YIENG SEANGIO, BARBARA D. power of attorney in favor of Virginia
SEANGIO and VIRGINIA D. giving her the power to manage and
SEANGIO, Petitioners, exercise control and supervision over
vs. his business in the Philippines; 3)
HON. AMOR A. REYES, in her Virginia is the most competent and
capacity as Presiding Judge, qualified to serve as the administrator of
Regional Trial Court, National Capital the estate of Segundo because she is a
Judicial Region, Branch 21, Manila, certified public accountant; and, 4)
ALFREDO D. SEANGIO, ALBERTO D. Segundo left a holographic will, dated
SEANGIO, ELISA D. SEANGIO- September 20, 1995, disinheriting one
SANTOS, VICTOR D. SEANGIO, of the private respondents, Alfredo
ALFONSO D. SEANGIO, SHIRLEY D. Seangio, for cause. In view of the
SEANGIO-LIM, BETTY D. SEANGIO- purported holographic will, petitioners
OBAS and JAMES D. averred that in the event the decedent is
SEANGIO, Respondents. found to have left a will, the intestate
proceedings are to be automatically
DECISION suspended and replaced by the
proceedings for the probate of the will.
AZCUNA, J.:
On April 7, 1999, a petition for the
This is a petition for certiorari1 with probate of the holographic will of
application for the issuance of a writ of Segundo, docketed as SP. Proc. No.
preliminary injunction and/or temporary 99–93396, was filed by petitioners
restraining order seeking the nullification before the RTC. They likewise reiterated
of the orders, dated August 10, 1999 that the probate proceedings should
and October 14, 1999, of the Regional take precedence over SP. Proc. No. 98–
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 21 (the 90870 because testate proceedings
RTC), dismissing the petition for probate take precedence and enjoy priority over
on the ground of preterition, in the intestate proceedings.2
consolidated cases, docketed as SP.
Proc. No. 98-90870 and SP. Proc. No. The document that petitioners refer to
99-93396, and entitled, "In the Matter of as Segundo’s holographic will is quoted,
the Intestate Estate of Segundo C. as follows:
Seangio v. Alfredo D. Seangio, et al."
and "In the Matter of the Probate of the Kasulatan sa pag-aalis ng mana
Will of Segundo C. Seangio v. Dy Yieng
Seangio, Barbara D. Seangio and Tantunin ng sinuman
Virginia Seangio."
Ako si Segundo Seangio Filipino may
The facts of the cases are as follows: asawa naninirahan sa 465-A Flores St.,
Ermita, Manila at nagtatalay ng
On September 21, 1988, private maiwanag na pag-iisip at disposisyon ay
respondents filed a petition for the tahasan at hayagang inaalisan ko ng
settlement of the intestate estate of the lahat at anumang mana ang paganay
late Segundo Seangio, docketed as Sp. kong anak na si Alfredo Seangio dahil
Proc. No. 98–90870 of the RTC, and siya ay naging lapastangan sa akin at
praying for the appointment of private isan beses siya ng sasalita ng masama
respondent Elisa D. Seangio–Santos as harapan ko at mga kapatid niya na si
special administrator and guardian ad Virginia Seangio labis kong kinasama
litem of petitioner Dy Yieng Seangio. ng loob ko at sasabe rin ni Alfredo sa
akin na ako nasa ibabaw gayon gunit
Petitioners Dy Yieng, Barbara and daratin ang araw na ako nasa ilalim siya
25

Virginia, all surnamed Seangio, opposed at siya nasa ibabaw.

Page

the petition. They contended that: 1) Dy

Labis kong ikinasama ng loob ko ang respondents, the will only shows an
gamit ni Alfredo ng akin pagalan para alleged act of disinheritance by the
makapagutang na kuarta siya at kanya decedent of his eldest son, Alfredo, and
asawa na si Merna de los Reyes sa nothing else; that all other compulsory
China Bangking Corporation na millon heirs were not named nor instituted as
pesos at hindi ng babayad at hindi ng heir, devisee or legatee, hence, there is
babayad ito ay nagdulot sa aking ng preterition which would result to
malaking kahihiya sa mga may-ari at intestacy. Such being the case, private
stockholders ng China Banking. respondents maintained that while
procedurally the court is called upon to
At ikinagalit ko pa rin ang pagkuha ni rule only on the extrinsic validity of the
Alfredo at ng kanyang asawa na mga will, it is not barred from delving into the
custome[r] ng Travel Center of the intrinsic validity of the same, and
Philippines na pinagasiwaan ko at ng ordering the dismissal of the petition for
anak ko si Virginia. probate when on the face of the will it is
clear that it contains no testamentary
Dito ako nagalit din kaya gayon ayoko disposition of the property of the
na bilanin si Alfredo ng anak ko at decedent.
hayanan kong inaalisan ng lahat at
anoman mana na si Alfredo at si Alfredo Petitioners filed their opposition to the
Seangio ay hindi ko siya anak at hindi motion to dismiss contending that: 1)
siya makoha mana. generally, the authority of the probate
court is limited only to a determination of
Nila[g]daan ko ngayon ika 20 ng the extrinsic validity of the will; 2) private
Setyembre 1995 sa longsod ng Manila respondents question the intrinsic and
sa harap ng tatlong saksi. 3 not the extrinsic validity of the will; 3)
disinheritance constitutes a disposition
(signed) of the estate of a decedent; and, 4) the
rule on preterition does not apply
Segundo Seangio because Segundo’s will does not
constitute a universal heir or heirs to the
Nilagdaan sa harap namin exclusion of one or more compulsory
heirs.6
(signed)
On August 10, 1999, the RTC issued its
Dy Yieng Seangio (signed) assailed order, dismissing the petition
for probate proceedings:
Unang Saksi ikalawang saksi
A perusal of the document termed as
(signed)
"will" by oppositors/petitioners Dy Yieng
Seangio, et al., clearly shows that there
ikatlong saksi
is preterition, as the only heirs
mentioned thereat are Alfredo and
On May 29, 1999, upon petitioners’
motion, SP. Proc. No. 98–90870 and Virginia. [T]he other heirs being omitted,
SP. Proc. No. 99–93396 were Article 854 of the New Civil Code thus
consolidated.4 applies. However, insofar as the widow
Dy Yieng Seangio is concerned, Article
On July 1, 1999, private respondents 854 does not apply, she not being a
moved for the dismissal of the probate compulsory heir in the direct line.
proceedings5 primarily on the ground
that the document purporting to be the As such, this Court is bound to dismiss
holographic will of Segundo does not this petition, for to do otherwise would
contain any disposition of the estate of amount to an abuse of discretion. The
the deceased and thus does not meet Supreme Court in the case of Acain v.
Intermediate Appellate Court [155
26

the definition of a will under Article 783

of the Civil Code. According to private SCRA 100 (1987)] has made its position
Page

clear: "for … respondents to have

tolerated the probate of the will and VALIDITY OF THE WILL, DESPITE
allowed the case to progress when, on THE FACT THAT IT IS A SETTLED
its face, the will appears to be RULE THAT THE AUTHORITY OF
intrinsically void … would have been an PROBATE COURTS IS LIMITED ONLY
exercise in futility. It would have meant a TO A DETERMINATION OF THE
waste of time, effort, expense, plus EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF THE WILL,
added futility. The trial court could have I.E., THE DUE EXECUTION THEREOF,
denied its probate outright or could have THE TESTATOR’S TESTAMENTARY
passed upon the intrinsic validity of the CAPACITY AND THE COMPLIANCE
testamentary provisions before the WITH THE REQUISITES OR
extrinsic validity of the will was SOLEMNITIES PRESCRIBED BY LAW;
resolved(underscoring supplied).
II
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the Motion to Suspend Proceedings is EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT
hereby DENIED for lack of merit. THE RESPONDENT JUDGE HAS THE
Special Proceedings No. 99–93396 is AUTHORITY TO RULE UPON THE
hereby DISMISSED without INTRINSIC VALIDITY OF THE WILL OF
pronouncement as to costs. THE TESTATOR, IT IS INDUBITABLE
FROM THE FACE OF THE
SO ORDERED.7 TESTATOR’S WILL THAT NO
PRETERITON EXISTS AND THAT THE
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration WILL IS BOTH INTRINSICALLY AND
was denied by the RTC in its order EXTRINSICALLY VALID; AND,
dated October 14, 1999.
III
Petitioners contend that:
RESPONDENT JUDGE WAS DUTY
THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED IN BOUND TO SUSPEND THE
EXCESS OF HER JURISDICTION OR PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTESTATE
WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF CASE CONSIDERING THAT IT IS A
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK SETTLED RULE THAT TESTATE
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND PROCEEDINGS TAKE PRECEDENCE
DECIDED A QUESTION OF LAW NOT OVER INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS.
IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE IN ISSUING THE Petitioners argue, as follows:
QUESTIONED ORDERS, DATED 10
AUGUST 1999 AND 14 OCTOBER First, respondent judge did not comply
1999 (ATTACHMENTS "A" AND "B" with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76 of the
HEREOF) CONSIDERING THAT: Rules of Court which respectively
mandate the court to: a) fix the time and
I place for proving the will when all
concerned may appear to contest the
THE RESPONDENT JUDGE, allowance thereof, and cause notice of
WITHOUT EVEN COMPLYING WITH such time and place to be published
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF RULE 76 OF three weeks successively previous to
THE RULES OF COURT ON THE the appointed time in a newspaper of
PROPER PROCEDURE FOR SETTING general circulation; and, b) cause the
THE CASE FOR INITIAL HEARING mailing of said notice to the heirs,
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE legatees and devisees of the testator
JURISDICTIONAL FACTS, DISMISSED Segundo;
THE TESTATE CASE ON THE
ALLEGED GROUND THAT THE Second, the holographic will does not
TESTATOR’S WILL IS VOID contain any institution of an heir, but
ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE OF THE rather, as its title clearly
27

EXISTENCE OF PRETERITION, states, Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng

Page

WHICH GOES INTO THE INTRINSIC Mana, simply contains a disinheritance

of a compulsory heir. Thus, there is no a child or descendant under Article 919
preterition in the decedent’s will and the of the Civil Code:
holographic will on its face is not
intrinsically void; Article 919. The following shall be
sufficient causes for the disinheritance
Third, the testator intended all his of children and descendants, legitimate
compulsory heirs, petitioners and private as well as illegitimate:
respondents alike, with the sole
exception of Alfredo, to inherit his (1) When a child or descendant
estate. None of the compulsory heirs in has been found guilty of an
the direct line of Segundo were attempt against the life of the
preterited in the holographic will since testator, his or her spouse,
there was no institution of an heir; descendants, or ascendants;

Fourth, inasmuch as it clearly appears (2) When a child or descendant

from the face of the holographic will that has accused the testator of a
it is both intrinsically and extrinsically crime for which the law prescribes
valid, respondent judge was mandated imprisonment for six years or
to proceed with the hearing of the more, if the accusation has been
testate case; and, found groundless;

