Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
AUSTRIA VS. HON. ANDRES REYES niece from registering their claim even to properties
G.R. No. L-23079 adjudicated by the decedent in her will.
February 27, 1970
to probate. In the decision allowing the will the court Topic/Doctrines: Testacy is preferable to intestacy.
declared that Helen Garcia was a natural child of the An interpretation that will render a testamentary
deceased. Subsequently, in the partition proceedings, an disposition operative takes precedence over a
order was issued approving a project of partition construction that will nullify a provision of the will
wherein the estate was divided equally between Lucy
(Arts. 788 and 791, Civil Code).
Duncan, whom the testator had expressly recognized in
his will as his natural daughter, and Helen Garcia, who
had been judicially declared as such after his death. The
FACTS:
said order was based on the proposition that Helen Leodegaria Julian died. She was survived by her
Garcia had been preterited in the will thus resulting in husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., and six legitimate
the annulment of the institution of Lucy Duncan as heir; children. Felix Balanay, Jr. filed a petition for the
hence the estate passed to both of them as if the probate of his mothers notarial will, which was
deceased had died intestate. Lucy Duncan appealed on written in English. In that will, Leodegaria declared
the sole question of whether the estate, after deducting that it was her desire her properties should not be
the legacies, should pertain to her and to Helen Garcia in divided among her heirs during her husband's
equal shares, or whether the inheritance of Lucy Duncan lifetime and that their legitimes should be satisfied
as instituted heirs should be merely reduced to the out of the fruits of her properties. She devised and
extent necessary to cover thelegitime of Helen Garcia to
partitioned the conjugal lands as if they were all
1/4 of the entire estate. She contends that the case
should be governed by Art. 906 of the Civil Code.Helen
owned by her. She disposed of in the will her
Garcia, on the other hand, contends that the case should husband's one-half share of the conjugal assets.
be governed by Art. 854 of the Civil Code. Felix Balanay, Sr. and Avelina B. Antonio opposed
the probate of the will.There after, Felix Balanay, Sr.
ISSUE: signed an instrument waiving and renouncing his
right in Leodegarias estate in favor of their 6
Whether or not there was preterition in the instant case. children.Avelina B. Antonio, an oppositor, in her
rejoinder contended that the affidavit and
HELD: "conformation" of Felix Balanay, Sr. were void; that
the testatrix illegally claimed that she was the owner
It is submitted that in this case there is no preterition
of the southern half of the conjugal lots and; that
within the meaning of Art. 854 of the Civil Code. It is true
that there is a total omission of the acknowledged
she could not partition the conjugal estate by
natural child in the testators will, and apparently the allocating portions of the nine lots to her children.
rule regarding preterition should, therefore, be applied. She prayed that the will be declared void for being
But then, we must consider the fact that a donation inter contrary to law and that an intestacy be declared.
vivos is actually given to a compulsory heir as an advance The probate court declared the will void on the basis
on his inheritance. That is why in the partition of the of its own independent assessment of its provisions
estate of the donor upon the death of the latter, it must and not because of party's arguments.
be collated and subsequently, it must be charged against
the legitime of such compulsory heir. Consequently, ISSUE:
there is no omission in this case which is complete and Whether or not the probate court erred in passing
total in character. Hence, if there is an impairment of the
upon the intrinsic validity of the will, before ruling
legitime of the acknowledged natural child because the
value of the property donated is less than the legitime to
on its allowance or formal validity, and in declaring
which he is entitled by operation of law, his remedy lies it void.
in the right granted in Art. 906 of the Civil Code. He can
ask for the completion of his legitime. HELD:
The trial court acted correctly in passing upon the
will's intrinsic validity even before its formalvalidity
BALANAY, JR. vs. MARTINEZ had been established. But the probate court erred
G.R. No. L-39247 in declaring that the will was void and in converting
June 27, 1975 the testate proceeding into an intestate
3
proceeding.The will is intrinsically valid and the respondents, with omission of the children by his
partition therein may be given effect if it does not first marriage, the herein petitioner. The omission of
prejudice the creditors and impair the legitimes. As the heirs in the will was contemplated by the
aptly stated by Mr. Justice Barredo, "the very testator with the belief that he had already given
existence of a purported testament is in itself prima each of the children portion of the inheritance,
facie proof that the supposed testator has willed particularly a land he had abandoned was occupied
that his estate should be distributed in the manner by the respondents over which registration was
therein provided, and it is incumbent upon the state denied for it turned out to be a public land, and an
that, if legally tenable, such desire be given effect aggregate amount of money which the respondents
independent of the attitude of the parties affected were indebted to their father.
