088 RAFAEL E. MANINANG and SOLEDAD L.

MANINANG v. CA, Hon. PRONOVE JR (CFI Rizal

Judge) and BERNARDO S. ASENETA
G.R. No. L-57848; June 19, 1982
TOPIC: Probate Of A Will, Art 838, Rule 76, ROC,
Art. 839, Art 804 809, 810- 814, 818 819
PONENTE: MELENCIO-HERRERA, J .:
AUTHOR: JANNA
Probate of a will is mandatory, however, the court may pass
on the intrinsic validity of a Will even before probate, if
practical considerations so demand. CA and RTC however
erred in concluding that Bernardo was prerited and
disposing of the testate case based on such conclusion. SC
consolidated cases and remanded the same to the RTC (to
determine whether prerited or disinherited etc.)
FACTS:
1. MAY 21, 1977: Clemencia Aseneta, 81, single, died at Manila Sanitarium.
2. Clemencia left a holographic will. Pertinent provisions state and reveal that:

As to Dra. Soledad Maninang: As to Nephew (and Niece)
Named inheritor of all her real properties in Manila,
Makati, QC, Albay, and Legaspi City.
Clemencia lived with Maninang family for 30 years
Soledad + Pamping (husband) = kind to her
She was happy and at peace with them, even when
her sisters were still alive
Troubled by Bernardo (nephew) and Salvacion (niece)
She is not incompetent as Nonoy would like her to
appear: I know what is right and wrong. I can decide
for myself.
Does not consider Nonoy as an adopted son.
He has made me do things against my will

3. June 9, 1977: Soledad filed a Petition for probate of the Will (testate case) with CFI, QC (Sp.PN. Q-23304)
4. Bernardo Aseneta, who, as the adopted son, claims to be the sole heir of decedent Clemencia Aseneta.
5. July 25, 1977: Bernardo instituted intestate proceedings (intestate case) with the CFI Pasig (Sp. PN. 8569)
6. Bernardo filed Motion to Dismiss the Testate Case on the ground that the holographic will was null and void
because: (1) He is the only compulsory heir; (2) He was preterited and, therefore, intestacy should ensue.
7. In support of said Motion to Dismiss, respondent Bernardo cited the cases of Neri vs. Akutin (72 Phil. 322);
Nuguid vs. Nuguid (17 SCRA 449), and Ramos vs. Baldovino (2 CA Rep. 2nd, 878)
8. Soledad, in her Opposition to said Motion to Dismiss, averred:
RULE = in a case for probate of a Will, the Court's area of inquiry is limited to an examination of and resolution on the
extrinsic validity of the will;

Respondent Bernardo was effectively disinherited by the decedent.

9. September 8, 1980: RTC QC dismissed Testate Case for reasons stated in the motion to dismiss filed by Bernardo.
10. December 19, 1980: MR denied for lack of merit; appointed Bernardo as the administrator of the intestate estate.
11. RTC QC: Bernardo as a forced heir while Soledad is not; it found former as fit to perform the duties of the trust. "
12. Spouses Maninang filed for certiorari at CA.
13. April 28, 1981: CA denied; Ruled that RTC Order = final in nature as it finally disposed of the Testate Case.
Appeal was the proper remedy, which petitioners failed to avail of. Continuing, it said that even granting RTC committed
errors in issuing the questioned Orders, those are errors of judgment reviewable only by appeal and not by Certiorari.
--
Nuguid vs. Nuguid: Doctrine in said case states that, though normally the area of inquiry by the Court is limited on the
examination and extrinsic validity of the will (testamentary capacity/compliance with requisites prescribed by law),
where practical considerations demand that the instrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is probated
, the court should meet the issue. || SC ruling in Balanay vs. Hon. Martinez: Similar thrust as above, ruling that lower
court correctly passed upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been established, stating that the
the probate of a will might become an I dle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void.
ISSUE(S):
(1) Whether the Court of Appeals acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it dismissed the Testate Case;
(2) Whether the RTC properly disposed of the Testate Case.
HELD:
1) YES. It is a general rule that the probate of a Will is mandatory.
2) NO, because by virtue of the dismissal of the Testate Case, the determination of that controversial issue has not been
thoroughly considered.