Lastly, the continuation of the (3) When a child or descendant

proceedings in the intestate case will has been convicted of adultery or
work injustice to petitioners, and will concubinage with the spouse of
render nugatory the disinheritance of the testator;
Alfredo.
(4) When a child or descendant by
The purported holographic will of fraud, violence, intimidation, or
Segundo that was presented by undue influence causes the
petitioners was dated, signed and testator to make a will or to
written by him in his own handwriting. change one already made;
Except on the ground of preterition,
private respondents did not raise any (5) A refusal without justifiable
issue as regards the authenticity of the cause to support the parents or
document. ascendant who disinherit such
child or descendant;
The document, entitled Kasulatan ng
Pag-Aalis ng Mana, unmistakably (6) Maltreatment of the testator by
showed Segundo’s intention of word or deed, by the child or
excluding his eldest son, Alfredo, as an descendant;8
heir to his estate for the reasons that he
cited therein. In effect, Alfredo was (7) When a child or descendant
disinherited by Segundo. leads a dishonorable or
disgraceful life;
For disinheritance to be valid, Article
916 of the Civil Code requires that the (8) Conviction of a crime which
same must be effected through a will carries with it the penalty of civil
wherein the legal cause therefor shall be interdiction.
specified. With regard to the reasons for
the disinheritance that were stated by Now, the critical issue to be determined
Segundo in his document, the Court is whether the document executed by
believes that the incidents, taken as a Segundo can be considered as a
whole, can be considered a form of holographic will.
maltreatment of Segundo by his son,
Alfredo, and that the matter presents a A holographic will, as provided under
28

sufficient cause for the disinheritance of Article 810 of the Civil Code, must be
entirely written, dated, and signed by the
Page
hand of the testator himself. It is subject not preterited in the will. It was, in the
to no other form, and may be made in or Court’s opinion, Segundo’s last
out of the Philippines, and need not be expression to bequeath his estate to all
witnessed. his compulsory heirs, with the sole
exception of Alfredo. Also, Segundo did
Segundo’s document, although it may not institute an heir16 to the exclusion of
initially come across as a mere his other compulsory heirs. The mere
disinheritance instrument, conforms to mention of the name of one of the
the formalities of a holographic will petitioners, Virginia, in the document did
prescribed by law. It is written, dated not operate to institute her as the
and signed by the hand of Segundo universal heir. Her name was included
himself. An intent to dispose mortis plainly as a witness to the altercation
causa[9] can be clearly deduced from between Segundo and his son,
the terms of the instrument, and while it Alfredo.1âwphi1
does not make an affirmative disposition
of the latter’s property, the Considering that the questioned
disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is document is Segundo’s holographic will,
an act of disposition in itself. In other and that the law favors testacy over
words, the disinheritance results in the intestacy, the probate of the will cannot
disposition of the property of the testator be dispensed with. Article 838 of the
Segundo in favor of those who would Civil Code provides that no will shall
succeed in the absence of Alfredo.10 pass either real or personal property
unless it is proved and allowed in
Moreover, it is a fundamental principle accordance with the Rules of Court.
that the intent or the will of the testator, Thus, unless the will is probated, the
expressed in the form and within the right of a person to dispose of his
limits prescribed by law, must be property may be rendered nugatory.17
recognized as the supreme law in
succession. All rules of construction are In view of the foregoing, the trial court,
designed to ascertain and give effect to therefore, should have allowed the
that intention. It is only when the holographic will to be probated. It is
intention of the testator is contrary to settled that testate proceedings for the
law, morals, or public policy that it settlement of the estate of the decedent
cannot be given effect.11 take precedence over intestate
proceedings for the same purpose.18
Holographic wills, therefore, being
usually prepared by one who is not WHEREFORE, the petition
learned in the law, as illustrated in the is GRANTED. The Orders of the
present case, should be construed more Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
liberally than the ones drawn by an 21, dated August 10, 1999 and October
expert, taking into account the 14, 1999, are set aside. Respondent
circumstances surrounding the judge is directed to reinstate and hear
execution of the instrument and the SP Proc. No. 99-93396 for the
intention of the testator.12 In this regard, allowance of the holographic will of
the Court is convinced that the Segundo Seangio. The intestate case or
document, even if captioned SP. Proc. No. 98-90870 is hereby
as Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng suspended until the termination of the
Mana, was intended by Segundo to be aforesaid testate proceedings.
his last testamentary act and was
executed by him in accordance with law No costs.
in the form of a holographic will. Unless
the will is probated,13 the disinheritance SO ORDERED.
cannot be given effect.14

With regard to the issue on

29

preterition,15 the Court believes that the

Page

compulsory heirs in the direct line were

HEIRS OF G.R. No. 165748 URETA
POLICRONIO M. CIPRIANO;
URETA, SR.,
namely: HEIRS OF
CONRADO B. PRUDENCIA
URETA, URETA
MACARIO B. PARADERO,
URETA, GLORIA namely: WILLIAM
URETA- U. PARADERO,
GONZALES, WARLITO U.
ROMEO B. PARADERO,
URETA, RITA CARMENCITA P.
URETA-SOLANO, PERLAS,
NENA URETA- CRISTINA P.
TONGCUA, CORDOVA, EDNA
VENANCIO B. P. GALLARDO,
URETA, LILIA LETICIA P.
URETA-TAYCO, REYES; NARCISO
and HEIRS OF M. URETA;
POLICRONIO B.
URETA, JR., VICENTE M.
namely: MIGUEL URETA;
T. URETA,
RAMON HEIRS OF
POLICRONIO T. FRANCISCO M.
URETA, URETA, namely:
EMMANUEL T. EDITA T. URETA-
URETA, and REYES and
BERNADETTE T. LOLLIE T.
URETA, URETA-
Petitioners, VILLARUEL;
ROQUE M.
URETA; ADELA
URETA-
GONZALES;
- versus - HEIRS OF
INOCENCIO M.
URETA, namely:
BENILDA V.
URETA,
HEIRS OF ALFONSO V.
LIBERATO M. URETA II, DICK
URETA, namely: RICARDO V.
TERESA F. URETA, and
URETA, AMPARO ENRIQUE V.
URETA- URETA;
CASTILLO, MERLINDA U.
IGNACIO F. RIVERA; JORGE
URETA, SR., URETA; ANDRES
EMIRITO F. URETA,
URETA, WILKIE F. WENEFREDA U.
URETA, TARAN; and
LIBERATO F. BENEDICT
URETA, JR., RAY URETA,
F. URETA, ZALDY Respondents.
30

F. URETA, and
Page

MILA JEAN
 These consolidated petitions for continued to own, possess and enjoy the
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the lands and their produce.
1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
assail the April 20, 2004 Decision[1] of When Alfonso died on October 11, 1972,
the Court of Appeals (CA), and its Liberato acted as the administrator of his
October 14, 2004 Resolution[2] in C.A.- fathers estate. He was later succeeded
G.R. CV No. 71399, which affirmed with by his sister Prudencia, and then by her
modification the April 26, 2001 daughter, Carmencita Perlas. Except for
Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court, a portion of parcel 5, the rest of the
Branch 9, Kalibo, Aklan (RTC) in Civil parcels transferred to Policronio were
Case No. 5026. tenanted by the Fernandez Family.
These tenants never turned over the
The Facts produce of the lands to Policronio or any
of his heirs, but to Alfonso and, later, to
In his lifetime, Alfonso the administrators of his estate.
Ureta (Alfonso) begot 14 children,
namely, Policronio, Liberato, Narciso, Policronio died on November 22,
Prudencia, Vicente, Francisco, 1974. Except for the said portion of
Inocensio, Roque, Adela, Wenefreda, parcel 5, neither Policronio nor his heirs
Merlinda, Benedicto, Jorge, and Andres. ever took possession of the subject
The children of Policronio (Heirs of lands.
Policronio), are opposed to the rest of
Alfonsos children and their On April 19, 1989, Alfonsos heirs
descendants (Heirs of Alfonso). executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition,[8] which included all the lands
Alfonso was financially well-off during his that were covered by the four (4) deeds
lifetime. He owned several fishpens, a of sale that were previously executed by
fishpond, a sari-sari store, a passenger Alfonso for taxation purposes. Conrado,
jeep, and was engaged in the buying Policronios eldest son, representing the
and selling of copra. Policronio, the Heirs of Policronio, signed the Deed of
eldest, was the only child of Alfonso who Extra-Judicial Partition in behalf of his
failed to finish schooling and instead co-heirs.
worked on his fathers lands.
After their fathers death, the Heirs of
Sometime in October 1969, Alfonso and Policronio found tax declarations in his
four of his children, namely, Policronio, name covering the six parcels of land.
Liberato, Prudencia, and Francisco, met On June 15, 1995, they obtained a copy
at the house of Liberato. Francisco, who of the Deed of Sale executed on October
was then a municipal judge, suggested 25, 1969 by Alfonso in favor of
that in order to reduce the inheritance Policronio.
taxes, their father should make it appear
that he had sold some of his lands to his Not long after, on July 30, 1995, the
children. Accordingly, Alfonso executed Heirs of Policronio allegedly learned
four (4) Deeds of Sale covering several about the Deed of Extra-Judicial
parcels of land in favor of Partition involving Alfonsos estate when
[4] [5] [6]
Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and it was published in the July 19,
his common-law wife, Valeriana Dela 1995 issue of the Aklan Reporter.
Cruz.[7] The Deed of Sale executed
on October 25, 1969, in favor of Believing that the six parcels of
Policronio, covered six parcels of land, land belonged to their late father, and as
which are the properties in dispute in this such, excluded from the Deed of Extra-
case. Judicial Partition, the Heirs of Policronio
sought to amicably settle the matter with
Since the sales were only made for the Heirs of Alfonso. Earnest efforts
taxation purposes and no monetary proving futile, the Heirs of Policronio filed
31

