Revocation Disallowance Voluntary act of testator By judicial decree May be made without cause Must be based on causes provided by law May be partial Always total
a. Probate Tolentino definition: to prove before some officer or tribunal vested with authority for the purpose that the instrument offered to be proved is the last will and testament of the deceased person whose testamentary act it is alleged to be, and that it has been executed, attested and published as required by law and that the testator was of sound and disposing mind during its execution.
Article 838. No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court having jurisdiction for the allowance of his will. In such case, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court for the allowance of wills after the testator's a death shall govern. The Supreme Court shall formulate such additional Rules of Court as may be necessary for the allowance of wills on petition of the testator. Subject to the right of appeal, the allowance of the will, either during the lifetime of the testator or after his death, shall be conclusive as to its due execution. (n)
2 Kinds of Probate Ante MortemProceedings instituted by the testator himself during his lifetime Post MortemProceedings instituted by heirs or interested persons after the death of testator
Purpose of Probate The purpose of probate is not to look into the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, but to ascertain the e4xtrinsic validity of the will itself. To determine this, the following must be established during probate proceedings: That the testator executing the will has died. That the last will and testament is his. That the will was executed while the testator had the capacity to do so, i.e. was of sound mind and that he was not acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence. That the will was executed conforming to all the formalities required by law.
Effect of Probate After probate proceeding have been established and if the probate court allows the will, if no appeal is taken within the allowable period, the matter of due execution of the will and capacity of the testator acquire the character of res judicata.
Gallanosa vs Arcangel (1978) Facts: Florencianos last will bequeathed his properties to Gallanosa and to Fortajada. This was affirmed during the petition for the probate of the will, despite opposition by the heirs. Later, a petition for partition of the estate, covering 61 parcels of land was approved by the CFI, a decree which was not appealed from by the previous heirs-oppositors. However, the heirs later filed an action for recovery of the parcels of land; this action was dismissed, and the decision became final for failure to appeal. Nevertheless, the makulit heirs this time filed for annulment of the probate of the will, which eventually was granted the CFI. Held: The Court ruled that the lower court erred in favouring the annulment. This action was not allowed by rules of procedure. Also, any subsequent action after the previous decrees with regard to the will had already been final would be barred, in keeping with the principles of prescription and res judicata.
Roberts vs Leonidas (1984) Facts: Edward died and left two wills disposing of properties in the Philippines and the United States. The wills were probated in the US but the two families [Edward married twice] settled in a compromise agreement. Meanwhile, the kids living in the Philippines started an intestate proceeding that eventually both families took part in. It was only after the partition was approved that the second family got new lawyers and filed a petition to annul the partition and compromise agreement and probate the two wills in the Philippines. The judge denied the first familys motion to dismiss. Held: the SC found that he was correct to do so. If a decedent leaves a will, then it is anomalous to ignore it and commence intestate proceedings. Testacy takes priority over intestacy.
Nepomuceno vs CA (1985) Facts: Jugos left a will wherein he disposed his estate to his legal wife and children, but he disposed the free portion to his concubine Sofia. It was expressly stated in the will that he had a subsisting marriage and that he cohabited with Sofia. Sofia asked for the probate of the will. The will was approved but the devise to Sofia was not approved on the ground of concubinage. She questioned the courts jurisdiction on passing on the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will. Held: General rule is that only the extrinsic validity of the will is within the jurisdiction of the probate court. However when instrinsic issues are present on the face of the will that it will futile to probate it, the court can pass upon intrinsic issues such as admitted concubinage in this case.
Reyes vs CA (1997) Facts: Vivares filed a petition for probate of the will of Torcuato Reyes. In his will, he bequeathed to his wife, Asuncion, many of his properties. His children from other women opposed, saying that Torcuato was never married to Asuncion, as the latter was already married to another. The Trial Court declared null and void the provisions bequeathing property to Asuncion for the relationship of Torcuato and Asuncion was an adulterous one. Held: The lower court was not asked to rule upon the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will. The rule on probate is NOT inflexible and absolute. Under exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the will. The propriety of the institution of Asuncion as one of the devisees/legatees already involved inquiry on the wills intrinsic validity and which need not be inquired upon by the probate court.
Dorotheo vs CA (1999) Facts: Lourdes wanted to probate her pretend-husbands will. Court admitted the will to probate, but upon motion of the Dorotheo Kids, TC declared the will intrinsically void based on Lourdes relationship with Alejandro Dorotheo. Lourdes appealed, but CA dismissed. CA dismissal became final and executory. THEN, Judge Angas set aside CA decision. CA and SC ruled in Kids favor. Held: Alejandros will was found to be extrinsically valid but intrinsically void. Thus, the rules of intestacy apply. Questions regarding intrinsic validity, on the other hand, may still be raised even after the will has been authenticated. An extrinsically valid last will and testament is not always intrinsically valid. Even if the will was validly executed, if the testator provides for dispositions that deprive the lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance, the unlawful dispositions cannot be given effect. This is specially so when the courts had already determined in a final and executory decision that the will is intrinsically void. Such determination having attained that character of finality is binding on this Court. Failure to avail of the remedies provided by law constitutes waiver.