Decision in question, set aside. Orders of the CFI-Branch XI, Rizal, dated 8-Sept-80 and 19-Dec-80 are nullified.
SP No. Q-23304 is remanded to same CFI Branch, to be reinstated and consolidated with SP No. 8569 for further
proceedings.
RATIO:

1) Art. 838 CC: No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with
the Rules of Court. The law enjoins the probate of the Will and public policy requires it, because unless the Will is
probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by Will may be
rendered nugatory.
2) Normally, the probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic validity. Opposition to the intrinsic validity or
legality of the provisions of the will cannot be entertained in Probate proceeding because its only purpose is merely to
determine if the will has been executed in accordance with the requirements of the law.
... The authentication of a will decides no other question than such as touch upon the capacity of the testator and
the compliance with those requisites or solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of wills. It does not
determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficiency (sic) of the provisions, these may be
impugned as being vicious or null, notwithstanding its authentication. The que0stions relating to these points
remain entirely unaffected, and may be raised even after the will has been authenticated ....
3) Although in the cited case of Nuguid, in the Balanay case, that the Court decided on the intrinsic validity of the Will
even before the probate , these cases merely provide the exception rather than the rule. The intrinsic validity of the
Wills in those cases was passed upon even before probate because "practical considerations" so demanded.
Moreover, for the parties in the Nuguid case, the "meat of the controversy" was the intrinsic validity of the Will; in
fact, the parties in that case "shunted aside the question of whether or not the Will should be allowed probate."

Not so in the case before us now where the probate of the Will is insisted on by petitioners and a resolution on
the extrinsic validity of the Will demanded.(Meaning, exception in NUGUID case, not applicable in this case.)
Moreover, in the Nuguid case, this Court ruled that the Will was intrinsically invalid as it completely preterited
the parents of the testator.
4) In the instant case, a *crucial issue* that calls for resolution is whether under the terms of the decedent's Will,
BARNARDO had been preterited or disinherited, and if the latter, whether it was a valid disinheritance. Preterition
and disinheritance are two diverse concepts.
PRETERITION DISINHERITANCE
Omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or
anyone of them either BECAUSE: (a) they are not
mentioned; or (b) mentioned but neither instituted as
heirs nor expressly disinherited (Neri v. Akutin)
Presumed involuntary. (Sanchez Roman, Estudios de
Derecho Civil 2
nd
Ed.)
Art 854, NCC: shall annul the institution of heir in
toto (on the whole) unless in the will, there are, in
addition, testamentary dispositions in the form of
devises or legacies.
A testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory
heirs of his share in the legitimate for a cause authorized
by law. (JBL and RC Puno, An Outline of Phil. Civ. Law)
Always voluntary (Sanchez Roman, Estudios de Derecho
Civil 2
nd
Ed.)
Art 918: (ineffective disinheritance), such disinheritance
shall also annul the institution of heirs but only insofar
as it may prejudice the person disinherited
In disinheritance, the nullity is limited to that portion of
the estate of which the disinherited heirs have been
illegally deprived
5. By virtue of the dismissal of the Testate Case, the determination of that controversial issue has not been thoroughly
considered. We gather from the assailed Order of the trial Court that its conclusion was that respondent Bernardo has
been preterited We are of opinion, however, that from the face of the Will, that conclusion is not indubitable.
As held in the case of Vda. de Precilla vs. Narciso:

... it is as important a matter of public interest that a purported will is not denied legalization on dubious
grounds. Otherwise, the very institution of testamentary succession will be shaken to its foundation, ...
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Law enjoins the probate of the Will and public policy requires it, because unless the Will is probated and notice
thereof given to the whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by Will may be rendered nugatory.
Normally, the probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic validity, however, the law may pass upon the intrinsic
validity of the Wills in those cases was passed upon even before probate because "practical considerations" so
demanded.