consideration was given, Alfonso a Complaint for Declaration of

Page

Ownership, Recovery of Possession,

Annulment of Documents, Partition, and parcels of land, the amount was grossly
Damages[9] against the Heirs of Alfonso inadequate. It was also noted that the
before the RTC on November 17, 1995 aggregate area of the subject lands was
where the following issues were more than double the average share
submitted: (1) whether or not the Deed adjudicated to each of the other children
of Sale was valid; (2) whether or not the in the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition;
Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition was that the siblings of Policronio were the
valid; and (3) who between the parties ones who shared in the produce of the
was entitled to damages. land; and that the Heirs of Policronio
only paid real estate taxes in 1996 and
The Ruling of the RTC 1997. The RTC opined that Policronio
must have been aware that the transfer
On April 26, 2001, the RTC dismissed was merely for taxation purposes
the Complaint of the Heirs of Policronio because he did not subsequently take
and ruled in favor of the Heirs of Alfonso possession of the properties even after
in a decision, the dispositive portion of the death of his father.
which reads:
The Deed of Extra-Judicial
WHEREFORE, the Partition, on the other hand, was
Court finds that the declared valid by the RTC as all the
preponderance of evidence heirs of Alfonso were represented and
tilts in favor of the received equal shares and all the
defendants, hence the requirements of a valid extra-judicial
instant case is hereby partition were met. The RTC considered
DISMISSED. Conrados claim that he did not
understand the full significance of his
The counterclaims signature when he signed in behalf of his
are likewise DISMISSED. co-heirs, as a gratutitous assertion. The
RTC was of the view that when he
With costs against admitted to have signed all the pages
plaintiffs. and personally appeared before the
notary public, he was presumed to have
SO ORDERED. understood their contents.
The RTC found that the Heirs of Lastly, neither party was entitled
Alfonso clearly established that the Deed to damages. The Heirs of Alfonso failed
of Sale was null and void. It held that the to present testimony to serve as factual
Heirs of Policronio failed to rebut the basis for moral damages, no document
evidence of the Heirs of Alfonso, which was presented to prove actual damages,
proved that the Deed of Sale in the and the Heirs of Policronio were found to
possession of the former was one of the have filed the case in good faith.
four (4) Deeds of Sale executed by
Alfonso in favor of his 3 children and The Ruling of the CA
second wife for taxation purposes; that
although tax declarations were issued in Aggrieved, the Heirs of Policronio
the name of Policronio, he or his heirs appealed before the CA, which rendered
never took possession of the subject a decision on April 20, 2004, the
lands except a portion of parcel 5; and dispositive portion of which reads as
that all the produce were turned over by follows:
the tenants to Alfonso and the
administrators of his estate and never to WHEREFORE, the
Policronio or his heirs. appeal is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The appealed
The RTC further found that there Decision, dated 26 April
was no money involved in the sale. Even 2001, rendered by Hon.
32

granting that there was, as claimed by Judge Dean R. Telan of the

Page

the Heirs of Policronio, ₱2,000.00 for six Regional Trial Court of

 Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 9, is his fathers death, never demanded
hereby AFFIRMED with delivery of the produce from the tenants,
MODIFICATION: and never paid realty taxes on the
properties. It was also noted that
1.) The Deed Policronio never disclosed the existence
of Sale in favor of Policronio of the Deed of Sale to his children, as
Ureta, Sr., dated 25 they were, in fact, surprised to discover
October 1969, covering six its existence. The CA, thus, concluded
(6) parcels of land is hereby that Policronio must have been aware
declared VOID for that the transfer was only made for
being ABSOLUTELY taxation purposes.
SIMULATED;
The testimony of Amparo Castillo,
2.) The Deed of as to the circumstances surrounding the
Extra-Judicial Partition, actual arrangement and agreement
dated 19 April 1989, between the parties prior to the
is ANNULLED; execution of the four (4) Deeds of Sale,
was found by the CA to be unrebutted.
3.) The claim for The RTCs assessment of the credibility
actual and exemplary of her testimony was accorded respect,
damages and the intention of the parties was
are DISMISSED for lack of given the primary consideration in
factual and legal basis. determining the true nature of the
contract.
The case is
hereby REMANDED to the Contrary to the finding of the RTC
court of origin for the proper though, the CA annulled the Deed of
partition of ALFONSO Extra-Judicial Partition due to the
URETAS Estate in incapacity of one of the parties to give
accordance with Rule 69 of his consent to the contract. It held that
the 1997 Rules of Civil before Conrado could validly bind his co-
Procedure. No costs at this heirs to the Deed of Extra-Judicial
instance. Partition, it was necessary that he be
clothed with the proper authority. The
SO ORDERED. CA ruled that a special power of attorney
was required under Article 1878 (5) and
The CA affirmed the finding of the RTC (15) of the Civil Code. Without a special
that the Deed of Sale was void. It found power of attorney, it was held that
the Deed of Sale to be absolutely Conrado lacked the legal capactiy to
simulated as the parties did not intend to give the consent of his co-heirs, thus,
be legally bound by it. As such, it rendering the Deed of Extra-Judicial
produced no legal effects and did not Partition voidable under Article 1390 (1)
alter the juridical situation of the parties. of the Civil Code.
The CA also noted that Alfonso
continued to exercise all the rights of an As a consequence, the CA ordered the
owner even after the execution of the remand of the case to the RTC for the
Deed of Sale, as it was undisputed that proper partition of the estate, with the
he remained in possession of the subject option that the parties may still
parcels of land and enjoyed their voluntarily effect the partition by
produce until his death. executing another agreement or by
adopting the assailed Deed of Partition
Policronio, on the other hand, with the RTCs approval in either case.
never exercised any rights pertaining to Otherwise, the RTC may proceed with
an owner over the subject lands from the the compulsory partition of the estate in
time they were sold to him up until his accordance with the Rules.
33

death. He never took or attempted to

Page

take possession of the land even after

With regard to the claim for damages, The issues presented for
the CA agreed with the RTC and resolution by the Heirs of Policronio
dismissed the claim for actual and in G.R. No. 165748 are as follows:
compensatory damages for lack of
factual and legal basis. I.

Both parties filed their respective Whether the Court of

Motions for Reconsideration, which were Appeals is correct in
denied by the CA for lack of merit in a ruling that the Deed of
Resolution dated October 14, 2004. Absolute Sale of 25
October 1969 is void for
In their Motion for Reconsideration, the being absolutely fictitious
Heirs of Policronio argued that the RTC and in relation therewith,
violated the best evidence rule in giving may parol evidence be
credence to the testimony of Amparo entertained to thwart its
Castillo with regard to the simulation of binding effect after the
the Deed of Sale, and that prescription parties have both died?
had set in precluding any question on
the validity of the contract. Assuming that indeed the
said document is
The CA held that the oral simulated, whether or not
testimony was admissible under Rule the parties thereto
130, Section 9 (b) and (c), which including their
provides that evidence aliunde may be successors in interest are
allowed to explain the terms of the estopped to question its
written agreement if the same failed to validity, they being bound
express the true intent and agreement of by Articles 1412 and 1421
the parties thereto, or when the validity of the Civil Code?
of the written agreement was put in
issue. Furthermore, the CA found that II.
the Heirs of Policronio waived their right
to object to evidence aliunde having Whether prescription
failed to do so during trial and for raising applies to bar any
such only for the first time on appeal. question respecting the
With regard to prescription, the CA ruled validity of the Deed of
that the action or defense for the Absolute Sale dated 25
declaration of the inexistence of a October 1969? Whether
contract did not prescribe under Article prescription applies to
1410 of the Civil Code. bar any collateral attack
on the validity of the deed
On the other hand, the Heirs of of absolute sale executed
Alfonso argued that the Deed of Extra- 21 years earlier?
Judicial Partition should not have been
annulled, and instead the preterited heirs III.
should be given their share. The CA
reiterated that Conrados lack of capacity Whether the Court of
to give his co-heirs consent to the extra- Appeals correctly ruled in
judicial settlement rendered the same nullifying the Deed of
voidable. Extrajudicial Partition
because Conrado Ureta
Hence, the present Petitions for signed the same without
Review on Certiorari. the written authority from
his siblings in
The Issues contravention of Article
1878 in relation to Article
34

1390 of the Civil Code and

Page

in relation therewith,
 whether the defense of Since the sale in favor of
ratification and/or Policronio Ureta Sr. was
preterition raised for the null and void ab initio, the
first time on appeal may properties covered
be entertained? therein formed part of the
estate of the late Alfonso
The issues presented for Ureta and was correctly
resolution by the Heirs of Alfonso in G.R. included in the Deed of
No. 165930 are as follows: Extrajudicial Partition
even if no prior action for
I. nullification of the sale
was filed by the heirs of
Whether or not grave Liberato Ureta.
error was committed by
the Trial Court and Court V.
of Appeals in declaring
the Deed of Sale of Whether or not the heirs
subject properties as of Policronio Ureta Sr.
absolutely simulated and can claim that estoppel
null and void thru parol based on Article 1412 of
evidence based on their the Civil Code as well as
factual findings as to its the issue of prescription
fictitious nature, and can still be raised on
there being waiver of any appeal.
objection based on
violation of the parol These various contentions revolve
evidence rule. around two major issues, to wit: (1)
whether the Deed of Sale is valid, and
II. (2) whether the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition is valid. Thus, the assigned
Whether or not the Court errors shall be discussed jointly and
of Appeals was correct in in seriatim.
holding that Conrado
Uretas lack of capacity to The Ruling of the Court
give his co-heirs consent
to the Extra-Judicial Validity of the Deed of Sale
Partition rendered the
same voidable. Two veritable legal presumptions
bear on the validity of the Deed of Sale:
III. (1) that there was sufficient
consideration for the contract; and (2)
Granting arguendo that that it was the result of a fair and regular
Conrado Ureta was not private transaction. If shown to hold,
authorized to represent these presumptions infer prima facie the
his co-heirs and there transactions validity, except that it must
was no ratification, yield to the evidence adduced.[10]
whether or not the Court
of Appeals was correct in As will be discussed below, the
ordering the remand of evidence overcomes these two
the case to the Regional presumptions.
Trial Court for partition of
the estate of Alfonso Absolute Simulation
Ureta.
First, the Deed of Sale was not the
IV. result of a fair and regular private
35

transaction because it was absolutely

Page

simulated.
 The Heirs of Policronio argued doubt as to the intention of the parties to
that the land had been validly sold to a contract, the literal meaning of the
Policronio as the Deed of Sale stipulation shall control.[12] Nowhere in
contained all the essential elements of a the Deed of Sale is it indicated that the
valid contract of sale, by virtue of which, transfer was only for taxation purposes.
the subject properties were transferred On the contrary, the document clearly
in his name as evidenced by the tax indicates that the lands were sold.
declaration. There being no invalidation Therefore, they averred that the literal
prior to the execution of the Deed of meaning of the stipulation should
Extra-Judicial Partition, the probity and control.
integrity of the Deed of Sale should
remain undiminished and accorded The Court disagrees.
respect as it was a duly notarized public
instrument. The Court finds no cogent reason
to deviate from the finding of the CA that
The Heirs of Policronio posited that his the Deed of Sale is null and void for
loyal services to his father and his being being absolutely simulated. The Civil
the eldest among Alfonsos children, Code provides:
might have prompted the old man to sell
the subject lands to him at a very low Art. 1345. Simulation of a
price as an advance inheritance. They contract may be absolute or
explained that Policronios failure to take relative. The former takes
possession of the subject lands and to place when the parties do
claim their produce manifests a Filipino not intend to be bound at
family practice wherein a child would all; the latter, when the
take possession and enjoy the fruits of parties conceal their true
the land sold by a parent only after the agreement.
latters death. Policronio simply treated
the lands the same way his father Art. 1346. An absolutely
Alfonso treated them - where his simulated or fictitious
children enjoyed usufructuary rights contract is void. A relative
over the properties, as opposed to simulation, when it does not
appropriating them exclusively to prejudice a third person and
himself. They contended is not intended for any
that Policronios failure to take actual purpose contrary to law,
possession of the lands did not prove morals, good customs,
that he was not the owner as he was public order or public policy
merely exercising his right to dispose of binds the parties to their
them. They argue that it was an error on real agreement.
the part of the CA to conclude that
ownership by Policronio was not Valerio v. Refresca[13] is
established by his failure to possess the instructive on the matter of simulation of
properties sold. Instead, emphasis contracts:
should be made on the fact that the tax
declarations, being indicia of In absolute
possession, were in Policronios name. simulation, there is a
colorable contract but it has
They further argued that the Heirs no substance as the parties
of Alfonso failed to appreciate that the have no intention to be
Deed of Sale was clear enough to bound by it. The main
convey the subject parcels of land. characteristic of an absolute
Citing jurisprudence, they contend that simulation is that the
there is a presumption that an apparent contract is not
instrument sets out the true agreement really desired or intended to
produce legal effect or in
36