thereby" (Resolution, Vda. de Precilla vs. Narciso, L-
27200, August 18, 1972, 46 SCRA 538, 565). To give ISSUE:
effect to the intention and wishes of the testatrix is
the first and principal law in the matter of Whether or not the will shall be cancelled in view of
testaments (Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon, L-24561, June the omission of heirs. Whether or not there was
30, 1970, 33 SCRA 554, 561). Testacy is preferable to disinheritance.
intestacy. An interpretation that will render a
testamentary disposition operative takes HELD:
precedence over a construction that will nullify a
provision of the will (Arts. 788 and 791, Civil Code). Yes. The Court annulled the institution of heirs and
declared a total intestacy on the ground that
Testacy is favored. Doubts are resolved in favor of testator left all his property by universal title to the
testacy especially where the will evinces an children by his second marriage, without expressly
intention on the part of the testator to dispose of disinheriting the children by his first marriage but
practically his whole estate. So compelling is the upon the erroneous belief that he had given them
principle that intestacy should be avoided and that already more shares in his property than those given
the wishes of the testator should prevail that to the children by his second marriage.
sometimes the language of the will can be varied for Disinheritance made without a statement of the
the purpose of giving it effect (Austria vs. Reyes, L- cause, if contested, shall annul the institution of
23079, February 27, 1970, 31 SCRA 754, 762). As far heirs in so far as it is prejudicial to the disinherited
as is legally possible, the expressed desire of the person. This is but a case of preterition which annuls
testator must be followed and the dispositions of the institution of heirs.
the properties in his will should be upheld (Estorque
vs. Estorque, L-19573, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 540, In re Will of the deceased Felisa Javier. SULPICIO
546). RESURRECCION
vs.
AGUSTIN JAVIER, ET AL.
NERI v. AKUTIN G.R. No. L-42539
GR No.L-47799 October 23, 1936
May 21, 1943
FACTS:
Topic/Doctrine: Institution of Heirs
Felisa Francisco Javier made a will instituting her
FACTS: husband Sulpicio Resurreccion as her universal heir
and, among other things, left a legacy of P2,000 in
This is a case where the testator AgripinoNeri in his favor of her brother Gil Francisco Javier. The court,
will left all his property by universal title to the finding that Gil Francisco Javier died in August, 1930,
children by his second marriage, the herein even before the testatrix made her will, ordered
4
that the legacy of P2,000 in his favor revert to the The testator died on Jan 22, 1933 and her will was
fund of the estate. Gil Francisco Javier's children and probated on March 4 of said year.
heirs, claiming that they are entitled to receive the On Oct. 12, 1933, the court finding that Gil died on
legacy of P2,000 in favor of their father, appeal from August 1930, even before the testatrix made her will, and
the court's resolution ordering the reversion of this ordered that the legacy of P2000 in his favor revert to the
amount to the funds of the estate. The only witness fund of the estate.
who testified to this effect was Agustin Javier, Gil's Gils children claiming that they are entitled to receive
brother, who alleged that he was in the house of the the legacy of P2000 in favor of their father.
testatrix in May, 1931, and in a conversation with
her he informed her that their brother Gil had
already died, leaving a widow and children. But Issue:
against this testimony was presented that of WON Gils children are entitled to such legacy?
Sulpicio Resurreccion.
ISSUE: Held:
Not. Gil, now deceased, upon being instituted a legatee
What is the effect of a legacy made in favor of a by the testatrix, lacked civil personality, which is
person who was already dead not only before the extinguished by death, and, therefore, lacked capacity to
death of the testatrix but even before the will was inherit by will on the ground that he could not been
made? subject of the right.