Camaya vs Patulandong (2004) Facts: Testatrix devised a land to Mangulabnan. While alive, she had her will probated. But she subsequently made a codicil modifying the will and giving the subject land to her 4 children and Mangulabnan. Mangulabnan asked for the delivery of the title of the land to him but children refused. Mangulabnan filed for partition which was granted but TC provided that partition was with no prejudice to the probate of the codicil. While codicil was being probated, Mangulabnan obtained TCT for the land and sold it to the Camayas. Probate court then probated the codicil and declared the sale void. Held: Probate court cannot declare the sale void! Its jurisdiction is limited to deciding WON the instrument which is offered for probate the last will and testament of the decedent; question of identity; WON the will has been executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law; question of due execution; Whether the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will; question of capacity.
In Re: Will of Palaganas (2011) Facts: Ruperta, a Filipino who became an American, died in the US without any spouse or children. She designated her brother Sergio as the executor. Her other brother filed to the court a petition to probate the will however it was opposed by the petitioners who were claiming that the will should first be probated in the US before it can be probated in the Philippines. Held: The rules do not provide this requirement and in fact, Art 816 recognizes foreign wills. Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners although the same has not as yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution.
b. Grounds for Disallowance (this list is exclusive accdng. to Tolentino) Article 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases: (1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied with; (2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its execution; (3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats; (4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person; (5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud; (6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing his signature thereto. (n)
Tolentino Notes: Undue pressure and influence requires that there be coercion which the testator cannot resist resulting in a change in his declarations which he would not have so declared had there not been pressure or influence. Fraud or trickery is a secret devise, false statement or clever ruse or pretense by which the testator is fooled into doing something he would not have otherwise done.
Alsua-Betts vs CA (1979) Facts: Don Jesus and his wife and children executed an extrajudicial partition allocating half of their properties to their children equally. The couple later executed their own wills and codicils which stipulated that the other spouse will be the sole heir of the remaining half share when the testator dies. Upon the wifes death, the husband revoked his previous will and bequeathed several additional properties to Francesca, one of the children. Held: The Court held that the extrajudicial partition was invalid and it was only to be treated as a donation. Don Jesus can also revoke his will at any time and he is not bound by the extrajudicial partition and the former will. The CA erred in not probating the will due to conjectures that Don Jesus was an honorable man and that he could not have viewed his other children any less compared to Francesca.
B. INSTITUTION of HEIRS
1. In General Article 840. Institution of heir is an act by virtue of which a testator designates in his will the person or persons who are to succeed him in his property and transmissible rights and obligations. (n) Article 841. A will shall be valid even though it should not contain an institution of an heir, or such institution should not comprise the entire estate, and even though the person so instituted should not accept the inheritance or should be incapacitated to succeed. In such cases the testamentary dispositions made in accordance with law shall be complied with and the remainder of the estate shall pass to the legal heirs. (764)
Maams comments: The institution of an heir covers not only forced heirs, but necessarily devisees and legatees.
a. Extent of Grant Article 842. One who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will of all his estate or any part of it in favor of any person having capacity to succeed. One who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does not contravene the provisions of this Code with regard to the legitime of said heirs. (763a)
Maams Comments: This provision takes into account the situation where there are no compulsory heirs which results in the entire estate of the testator being a free portion which he can will away to anybody without restrictions. It also declares the restriction of legitimes to those testators who do have compulsory heirs in that he is allowed to will away his estate, as long as it wont impair the rights of his compulsory heirs.
Heirs of Ureta vs Heirs of Ureta (2011) Facts: To minimize the amount of inheritance tax, Alfonso executed 4 deeds of sale in favor of his sons, daughter, and common-law wife. Policronio was one of his sons and supposed transferees. Nonetheless, Alfonso continued to enjoy the ownership and possession of these lands. When he died, a deed of extrajudicial partition was executed which covered all the lands covered by the deeds of sale. Conrado, son of Policronio, signed in behalf of the Heirs of Policronio without a special power of attorney. However, the Heirs of Policronio later filed in the RTC an action for annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition and for recovery of possession of the parcel of land covered by the deed of sale executed by Alfonso to Policronio. The RTC ruled that the deed of sale was void, but the deed of extrajudicial partition was valid. The CA, on the other hand, ruled that both the deed of sale and the deed of extrajudicial partition were void. Held: As to the deed of sale, the Supreme Court ruled that such was void for being absolutely simulated and for the absence of consideration. As to the deed of extrajudicial partition, the SC said it was not void, contrary to the CAs ruling, but was at best merely unenforceable, as Conrado lacked the authority to sign. However, the court believed that it wasnt true that Conrados co-heirs did not authorize him to sign, so in the end, it upheld the validity of the deed of extrajudicial partition. The issue on preterition and the application of Art 842 cannot apply, the Court said, because it is a concept of testamentary succession, and there is no will involved at the case at hand.