of the parties thereto and that it was

executed for valuable any way alter the juridical
Page

consideration,[11] and where there is no situation of the parties. As a

 result, an absolutely absolutely simulated Deeds of Sale
simulated or fictitious which involved no actual monetary
contract is void, and the consideration, executed by Alfonso in
parties may recover from favor of his children, Policronio,
each other what they may Liberato, and Prudencia, and his second
have given under the wife, Valeriana, for taxation purposes.
contract. However, if the
parties state a false cause Amparo Castillo, the daughter of
in the contract to conceal Liberato, testified, to wit:
their real agreement, the
contract is relatively Q: Now sometime in the
simulated and the parties year 1969 can you recall if
are still bound by their real your grandfather and his
agreement. Hence, where children [met] in your
the essential requisites of a house?
contract are present and
the simulation refers only to A: Yes sir, that was
the content or terms of the sometime in October 1969
contract, the agreement is when they [met] in our
absolutely binding and house, my grandfather, my
enforceable between the late uncle Policronio Ureta,
parties and their successors my late uncle Liberato
in interest. Ureta, my uncle Francisco
Ureta, and then my auntie
Lacking, therefore, in an Prudencia Ureta they
absolutely simulated contract is consent talk[ed] about, that idea
which is essential to a valid and came from my uncle
enforceable contract.[14] Thus, where a Francisco Ureta to [sell]
person, in order to place his property some parcels of land to his
beyond the reach of his creditors, children to lessen the
simulates a transfer of it to another, he inheritance tax whatever
does not really intend to divest himself happened to my
of his title and control of the property; grandfather, actually no
hence, the deed of transfer is but a money involved in this
sham.[15] Similarly, in this case, Alfonso sale.
simulated a transfer to Policronio purely
for taxation purposes, without intending Q: Now you said there was
to transfer ownership over the subject that agreement, verbal
lands. agreement. [W]here were
you when this Alfonso Ureta
The primary consideration in and his children gather[ed]
determining the true nature of a contract in your house?
is the intention of the parties. If the
words of a contract appear to A: I was near them in fact I
contravene the evident intention of the heard everything they were
parties, the latter shall prevail. Such talking [about]
intention is determined not only from the
express terms of their agreement, but xxx
also from the contemporaneous and
subsequent acts of the parties.[16] The Q: Were there documents
true intention of the parties in this case of sale executed by Alfonso
was sufficiently proven by the Heirs of Ureta in furtherance of their
Alfonso. verbal agreement?

The Heirs of Alfonso established A: Yes sir.

37

by a preponderance of evidence[17] that

Page

the Deed of Sale was one of the four (4)

 Q: To whom in particular properties are null and void
did your grandfather from the beginning.[19]
Alfonso Ureta execute this
deed of sale without money As found by the CA, Alfonso
consideration according to continued to exercise all the rights of an
you? owner even after the execution of the
Deeds of Sale. It was undisputed that
A: To my uncle Policronio Alfonso remained in possession of the
Ureta and to Prudencia subject lands and enjoyed their produce
Ureta Panadero. until his death. No credence can be
given to the contention of the Heirs of
Q: And who else? Policrionio that their father did not take
possession of the subject lands or
A: To Valeriana dela Cruz. enjoyed the fruits thereof in deference to
a Filipino family practice. Had this been
Q: How about your father? true, Policronio should have taken
possession of the subject lands after his
A: He has.[18] father died. On the contrary, it was
admitted that neither Policronio nor his
The other Deeds of Sale executed heirs ever took possession of the subject
by Alfonso in favor of his children lands from the time they were sold to
Prudencia and Liberato, and second him, and even after the death of both
wife Valeriana, all bearing the same Alfonso and Policronio.
date of execution, were duly presented
in evidence by the Heirs of Alfonso, and It was also admitted by the Heirs
were uncontested by the Heirs of of Policronio that the tenants of the
Policronio. The lands which were the subject lands never turned over the
subject of these Deeds of Sale were in produce of the properties to Policronio or
fact included in the Deed of Extra- his heirs but only to Alfonso and the
Judicial Partition executed by all the administrators of his estate. Neither was
heirs of Alfonso, where it was expressly there a demand for their delivery to
stipulated: Policronio or his heirs. Neither did
Policronio ever pay real estate taxes on
That the above- the properties, the only payment on
named Amparo U. Castillo, record being those made by his heirs in
Prudencia U. Paradero, 1996 and 1997 ten years after his
Conrado B. Ureta and death. In sum, Policronio never
Merlinda U. Rivera do exercised any rights pertaining to an
hereby recognize and owner over the subject lands.
acknowledge as a fact that
the properties presently The most protuberant index of
declared in their respective simulation of contract is the complete
names or in the names of absence of an attempt in any manner on
their respective parents and the part of the ostensible buyer to assert
are included in the rights of ownership over the subject
foregoing instrument are properties. Policronios failure to take
actually the properties of exclusive possession of the subject
the deceased Alfonso Ureta properties or, in the alternative, to collect
and were transferred only rentals, is contrary to the principle of
for the purpose of effective ownership. Such failure is a clear badge
administration and of simulation that renders the whole
development and transaction void. [20]
convenience in the payment
of taxes and, therefore, all It is further telling that Policronio
instruments conveying or never disclosed the existence of the
38

affecting the transfer of said Deed of Sale to his children. This,

Page

coupled with Policronios failure to

exercise any rights pertaining to an inexistence or absolute
owner of the subject lands, leads to the nullity is imprescriptible.
conclusion that he was aware that the
transfer was only made for taxation 5) The inexistence or
purposes and never intended to bind the absolute nullity of a
parties thereto. contract cannot be
invoked by a person
As the above factual circumstances whose interests are not
remain unrebutted by the Heirs of directly affected.[22]
Policronio, the factual findings of the
RTC, which were affirmed by the CA, Since the Deed of Sale is void, the
remain binding and conclusive upon this subject properties were properly
Court.[21] included in the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition of the estate of Alfonso.
It is clear that the parties did not
intend to be bound at all, and as such, Absence and Inadequacy of
the Deed of Sale produced no legal Consideration
effects and did not alter the juridical
situation of the parties. The Deed of Sale The second presumption is
is, therefore, void for being absolutely rebutted by the lack of consideration for
simulated pursuant to Article 1409 (2) of the Deed of Sale.
the Civil Code which provides:
In their Answer,[23] the Heirs of
Art. 1409. The following Alfonso initially argued that the Deed of
contracts are inexistent and Sale was void for lack of consideration,
void from the beginning: and even granting that there was
consideration, such was inadequate.
xxx The Heirs of Policronio counter that the
defenses of absence or inadequacy of
(2) Those which are consideration are not grounds to render
absolutely simulated or a contract void.
fictitious;
The Heirs of Policronio contended
xxx that under Article 1470 of the Civil
Code, gross inadequacy of the price
For guidance, the following are does not affect a contract of sale, except
the most fundamental characteristics of as it may indicate a defect in the
void or inexistent contracts: consent, or that the parties really
intended a donation or some other act
1) As a general rule, they or contract. Citing jurisprudence, they
produce no legal effects argued that inadequacy of monetary
whatsoever in consideration does not render a
accordance with the conveyance inexistent as liberality may
principle "quod nullum be sufficient cause for a valid contract,
est nullum producit whereas fraud or bad faith may render it
effectum." either rescissible or voidable, although
valid until annulled.[24] Thus, they argued
2) They are not susceptible that if the contract suffers from
of ratification. inadequate consideration, it remains
valid until annulled, and the remedy of
3) The right to set up the rescission calls for judicial intervention,
defense of inexistence which remedy the Heirs of Alfonso failed
or absolute nullity cannot to take.
be waived or renounced.
It is further argued that even
39

4) The action or defense for granting that the sale of the subject
the declaration of their
Page

lands for a consideration of ₱2,000.00

was inadequate, absent any evidence of must, therefore, follow that the Deed of
the fair market value of the land at the Sale is void for lack of consideration.
time of its sale, it cannot be concluded
that the price at which it was sold was Given that the Deed of Sale is
inadequate.[25] As there is nothing in the void, it is unnecessary to discuss the
records to show that the Heirs of issue on the inadequacy of
Alfonso supplied the true value of the consideration.
land in 1969, the amount of ₱2,000.00
must thus stand as its saleable value. Parol Evidence and Hearsay

On this issue, the Court finds for the The Heirs of Policronio aver that
Heirs of Alfonso. the rules on parol evidence and hearsay
were violated by the CA in ruling that the
For lack of consideration, the Deed of Sale was void.
Deed of Sale is once again found to be
void. It states that Policronio paid, and They argued that based on the
Alfonso received, the ₱2,000.00 parol evidence rule, the Heirs of Alfonso
purchase price on the date of the and, specifically, Amparo Castillo, were
signing of the contract: not in a position to prove the terms
outside of the contract because they
That I, ALFONSO F. were not parties nor successors-in-
URETA, x x x for and in interest in the Deed of Sale in question.
consideration of the sum of Thus, it is argued that the testimony of
TWO THOUSAND Amparo Castillo violates the parol
(₱2,000.00) PESOS, evidence rule.
Philippine Currency, to me
in hand paid by Stemming from the presumption
POLICRONIO M. URETA, x that the Heirs of Alfonso were not
x x, do hereby CEDE, parties to the contract, it is also argued
TRANSFER, and CONVEY, that the parol evidence rule may not be
by way of absolute sale, x x properly invoked by either party in the
x six (6) parcels of land x x litigation against the other, where at
x.[26] [Emphasis ours] least one of the parties to the suit is not
a party or a privy of a party to the written
Although, on its face, the Deed of Sale instrument in question and does not
appears to be supported by valuable base a claim on the instrument or assert
consideration, the RTC found that there a right originating in the instrument or
was no money involved in the the relation established thereby.[29]
sale.[27] This finding was affirmed by the
CA in ruling that the sale is void for Their arguments are untenable.
being absolutely simulated. Considering
that there is no cogent reason to deviate The objection against the
from such factual findings, they are admission of any evidence must be
binding on this Court. made at the proper time, as soon as the
grounds therefor become reasonably
It is well-settled in a long line of cases apparent, and if not so made, it will be
that where a deed of sale states that the understood to have been waived. In the
purchase price has been paid but in fact case of testimonial evidence, the
has never been paid, the deed of sale is objection must be made when the
null and void for lack of objectionable question is asked or after
[28] the answer is given if the objectionable
consideration. Thus, although the
contract states that the purchase price features become apparent only by
of ₱2,000.00 was paid by Policronio to reason of such answer.[30] In this case,
Alfonso for the subject properties, it has the Heirs of Policronio failed to timely
been proven that such was never in fact object to the testimony of Amparo
40