HELD:
RESURRECCION VS. JAVIER
Furthermore, if the testatrix, in making her will, G.R. No. L-42539
knew that Gil was already dead and that he had left October 23, 1936
children, it cannot be explained why she left the
Doctrine: A legatee should be capacitated to inherit. A
legacy to Gil and not to his children, if such was her
person who was already dead not only before the death
intention, particularly because, according to the of the testator but even before the will was madecannot
evidence for the appellants, she knew one of said be a legatee/devisee. Principle of representation takes
children named Jose. place only in intestate inheritance.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Gil Francisco Javier is capacitated to And as said Mariano Garchitorena held a judgment
be a legatee who was already dead not only before for P7,872.23 against Joaquin Perez Alcantara,
the death of the testatrix but even before the will was husband of the plaintiff, Carmen G. de Perez, the
made. sheriff pursuant to the writ of execution issued in
2. Whether or not Gil Francisco Javier can be represented said judgment, levied an attachment on said
by his heirs and entitled to the amount of legacy. amount deposited with La Urbana. The plaintiff,
alleging that said deposit belongs to the
fideicommissary heirs of the decedent Ana Maria
HELD: Alcantara.
1. NO. The testatrix, having no forced heirs, may dispose The appellants contend that in these clauses
by will of all her property or any part thereof in favor of the testatrix has ordered a simple substitution,
any person qualified to acquire it (art. 763, Civil Code). while the appellee contends that it is a
Upon being instituted as legatee by the testatrix, Gil fideicommissary substitution.
Francisco Javier lacked civil personality, which is
extinguished by death, and, therefore, lacked capacity to ISSUE:
inherit by will on the ground that he could not be the
subject of a right (art. 32, Civil Code). WON the deposited amount belong to the
2. NO. Gil Francisco Javiers institution as a legatee had fideicommisary heirs of Ana Maria Alcantara.
absolutely no legal effect and his heirs are not now
entitled to claim the amount of legacy. They cannot even HELD:
claim under the principle of representation because this
takes place only in intestate inheritance. Furthermore, as This will certainly provide for a substitution of heirs,
the legatee died before the testatrix, he could transmit
and of the three cases that might give rise to a
nothing to his heirs (Art. 766, Civil Code).
simple substitution (art. 774, Civil Code). The
testatrix institutes the plaintiff herein her sole and
SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS universal heiress, and provides that upon her death
(the testatrix's) and after probate of the will and
CARMEN G. DE PEREZ, trustee of the estate of Ana approval of the report of the committee on claims
Maria Alcantara and appraisal, said heiress shall receive and enjoy
vs. the whole hereditary estate. Although this clause
MARIANO GARCHITORENA, and JOSE CASIMIRO, provides nothing explicit about substitution, it does
Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Manila, not contain anything in conflict with the idea of
G.R. No. L-31703 fideicommissary substitution.
February 13, 1930
The disposition contained in clause IX of the will,
TOPIC/DOCTRINE: FIDEICOMMISSARY that said heiress shall receive and enjoy the estate.
SUBSTITUTION In fact the enjoyment of the inheritance is in
conformity with the idea of fideicommissary
FACTS: substitution, by virtue of which the heir instituted
receives the inheritance and enjoys it, although at
The amount of P21,428.58 is on deposit in the the same time he preserves it in order to pass it on
plaintiff's name with the association known as La the second heir.
Urbana in Manila, as the final payment of the
liquidated credit of Ana Maria Alcantara, deceased, It should also be noted that said clause IX vests in
whose heiress is said plaintiff, against Andres the heiress only the right to enjoy but not the right
Garchitorena, also deceased, represented by his to dispose of the estate. It says, she may enjoy it, but
son, the defendant Mariano Garchitorena. does not say she may dispose of it. This is an
6
indication of the usufruct inherent in child ora parent of the first heir. Therefore, the estate of
fideicommissary substitution. Jose Eugenio Ramirez is hereby ordered distributed as
follows:1/2 thereof to his widow as her legitime and 1/2
Another clear and outstanding indication of of the estate which is the free portion goes to Roberto
and Jorge Ramirez in naked ownership and the usufruct
fideicommissary substitution in clause X is the
to Wanda de Wrobleski with a simple substitution in
provision that the whole estate shall pass
favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez, the
unimpaired to the heiress's children, that is to say substitutes.
the heiress is required to preserve the whole estate,
without diminution, in order to pass it on in due CONDITIONAL TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION
time to the fideicommissary heirs. ELENA MORENTE
vs.
TESTATE ESTATE OF RAMIREZ VS. VDA. DE RAMIREZ GUMERSINDO DE LA SANTA
G.R. No. L-27952 G.R. No. L-3891
February 15, 1982 December 19, 1907
ISSUE:
HELD: