Seangio v. Reyes PRs, Alfredo Seangio et.

et. al filed for the settlement of the intestate estate of the late Segundo Seangio. Petitioners opposed said petition, contending that Segundo left a holographic will disinheriting Alfredo for cause. The reason for the disinheritance was due to Alfredos maltreatment to his father Segundo. In view of the purported holographic will, petitioners averred that in the event the decedent is found to have a will, the intestate proceedings are to be automatically suspended and replaced by the proceedings of the will. PRs moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings contending that the alleged will of Segundo does not contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased and that all other compulsory heirs were not named nor instituted as heir. Devisee or legatee hence there is preterition which would result to intestacy. Petitioners countered that the rule on preterition does not apply because Segundos will does not constitute a universal heir or heirs to the exclusion of one or more compulsory heirs. They argued that the testator intended all his compulsory heirs, petitioners and PRs alike, with the sole exception of Alfredo, to inherit his estate.

ISSUE: WON THE COMPULSORY HEIRS IN THE DIRECT LINE WERE PRETERITED IN THE WILL. HELD: No. The compulsory heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the will. According to the SC, it was Segundos last expression to bequeath his estate to all his compulsory heirs with the sole exception of Alfredo. Also, Segundo did not institute an heir to the exclusion of his other compulsory heirs. The mere mention of the name of one of the petitioners, Virginia, in the document did not operate to institute her as the universal heir. Her name was included only as a witness to the altercation between Segundo and his son, Alfredo.