paid as there was no money involved. It Castillo and they are, thus, deemed to
Page
have waived the benefit of the parol The failure of the Deed of Sale to
evidence rule. express the true intent and agreement
of the parties was clearly put in issue in
Granting that the Heirs of the Answer[31] of the Heirs of Alfonso to
Policronio timely objected to the the Complaint. It was alleged that the
testimony of Amparo Castillo, their Deed of Sale was only made to lessen
argument would still fail. the payment of estate and inheritance
taxes and not meant to transfer
Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules ownership. The exception in paragraph
of Court provides: (b) is allowed to enable the court to
ascertain the true intent of the parties,
Section 9. Evidence of and once the intent is clear, it shall
written agreements. When prevail over what the document appears
the terms of an agreement to be on its face.[32] As the true intent of
have been reduced to the parties was duly proven in the
writing, it is considered as present case, it now prevails over what
containing all the terms appears on the Deed of Sale.
agreed upon and there can
be, between the parties and The validity of the Deed of Sale
their successors in interest, was also put in issue in the Answer, and
no evidence of such terms was precisely one of the issues
other than the contents of submitted to the RTC for
the written agreement. resolution.[33] The operation of the parol
evidence rule requires the existence of a
However, a party may valid written agreement. It is, thus, not
present evidence to modify, applicable in a proceeding where the
explain or add to the terms validity of such agreement is the fact in
of written agreement if he dispute, such as when a contract may
puts in issue in his be void for lack of
pleading: [34]
consideration. Considering that the
Deed of Sale has been shown to be void
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, for being absolutely simulated and for
mistake or imperfection in lack of consideration, the Heirs of
the written agreement; Alfonso are not precluded from
presenting evidence to modify, explain
(b) The failure of the written or add to the terms of the written
agreement to express the agreement.
true intent and agreement
of the parties thereto; The Heirs of Policronio must be in
a state of confusion in arguing that the
(c) The validity of the Heirs of Alfonso may not question the
written agreement; or Deed of Sale for not being parties or
successors-in-interest therein on the
(d) The existence of other basis that the parol evidence rule may
terms agreed to by the not be properly invoked in a proceeding
parties or their successors or litigation where at least one of the
in interest after the parties to the suit is not a party or a
execution of the written privy of a party to the written instrument
agreement. in question and does not base a claim
on the instrument or assert a right
The term "agreement"
originating in the instrument or the
includes wills.
relation established thereby. If their
argument was to be accepted, then the
[Emphasis ours]
Heirs of Policronio would themselves be
41

Paragraphs (b) and (c) are precluded from invoking the parol
applicable in the case at bench. evidence rule to exclude the evidence of
Page

the Heirs of Alfonso.

 Indeed, the applicability of the we should warn of the
parol evidence rule requires that the undesirability of issuing
case be between parties and their judgments solely on the
successors-in-interest.[35] In this case, basis of the affidavits
both the Heirs of Alfonso and the Heirs submitted, where as here,
of Policronio are successors-in-interest said affidavits are
of the parties to the Deed of Sale as overwhelming,
they claim rights under Alfonso and uncontroverted by
Policronio, respectively. The parol competent evidence and
evidence rule excluding not inherently improbable,
evidence aliunde, however, still cannot we are constrained to
apply because the present case falls uphold the allegations of
under two exceptions to the rule, as the respondents regarding
discussed above. the multifarious violations of
the contracts made by the
With respect to hearsay, the Heirs petitioner.
of Policronio contended that the rule on
hearsay was violated when the In the case at bench, there were
testimony of Amparo Castillo was given other prevailing circumstances which
weight in proving that the subject lands corroborate the testimony of Amparo
were only sold for taxation purposes as Castillo. First, the other Deeds of Sale
she was a person alien to the contract. which were executed in favor of
Even granting that they did not object to Liberato, Prudencia, and Valeriana on
her testimony during trial, they argued the same day as that of Policronios
that it should not have been appreciated were all presented in evidence. Second,
by the CA because it had no probative all the properties subject therein were
value whatsoever.[36] included in the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition of the estate of Alfonso. Third,
The Court disagrees. Policronio, during his lifetime, never
exercised acts of ownership over the
It has indeed been held that subject properties (as he never
hearsay evidence whether objected to demanded or took possession of them,
or not cannot be given credence for never demanded or received the
having no probative value.[37] This produce thereof, and never paid real
principle, however, has been relaxed in estate taxes thereon). Fourth, Policronio
cases where, in addition to the failure to never informed his children of the sale.
object to the admissibility of the subject
evidence, there were other pieces of As the Heirs of Policronio failed to
evidence presented or there were other controvert the evidence presented, and
circumstances prevailing to support the to timely object to the testimony of
fact in issue. In Top-Weld Amparo Castillo, both the RTC and the
Manufacturing, Inc. v. ECED S.A.,[38] this CA correctly accorded probative weight
Court held: to her testimony.

Hearsay evidence Prior Action Unnecessary

alone may be insufficient to
establish a fact in an The Heirs of Policronio averred
injunction suit (Parker v. that the Heirs of Alfonso should have
Furlong, 62 P. 490) but, filed an action to declare the sale void
when no objection is made prior to executing the Deed of Extra-
thereto, it is, like any other Judicial Partition. They argued that the
evidence, to be considered sale should enjoy the presumption of
and given the importance it regularity, and until overturned by a
deserves. (Smith v. court, the Heirs of Alfonso had no
Delaware & Atlantic authority to include the land in the
42

Telegraph & Telephone inventory of properties of Alfonsos

Page

Co., 51 A 464). Although estate. By doing so, they arrogated

upon themselves the power of either heirs or assignees. Being neither,
invalidating the Deed of Sale which is they have no legal standing to question
exclusively vested in a court of law the Deed of Sale.
which, in turn, can rule only upon the
observance of due process. Thus, they They further argued that the sale
contended that prescription, laches, or cannot be assailed for being barred
estoppel have set in to militate against under Article 1421 of the Civil Code
assailing the validity of the sale. which provides that the defense of
illegality of a contract is not available to
The Heirs of Policronio are third persons whose interests are not
mistaken. directly affected.

A simulated contract of sale is Again, the Court disagrees.

without any cause or consideration, and
is, therefore, null and void; in such case, Article 1311 and Article 1421 of
no independent action to rescind or the Civil Code provide:
annul the contract is necessary, and it
may be treated as non-existent for all Art. 1311. Contracts take
purposes.[39] A void or inexistent effect only between the
contract is one which has no force and parties, their assigns and
effect from the beginning, as if it has heirs, x x x
never been entered into, and which
cannot be validated either by time or Art. 1421. The defense of
ratification. A void contract produces no illegality of contracts is not
effect whatsoever either against or in available to third persons
favor of anyone; it does not create, whose interests are not
modify or extinguish the juridical relation directly affected.
to which it refers.[40] Therefore, it was
not necessary for the Heirs of Alfonso to The right to set up the nullity of a
first file an action to declare the nullity of void or non-existent contract is not
the Deed of Sale prior to executing the limited to the parties, as in the case of
Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition. annullable or voidable contracts; it is
extended to third persons who are
Personality to Question Sale directly affected by the contract. Thus,
where a contract is absolutely
The Heirs of Policronio contended simulated, even third persons who may
that the Heirs of Alfonso are not parties, be prejudiced thereby may set up its
heirs, or successors-in-interest under inexistence.[41] The Heirs of Alfonso are
the contemplation of law to clothe them the children of Alfonso, with his
with the personality to question the deceased children represented by their
Deed of Sale. They argued that under children (Alfonsos grandchildren). The
Article 1311 of the Civil Code, contracts Heirs of Alfonso are clearly his heirs and
take effect only between the parties, successors-in-interest and, as such,
their assigns and heirs. Thus, the their interests are directly affected,
genuine character of a contract which thereby giving them the right to question
personally binds the parties cannot be the legality of the Deed of Sale.
put in issue by a person who is not a
party thereto. They posited that the Inapplicability of Article 842
Heirs of Alfonso were not parties to the
contract; neither did they appear to be The Heirs of Policronio further
beneficiaries by way of assignment or argued that even assuming that the
inheritance. Unlike themselves who are Heirs of Alfonso have an interest in the
direct heirs of Policronio, the Heirs of Deed of Sale, they would still be
Alfonso are not Alfonsos direct heirs. precluded from questioning its validity.
For the Heirs of Alfonso to qualify as They posited that the Heirs of Alfonso
43

parties, under Article 1311 of the Civil must first prove that the sale of Alfonsos
Page

Code, they must first prove that they are properties to Policronio substantially
diminished their successional rights or Alfonso alleged that the purpose of the
that their legitimes would be unduly sale was to avoid the payment of
prejudiced, considering that under inheritance taxes, they cannot take from
Article 842 of the Civil Code, one who the Heirs of Policronio what had been
has compulsory heirs may dispose of given to their father.
his estate provided that he does not
contravene the provisions of the Civil On this point, the Court again
Code with regard to the legitime of said disagrees.
heirs. Having failed to do so, they
argued that the Heirs of Alfonso should Article 1412 of the Civil Code is as
be precluded from questioning the follows:
validity of the Deed of Sale.
Art. 1412. If the act in which
Still, the Court disagrees. the unlawful or forbidden
cause consists does not
Article 842 of the Civil Code constitute a criminal
provides: offense, the following rules
shall be observed:
Art. 842. One who has no
compulsory heirs may (1) When the fault is on
dispose by will of all his the part of both
estate or any part of it in contracting parties,
favor of any person having neither may recover
capacity to succeed. what he has given by
virtue of the contract, or
One who has compulsory demand the
heirs may dispose of his performance of the
estate provided he does not others undertaking;
contravene the provisions
of this Code with regard to (2) When only one of the
the legitime of said heirs. contracting parties is at
fault, he cannot recover
This article refers to the principle what he has given by
of freedom of disposition by will. What is reason of the contract,
involved in the case at bench is not a or ask for the fulfillment
disposition by will but by Deed of Sale. of what has been
Hence, the Heirs of Alfonso need not promised him. The
first prove that the disposition other, who is not at fault,
substantially diminished their may demand the return
successional rights or unduly prejudiced of what he has given
their legitimes. without any obligation to
comply with his
Inapplicability of Article 1412 promise.

The Heirs of Policronio contended Article 1412 is not applicable to

that even assuming that the contract fictitious or simulated contracts,
was simulated, the Heirs of Alfonso because they refer to contracts with an
would still be barred from recovering the illegal cause or subject-matter.[42] This
properties by reason of Article 1412 of article presupposes the existence of a
the Civil Code, which provides that if the cause, it cannot refer to fictitious or
act in which the unlawful or forbidden simulated contracts which are in reality
cause does not constitute a criminal non-existent.[43] As it has been
offense, and the fault is both on the determined that the Deed of Sale is a
contracting parties, neither may recover simulated contract, the provision cannot
what he has given by virtue of the apply to it.
44

contract or demand the performance of

Page

the others undertaking. As the Heirs of

 Granting that the Deed of Sale setting up the defense of its
was not simulated, the provision would inexistence.
still not apply. Since the subject
properties were included as properties Validity of the Deed of Extra-Judicial
of Alfonso in the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition
Partition, they are covered by
corresponding inheritance and estate The Court now resolves the issue of the
taxes. Therefore, tax evasion, if at all validity of the Deed of Extra-Judicial
present, would not arise, and Article Partition.
1412 would again be inapplicable.
Unenforceability
Prescription
The Heirs of Alfonso argued that the CA
From the position that the Deed of was mistaken in annulling the Deed of
Sale is valid and not void, the Heirs of Extra-Judicial Partition due to the
Policronio argued that any question incapacity of Conrado to give the
regarding its validity should have been consent of his co-heirs for lack of a
initiated through judicial process within special power of attorney. They
10 years from its notarization in contended that what was involved was
accordance with Article 1144 of the Civil not the capacity to give consent in
Code. Since 21 years had already behalf of the co-heirs but the authority to
elapsed when the Heirs of Alfonso represent them. They argue that the
assailed the validity of the Deed of Sale Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition is not a
in 1996, prescription had set voidable or an annullable contract under
in. Furthermore, since the Heirs of Article 1390 of the Civil Code, but
Alfonso did not seek to nullify the tax rather, it is an unenforceable or, more
declarations of Policronio, they had specifically, an unauthorized contract
impliedly acquiesced and given due under Articles 1403 (1) and 1317 of the
recognition to the Heirs of Policronio as Civil Code. As such, the Deed of Extra-
the rightful inheritors and should, thus, Judicial Partition should not be annulled
be barred from laying claim on the land. but only be rendered unenforceable
against the siblings of Conrado.
The Heirs of Policronio are
mistaken. They further argued that under
Article 1317 of the Civil Code, when the
Article 1410 of the Civil Code persons represented without authority
provides: have ratified the unauthorized acts, the
contract becomes enforceable and
Art. 1410. The action for the binding. They contended that the Heirs
declaration of the of Policronio ratified the Deed of Extra-
inexistence of a contract Judicial Partition when Conrado took
does not prescribe. possession of one of the parcels of land
adjudicated to him and his siblings, and
This is one of the most when another parcel was used as
fundamental characteristics of void or collateral for a loan entered into by
inexistent contracts.[44] some of the Heirs of Policronio. The
Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition having
As the Deed of Sale is a void contract, been ratified and its benefits accepted,
the action for the declaration of its the same thus became enforceable and
nullity, even if filed 21 years after its binding upon them.
execution, cannot be barred by
prescription for it is imprescriptible. The Heirs of Alfonso averred that
Furthermore, the right to set up the granting arguendo that Conrado was not
defense of inexistence or absolute authorized to represent his co-heirs and
nullity cannot be waived or there was no ratification, the CA should
45

renounced.[45] Therefore, the Heirs of not have remanded the case to the RTC
Page

Alfonso cannot be precluded from for partition of Alfonsos estate. They

argued that the CA should not have To begin, although the defenses
applied the Civil Code general provision of unenforceability, ratification and
on contracts, but the special provisions preterition were raised by the Heirs of
dealing with succession and partition. Alfonso for the first time on appeal, they
They contended that contrary to the are concomitant matters which may be
ruling of the CA, the extra-judicial taken up. As long as the questioned
parition was not an act of strict items bear relevance and close relation
dominion, as it has been ruled that to those specifically raised, the interest
partition of inherited land is not a of justice would dictate that they, too,
conveyance but a confirmation or must be considered and resolved. The
ratification of title or right to the rule that only theories raised in the initial
land.[46] Therefore, the law requiring a proceedings may be taken up by a party
special power of attorney should not be thereto on appeal should refer to
applied to partitions. independent, not concomitant matters,
to support or oppose the cause of
On the other hand, the Heirs of action.[47]
Policronio insisted that the CA
pronouncement on the invalidity of the In the RTC, the Heirs of Policronio
Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition should alleged that Conrados consent was
not be disturbed because the subject vitiated by mistake and undue influence,
properties should not have been and that he signed the Deed of Extra-
included in the estate of Alfonso, and Judicial Partition without the authority or
because Conrado lacked the written consent of his co-heirs.
authority to represent his siblings. They
argued with the CA in ruling that a The RTC found that Conrados
special power of attorney was required credibility had faltered, and his claims
before Conrado could sign in behalf of were rejected by the RTC as gratuitous
his co-heirs. assertions. On the basis of such, the
RTC ruled that Conrado duly
The Heirs of Policronio denied represented his siblings in the Deed of
that they ratified the Deed of Extra- Extra-Judicial Partition.
Judicial Partition. They claimed that
there is nothing on record that On the other hand, the CA
establishes that they ratified the annulled the Deed of Extra-Judicial
partition. Far from doing so, they Partition under Article 1390 (1) of the
precisely questioned its execution by Civil Code, holding that a special power
filing a complaint. They further argued of attorney was lacking as required
that under Article 1409 (3) of the Civil under Article 1878 (5) and (15) of the
Code, ratification cannot be invoked to Civil Code. These articles are as
validate the illegal act of including in the follows:
partition those properties which do not
belong to the estate as it provides Art. 1878. Special powers
another mode of acquiring ownership of attorney are necessary in
not sanctioned by law. the following cases:

Furthermore, the Heirs of xxx

Policronio contended that the defenses
of unenforceability, ratification, and (5) To enter into any
preterition are being raised for the first contract by which the
time on appeal by the Heirs of Alfonso. ownership of an immovable
For having failed to raise them during is transmitted or acquired
the trial, the Heirs of Alfonso should be either gratuitously or for a
deemed to have waived their right to do valuable consideration;x x x
so.
(15) Any other act of strict
46

The Court agrees in part with the dominion.

Page

Heirs of Alfonso.
 Art. 1390. The following Neither is Article 1390 (1)
contracts are voidable or applicable. Article 1390 (1) contemplates
annullable, even though the incapacity of a party to give consent
there may have been no to a contract. What is involved in the
damage to the contracting case at bench though is not Conrados
parties: incapacity to give consent to the
contract, but rather his lack of authority
(1) Those where one of the to do so. Instead, Articles 1403 (1),
parties is incapable of 1404, and 1317 of the Civil Code find
giving consent to a application to the circumstances
contract; prevailing in this case. They are as
follows:
(2) Those where the
consent is vitiated by Art. 1403. The following
mistake, violence, contracts are
intimidation, undue unenforceable, unless they
influence or fraud. are ratified:

These contracts are (1) Those entered into in

binding, unless they are the name of another person
annulled by a proper action by one who has been given
in court. They are no authority or legal
susceptible of ratification. representation, or who has
acted beyond his powers;
This Court finds that Article 1878
(5) and (15) is inapplicable to the case at Art. 1404. Unauthorized
bench. It has been held in several contracts are governed by
cases[48] that partition among heirs is not Article 1317 and the
legally deemed a conveyance of real principles of agency in Title
property resulting in change of X of this Book.
ownership. It is not a transfer of property
from one to the other, but rather, it is a Art. 1317. No one may
confirmation or ratification of title or right contract in the name of
of property that an heir is renouncing in another without being
favor of another heir who accepts and authorized by the latter, or
receives the inheritance. It is merely a unless he has by law a right
designation and segregation of that part to represent him.
which belongs to each heir. The Deed of
Extra-Judicial Partition cannot, therefore, A contract entered into in
be considered as an act of strict the name of another by one
dominion. Hence, a special power of who has no authority or
attorney is not necessary. legal representation, or who
has acted beyond his
In fact, as between the parties, powers, shall be
even an oral partition by the heirs is valid unenforceable, unless it is
if no creditors are affected. The ratified, expressly or
requirement of a written memorandum impliedly, by the person on
under the statute of frauds does not whose behalf it has been
apply to partitions effected by the heirs executed, before it is
where no creditors are involved revoked by the other
considering that such transaction is not a contracting party.
conveyance of property resulting in
change of ownership but merely a Such was similarly held in the
designation and segregation of that part case of Badillo v. Ferrer:
which belongs to each heir.[49]
47

The Deed of
Page

Extrajudicial Partition
 and Sale is not a voidable Q: Can you recall where did you
or an annullable contract sign this document?
under Article 1390 of the
New Civil Code. Article A: The way I remember I signed
1390 renders a contract that in our house.
voidable if one of the
parties is incapable of Q: And who requested or required
giving consent to the you to sign this document?
contract or if the contracting
partys consent is vitiated by A: My aunties.
mistake, violence,
intimidation, undue Q: Who in particular if you can
influence or fraud. x x x recall?

The deed of A: Nay Pruding Panadero.

extrajudicial parition and
sale is an unenforceable or, Q: You mean that this document
more specifically, an that you signed was brought to
unauthorized contract under your house by your Auntie
Articles 1403(1) and 1317 Pruding Pa[r]adero [who]
of the New Civil Code.[50] requested you to sign that
document?
Therefore, Conrados failure to
obtain authority from his co-heirs to sign A: When she first brought that
the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition in document I did not sign that said
their behalf did not result in his document because I [did] no[t]
incapacity to give consent so as to know the contents of that
render the contract voidable, but rather, document.
it rendered the contract valid but
unenforceable against Conrados co- Q: How many times did she bring
heirs for having been entered into this document to you [until] you
without their authority. finally signed the document?

A closer review of the evidence on A: Perhaps 3 times.

record, however, will show that the Deed
Q: Can you tell the court why you
of Extra-Judicial Partition is not
finally signed it?
unenforceable but, in fact, valid, binding
and enforceable against all the Heirs of
A: Because the way she
Policronio for having given their consent
explained it to me that the land of
to the contract. Their consent to the
my grandfather will be
Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition has been
partitioned.
proven by a preponderance of
evidence.
Q: When you signed this
document were your brothers and
Regarding his alleged vitiated
sisters who are your co-plaintiffs
consent due to mistake and undue
in this case aware of your act to
influence to the Deed of Extra-Judicial
sign this document?
Partition, Conrado testified, to wit:
A: They do not know.
Q: Mr. Ureta you remember
having signed a document entitled xxx
deed of extra judicial partition
consisting of 11 pages and which Q: After you have signed this
have previously [been] marked as document did you inform your
Exhibit I for the plaintiffs?
48

brothers and sisters that you have

signed this document?
Page

A: Yes sir.
 A: No I did not. [51] Conrados explanations were mere
gratuitous assertions not entitled to any
xxx probative weight. The RTC found
Conrados credibility to have faltered
Q: Now you read the document when he testified that perhaps his
when it was allegedly brought to siblings were already aware of the Deed
your house by your of Extra-Judicial Partition. The RTC was
aunt Pruding Pa[r]adero? in the best position to judge the
credibility of the witness testimony. The
A: I did not read it because as I CA also recognized that Conrados
told her I still want to ask the consent was not vitiated by mistake and
advise of my brothers and sisters. undue influence as it required a special
power of attorney in order to bind his co-
Q: So do I get from you that you heirs and, as such, the CA thereby
have never read the document recognized that his signature was
itself or any part thereof? binding to him but not with respect to his
co-heirs. Findings of fact of the trial
A: I have read the heading. court, particularly when affirmed by the
CA, are binding to this Court.[53]
xxx
Furthermore, this Court notes
Q: And why is it that you did not other peculiarities in Conrados
read all the pages of this testimony. Despite claims of undue
document because I understand influence, there is no indication that
that you know also how to read in Conrado was forced to sign by his aunt,
English? Prudencia Paradero. In fact, he testified
that he was happy to sign because his
A: Because the way Nay Pruding
grandfathers estate would be
explained to me is that the
partitioned. Conrado, thus, clearly
property of my grandfather will be
understood the document he signed. It
partitioned that is why I am so
is also worth noting that despite the
happy.
document being brought to him on three
separate occasions and indicating his
xxx
intention to inform his siblings about it,
Q: You mean to say that after you Conrado failed to do so, and still
signed this deed of extra judicial neglected to inform them even after he
partition up to the present you had signed the partition. All these
never informed them? circumstances negate his claim of
vitiated consent. Having duly signed the
A: Perhaps they know already Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition,
that I have signed and they read Conrado is bound to it. Thus, it is
already the document and they enforceable against him.
have read the document.
Although Conrados co-heirs claimed
Q: My question is different, did that they did not authorize Conrado to
you inform them? sign the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition
in their behalf, several circumstances
A: The document sir? I did not tell militate against their contention.
them.
First, the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition
Q: Even until now? was executed on April 19, 1989, and the
Heirs of Policronio claim that they only
A: Until now I did not inform came to know of its existence on July
them.[52] 30, 1995through an issue of the Aklan
Reporter. It is difficult to believe that
49

This Court finds no cogent reason Conrado did not inform his siblings
Page

to reverse the finding of the RTC that about the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition or at least broach its subject inherited from their father
with them for more than five years from consisting of six (6) parcels of
the time he signed it, especially after land which is covered by a Deed
indicating in his testimony that he had of Absolute Sale dated October
intended to do so. 25, 1969. These properties
ha[ve] already been transferred
Second, Conrado retained to the name of their deceased
possession of one of the parcels of land father immediately after the sale,
adjudicated to him and his co-heirs in machine copy of the said Deed of
the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition. Sale is hereto attached for your
ready reference.
Third, after the execution of the
partition on April 19, 1989 and more than Lately, however, there was
a year before they claimed to have published an Extra-judicial
discovered the existence of the Deed of Partition of the estate of Alfonso
Extra-Judicial Partition on July 30, 1995, Ureta, which to the surprise of
some of the Heirs of Policronio, namely, my clients included the properties
Rita Solano, Macario Ureta, Lilia Tayco, already sold to their father before
and Venancio Ureta executed on June 1, the death of said Alfonso Ureta.
1994, a Special Power of Attorney[54] in This inclusion of their property is
favor of their sister Gloria Gonzales, erroneous and illegal because
authorizing her to obtain a loan from a these properties were covered by
bank and to mortgage one of the parcels the Deed of Absolute Sale in
of land adjudicated to them in the Deed favor of their father Policronio
of Extra-Judicial Partition to secure Ureta no longer form part of the
payment of the loan. They were able to estate of Alfonso Ureta. Since
obtain the loan using the land as Policronio Ureta has [sic] died in
collateral, over which a Real Estate 1974 yet, these properties have
Mortgage[55] was constituted. Both the passed by hereditary succession
Special Power of Attorney and the Real to his children who are now the
Estate Mortgage were presented in true and lawful owners of the
evidence in the RTC, and were not said properties.
controverted or denied by the Heirs of
Policronio. My clients are still entitled to a
share in the estate of Alfonso
Fourth, in the letter dated August Ureta who is also their
15, 1995, sent by the counsel of the grandfather as they have
Heirs of Policronio to the Heirs of stepped into the shoes of their
Alfonso requesting for amicable deceased father Policronio Ureta.
settlement, there was no mention that But this estate of Alfonso Ureta
Conrados consent to the Deed of Extra- should already exclude the six
Judicial Partition was vitiated by mistake (6) parcels of land covered by the
and undue influence or that they had Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
never authorized Conrado to represent Policronio Ureta.
them or sign the document on their
behalf. It is questionable for such a My clients cannot
pertinent detail to have been omitted. understand why the properties of
The body of said letter is reproduced their late father [should] be
hereunder as follows: included in the estate of their
grandfather and be divided
Greetings: among his brothers and sisters
when said properties should only
Your nephews and nieces, be divided among themselves as
children of your deceased children of Policronio Ureta.
brother Policronio Ureta, has
50

referred to me for appropriate Since this matter involves very

Page

legal action the property they close members of the same

 family, I have counseled my The Heirs of Alfonso were of the
clients that an earnest effort position that the absence of the Heirs of
towards a compromise or Policronio in the partition or the lack of
amicable settlement be first authority of their representative results,
explored before resort to judicial at the very least, in their preterition and
remedy is pursued. And a not in the invalidity of the entire deed of
compromise or amicable partition. Assuming there was actual
settlement can only be reached if preterition, it did not render the Deed of
all the parties meet and discuss Extra-Judicial Partition voidable.Citing
the problem with an open mind. Article 1104 of the Civil Code, they aver
To this end, I am suggesting a that a partition made with preterition of
meeting of the parties any of the compulsory heirs shall not be
on September 16, 1995 at 2:00 rescinded, but the heirs shall be
P.M. at B Place Restaurant at C. proportionately obliged to pay the share
Laserna St., Kalibo, Aklan. It of the person omitted. Thus, the Deed of
would be best if the parties can Extra-Judicial Partition should not have
come or be represented by their been annulled by the CA. Instead, it
duly designated attorney-in-fact should have ordered the share of the
together with their lawyers if they heirs omitted to be given to them.
so desire so that the problem can
be discussed unemotionally and The Heirs of Alfonso also argued
intelligently. that all that remains to be adjudged is
the right of the preterited heirs to
I would, however, interpret the represent their father, Policronio, and be
failure to come to the said declared entitled to his share. They
meeting as an indication that the contend that remand to the RTC is no
parties are not willing to or longer necessary as the issue is purely
interested in amicable settlement legal and can be resolved by the
of this matter and as a go signal provisions of the Civil Code for there is
for me to resort to legal and/or no dispute that each of Alfonsos heirs
judicial remedies to protest the received their rightful share. Conrado,
rights of my clients. who received Policronios share, should
then fully account for what he had
Thank you very much.[56] received to his other co-heirs and be
directed to deliver their share in the
Based on the foregoing, this Court inheritance.
concludes that the allegation of
Conrados vitiated consent and lack of These arguments cannot be given
authority to sign in behalf of his co-heirs credence.
was a mere afterthought on the part of
the Heirs of Policronio. It appears that Their posited theory on preterition
the Heirs of Policronio were not only is no longer viable. It has already been
aware of the existence of the Deed of determined that the Heirs of Policronio
Extra-Judicial Partition prior to June 30, gave their consent to the Deed of Extra-
1995 but had, in fact, given Conrado Judicial Partition and they have not
authority to sign in their behalf. They are been excluded from it. Nonetheless,
now estopped from questioning its even granting that the Heirs of
legality, and the Deed of Extra-Judicial Policronio were denied their lawful
Partition is valid, binding, and participation in the partition, the
enforceable against them. argument of the Heirs of Alfonso would
still fail.
In view of the foregoing, there is
no longer a need to discuss the issue of Preterition under Article 854 of the
ratification. Civil Code is as follows:
51

Preterition Art. 854. The preterition or

Page

omission of one, some, or

 all of the compulsory heirs represented by Conrado B. Ureta;
in the direct line, whether all the parties signed the
living at the time of the document, was witnessed and
execution of the will or born duly acknowledged before Notary
after the death of the Public Adolfo M. Iligan of Kalibo,
testator, shall annul the Aklan; that the document
institution of heir; but the expressly stipulated that the heirs
devises and legacies shall to whom some of the properties
be valid insofar as they are were transferred before for
not inofficious. taxation purposes or their
children, expressly recognize and
If the omitted compulsory acknowledge as a fact that the
heirs should die before the properties were transferred only
testator, the institution shall for the purpose of effective
be effectual, without administration and development
prejudice to the right of convenience in the payment of
representation. taxes and, therefore, all
instruments conveying or effecting
Preterition has been defined as the transfer of said properties are
the total omission of a compulsory heir null and void from the beginning
from the inheritance. It consists in the (Exhs. 1-4, 7-d).[58]
silence of the testator with regard to a
compulsory heir, omitting him in the Considering that the Deed of Sale
testament, either by not mentioning him has been found void and the Deed of
at all, or by not giving him anything in Extra-Judicial Partition valid, with the
the hereditary property but without consent of all the Heirs of Policronio duly
expressly disinheriting him, even if he is given, there is no need to remand the
mentioned in the will in the latter case to the court of origin for partition.
case.[57] Preterition is thus a concept of
testamentary succession and requires a WHEREFORE, the petition in
will. In the case at bench, there is no will G.R. No. 165748 is DENIED. The
involved. Therefore, preterition cannot petition in G.R. No. 165930
apply. is GRANTED. The assailed April 20,
2004 Decision and October 14,
Remand Unnecessary 2004Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 71399, are
The Deed of Extra-Judicial hereby MODIFIED in this wise:
Partition is in itself valid for complying
with all the legal requisites, as found by (1) The Deed of Extra-Judicial
the RTC, to wit: Partition, dated April 19,
1989, is
A persual of the Deed of
Extra-judicial Partition would VALID, and
reveal that all the heirs and
children of Alfonso Ureta were (2) The order to remand the
represented therein; that nobody case to the court of origin is
was left out; that all of them hereby DELETED.
received as much as the others as
their shares; that it distributed all SO ORDERED.
the properties of Alfonso Ureta
except a portion of parcel 29
containing an area of 14,000
square meters, more or less,
which was expressly reserved;
that Alfonso Ureta, at the time of
52

his death, left no debts; that the

Page

heirs of Policronio Ureta, Sr. were

February 3, 2016 alleging that the decedent left a will
dated July 23, 1991. Morales prayed for
G.R. No. 198994 the probate of the will and for her
appointment as special administratrix.
IRIS MORALES, Petitioner, Her petition was also raffled to Branch
vs. 254 and docketed as Sp. Proc. Case
ANA MARIA OLONDRIZ, ALFONSO No. SP-03-0069.
JUAN OLONDRIZ, JR., ALEJANDRO
MORENO OLONDRIZ, ISABEL ROSA The pertinent portions of the decedent’s
OLONDRIZ and FRANCISCO JAVIER will reads:
MARIA OLONDRIZ, Respondents.
1. Upon my death, IRIS MORALES
DECISION OLONDRIZ shall be the executor hereof
and administrator of my estate until its
BRION, J.: distribution in accordance herewith. x x
x
This is a petition for review
on certiorari filed by Iris Morales from 2. My entire estate shall be divided into
the May 27, 2011 decision and October six (6) parts to be distributed equally
12, 2011 resolution of the Court of among and between (1) IRIS MORALES
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. OLONDRIZ, my children (2) ALFONSO
1
102358. The CA denied Morales' JUAN OLONDRIZ, JR., (3)
petition for certiorarifrom the Regional ALEJANDRO OLONDRIZ, (4) ISABEL
Trial Court's (RTC) July 12, 2007 and OLONDRIZ, (5) ANGELO OLONDRIZ,
October 30, 2007 orders in SP. Proc. and their mother (6) MARIA ORTEGAS
No. 03-0060 and SP. Proc. No. 03- OLONDRIZ, SR.3
0069.2
Notably, the will omitted Francisco
Antecedents Javier Maria Bautista Olondriz, an
illegitimate son of the decedent.
Alfonso Juan P. Olondriz, Sr. (the
decedent) died on June 9, 2003. He was On September 1, 2003, Morales filed a
survived by his widow, Ana Maria manifestation in Sp. Proc. Case No.
Ortigas de Olondriz, and his children: SP-03-0060 and moved to suspend the
Alfonso Juan O. Olondriz, Jr., Alejandro intestate proceedings in order to give
Marino O. Olondriz, Isabel Rosa O. way to the probate proceedings in Sp.
Olondriz, Angelo Jose O. Olondriz, and Proc. Case No. SP-03-0069. The
Francisco Javier Maria Bautista respondent heirs opposed Morales’
Olondriz. His widow and children are motion for suspension and her petition
collectively referred to as the for allowance of the will.
respondent heirs.
On November 27, 2003, the RTC
Believing that the decedent died consolidated Sp. Proc. Case No. SP-
intestate, the respondent heirs filed a 03-0060 with Sp. Proc. Case No. SP-
petition with the Las Piñas RTC for the 03-0069.
partition of the decedent’s estate and
the appointment of a special On January 6, 2004, the respondent
administrator on July 4, 2003. The case heirs moved to dismiss the probate
was raffled to Branch 254 and docketed proceedings because Francisco was
as Sp. Proc. Case No. SP-03-0060. preterited from the will.

On July 11, 2003, the RTC appointed On January 10, 2006, Morales agreed to
Alfonso Juan O. Olondriz, Jr. as special the holding of an evidentiary hearing to
administrator. resolve the issue of preterition. Thus,
the RTC ordered the parties to submit
53

However, on July 28, 2003, Iris Morales their factual allegations to support or
Page

filed a separate petition with the RTC negate the existence of preterition. Only
the respondent heirs complied with this omitted from the will; and (3) that based
order. on the evidentiary hearings, Francisco
was clearly preterited. Thus, the RTC
After several postponements at the reinstated Alfonso Jr. as administrator of
instance of Morales, the reception of the estate and ordered the case to
evidence for the evidentiary hearing was proceed in intestacy.
scheduled on May 29, 2006. However,
Morales failed to appear, effectively Morales moved for reconsideration
waiving her right to present evidence on which the RTC denied on October 30,
the issue of preterition. 2007, for lack of merit.

On June 23, 2006, the RTC, through On February 7, 2008, Morales filed a
Judge Gloria Butay Aglugub, suspended petition for certiorari against the orders
the intestate proceedings in Sp. Proc. of the RTC. Morales alleged that the
Case No. SP-03-0060 and set the case RTC acted with grave abuse of
for probate. The RTC reasoned that discretion in proceeding intestate
probate proceedings take precedence despite the existence of the will. The
over intestate proceedings. petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 102358.
The respondent heirs moved for
reconsideration of the suspension order On May 27, 2011, the CA dismissed
but the RTC denied the motion on Morales’ petition for certiorari. The CA
September 1, 2006. The RTC also reasoned that while probate
summarily revoked the Letters of proceedings take precedence over
Administration previously issued to intestate proceedings, the preterition of
Alfonso Jr. a compulsory heir in the direct line
annuls the institution of heirs in the will
The respondent heirs moved for and opens the entire inheritance into
reconsideration of the summary intestate succession.4 Thus, the
revocation of the Letters of continuation of the probate proceedings
Administration. They also moved for the would be superfluous and impractical
inhibition of Judge Aglugub of Branch because the inheritance will be
254. adjudicated intestate. The CA concluded
that the RTC did not act with grave
On November 16, 2006, the RTC abuse of discretion.
granted the motion for inhibition. The
case was transferred to Branch Morales moved for reconsideration
253 presided by Judge Salvador V. which the CA denied on October 12,
Timbang, Jr. 2011. Hence, she filed the present
petition for review on certiorari on
On July 12, 2007, the RTC resolved (1) December 5, 2011.
the respondent heirs’ motion for
reconsideration of the revocation of the The Petition
Letters of Administration and (2)
Morales’ motion to be appointed Special Morales maintains that the RTC
Administratrix of the estate. The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion
noted that while testacy is preferred when it ordered the case to proceed
over intestacy, courts will not hesitate to intestate because: (1) the probate of a
set aside probate proceedings if it decedent’s will is mandatory; (2) the
appears that the probate of the will RTC Branch 254 already ordered the
might become an idle ceremony case to proceed into probate; (3) the
because the will is intrinsically void. order setting the case for probate
already attained finality; (3) the probate
The RTC observed: (1) that Morales court cannot touch on the intrinsic
expressly admitted that Francisco Javier validity of the will; and (4) there was no
54

Maria Bautista Olondriz is an heir of the preterition because Francisco received

Page

decedent; (2) that Francisco was clearly

a house and lot inter vivos as an If the omitted compulsory heirs should
advance on his legitime. die before the testator, the institution
shall be effectual, without prejudice to
The respondent heirs counter: (1) that it the right of representation. (emphasis
is within the RTC’s jurisdiction to supplied)
reverse or modify an interlocutory order
setting the case for probate; (2) that the Under the Civil Code, the preterition of a
petitioner failed to mention that she did compulsory heir in the direct line shall
not appear in any of the evidentiary annul the institution of heirs, but the
hearings to disprove their allegation of devises and legacies shall remain valid
preterition; (3) that the RTC and the CA insofar as the legitimes are not
both found that Francisco was preterited impaired. Consequently, if a will does
from the will; and (4) that Francisco’s not institute any devisees or legatees,
preterition annulled the institution of the preterition of a compulsory heir in
heirs and opened the case into the direct line will result in total
intestacy. They conclude that the RTC intestacy.7
did not exceed its jurisdiction or act with
grave abuse of discretion when it In the present case, the decedent’s will
reinstated Alfonso Jr. as the evidently omitted Francisco Olondriz as
administrator of the estate and ordered an heir, legatee, or devisee. As the
the case to proceed intestate. decedent’s illegitimate son, Francisco is
a compulsory heir in the direct line.
Our Ruling Unless Morales could show otherwise,
Francisco’s omission from the will leads
We join the ruling of the CA. to the conclusion of his preterition.

Preterition consists in the omission of a During the proceedings in the RTC,

compulsory heir from the will, either Morales had the opportunity to present
because he is not named or, although evidence that Francisco received
he is named as a father, son, etc., he is donations inter vivos and advances on
neither instituted as an heir nor his legitime from the decedent.
assigned any part of the estate without However, Morales did not appear during
expressly being disinherited – tacitly the hearing dates, effectively waiving
depriving the heir of his her right to present evidence on the
5
legitime. Preterition requires that the issue. We cannot fault the RTC for
omission is total, meaning the heir did reaching the reasonable conclusion that
not also receive any legacies, devises, there was preterition.
or advances on his legitime.6
We will not entertain the petitioner’s
In other words, preterition is the factual allegation that Francisco was not
complete and total omission of a preterited because this Court is not a
compulsory heir from the testator’s trier of facts.1âwphi1 Furthermore, the
inheritance without the heir’s express CA concurred with the RTC’s
disinheritance. conclusion. We see no cogent reason to
deviate from the factual findings of the
Article 854 of the Civil Code states the lower courts.
legal effects of preterition:
The remaining question is whether it
Art. 854. The preterition or omission of was proper for the RTC to (1) pass upon
one, some, or all of the compulsory the intrinsic validity of the will during
heirs in the direct line, whether living probate proceedings and (2) order the
at the time of the execution of the will or case to proceed intestate because of
born after the death of the testator, shall preterition.
annul the institution of heir; but the
devises and legacies shall be valid The general rule is that in probate
55

insofar as they are not inofficious. proceedings, the scope of the court’s
Page

inquiry is limited to questions on the

extrinsic validity of the will; the probate On the other hand, grave abuse of
court will only determine the will’s formal discretion is the capricious and
validity and due execution.8However, whimsical exercise of judgment
this rule is not inflexible and absolute.9 It equivalent to an evasion of positive
is not beyond the probate court’s duty, or a virtual refusal to act at all in
jurisdiction to pass upon the intrinsic contemplation of the law.17 It is present
validity of the will when so warranted by when power is exercised in a despotic
exceptional circumstances.10 When manner by reason, for instance, of
practical considerations demand that the passion and hostility. Morales failed to
intrinsic validity of the will be passed show that the R TC acted in such a
upon even before it is probated, the capricious and despotic manner that
probate court should meet the issue.11 would have warranted the CA's grant of
her petition for certiorari. On the
The decedent’s will does not contain contrary, the RTC acted appropriately in
specific legacies or devices and accordance with the law and
Francisco’s preterition annulled the jurisprudence.
institution of heirs.1avvphi1 The
annulment effectively caused the total WHEREFORE, the petition
abrogation of the will, resulting in total is DISMISSED. Costs against the
intestacy of the inheritance.12 The petitioner.
decedent’s will, no matter how valid it
may appear extrinsically, is null and SO ORDERED.
void. The conduct of separate
proceedings to determine the intrinsic
validity of its testamentary provisions
would be superfluous. Thus, we cannot
attribute error – much less grave abuse
of discretion – on the RTC for ordering
the case to proceed intestate.

Finally, there is no merit in the

petitioner’s argument that the previous
order setting the case for probate barred
the RTC from ordering the case to
proceed intestate. The disputed order is
merely interlocutory and can never
become final and executory in the same
manner that a final judgment does.13 An
interlocutory order does not result in res
judicata.14 It remains under the control
of the court and can be modified or
rescinded at any time before final
judgment.15

Certiorari is a limited form of review

confined to errors of jurisdiction. An
error of jurisdiction is one where the
officer or tribunal acted without or in
excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.16 As discussed, it
is well within the jurisdiction of the
probate court to pass upon the intrinsic
validity of the will if probate proceedings
might become an idle ceremony due to
56

the nullity of the will.

Page