b. Effect of predecease of heir Tolentino Definition: Compulsory heirs are those who succeed to a certain portion of the estate of the decedent by force of law
Article 856. A voluntary heir who dies before the testator transmits nothing to his heirs. A compulsory heir who dies before the testator, a person incapacitated to succeed, and one who renounces the inheritance, shall transmit no right to his own heirs except in cases expressly provided for in this Code. (766a)
c. Compulsory Heirs Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs: (1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants; (2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and descendants; (3) The widow or widower; (4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction; (5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287. Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2; neither do they exclude one another. In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved. The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned, shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code. (807a)
d. Voluntary Heirs Those assigned by the will of the testator to succeed him in a specified portion of his estate.
2. Identifications of Heirs, Manner of Institution Article 843. The testator shall designate the heir by his name and surname, and when there are two persons having the same names, he shall indicate some circumstance by which the instituted heir may be known. Even though the testator may have omitted the name of the heir, should he designate him in such manner that there can be no doubt as to who has been instituted, the institution shall be valid. (772)
Maams Comments: an heir may be identified even if he is not specifically named as long as a specific heir can ultimately be known from the method of identification made in the will Tolentinos Comments: If there happens to be ambiguity and either no heir can be specifically found or more than 1 heir is pinpointed when the disposition only calls for a single heir, it will b as if the testator made no disposition at all.
Article 844. An error in the name, surname, or circumstances of the heir shall not vitiate the institution when it is possible, in any other manner, to know with certainty the person instituted. If among persons having the same names and surnames, there is a similarity of circumstances in such a way that, even with the use of other proof, the person instituted cannot be identified, none of them shall be an heir. (773a) Article 845. Every disposition in favor of an unknown person shall be void, unless by some event or circumstance his identity becomes certain. However, a disposition in favor of a definite class or group of persons shall be valid. (750a) Article 846. Heirs instituted without designation of shares shall inherit in equal parts. (765) Article 847. When the testator institutes some heirs individually and others collectively as when he says, "I designate as my heirs A and B, and the children of C," those collectively designated shall be considered as individually instituted, unless it clearly appears that the intention of the testator was otherwise. (769a) Article 848. If the testator should institute his brothers and sisters, and he has some of full blood and others of half blood, the inheritance shall be distributed equally unless a different intention appears. (770a) Article 849. When the testator calls to the succession a person and his children they are all deemed to have been instituted simultaneously and not successively. (771) Article 851. If the testator has instituted only one heir, and the institution is limited to an aliquot part of the inheritance, legal succession takes place with respect to the remainder of the estate. The same rule applies if the testator has instituted several heirs, each being limited to an aliquot part, and all the parts do not cover the whole inheritance. (n) Article 852. If it was the intention of the testator that the instituted heirs should become sole heirs to the whole estate, or the whole free portion, as the case may be, and each of them has been instituted to an aliquot part of the inheritance and their aliquot parts together do not cover the whole inheritance, or the whole free portion, each part shall be increased proportionally. (n) Article 853. If each of the instituted heirs has been given an aliquot part of the inheritance, and the parts together exceed the whole inheritance, or the whole free portion, as the case may be, each part shall be reduced proportionally. (n)
Maams Comments: These provisions show that the law presumes equality among the heirs if there is no express and clear declaration of the testator to the contrary.
3. Cause Article 850. The statement of a false cause for the institution of an heir shall be considered as not written, unless it appears from the will that the testator would not have made such institution if he had known the falsity of such cause. (767a)
Austria vs Reyes (1970) Facts: Basilia Austria vda de Cruz filed a petition for probate of her will before she died. In her will, she passed the bulk of her estate to her adopted children Perfecto et. Al. Ruben et. Al. challenged the validity of the adoption, and claimed that if they could prove that the adoption was spurious, Perfecto et al could not be instituted as heirs. Held: The SC disagreed. A false cause is only ignored, not made a cause for annulling the institution of heirs, unless it can be shown that the testator would not have so willed if he had known the falsity of the cause. Basilias will was not clear on this matter. As the law favors testacy, Basiliaswill must be given full effect.
Preterition Article 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation. (814a)
a. Concept Tolentino Definition: Preterition means the total omission of a compulsory heir from the inheritance. It is usually done by the silence of the testator inadvertently.
Reyes vs Barreto-Datu (1967) Facts: Bibiano was married to Maria Gerardo. They owned many properties, including a fishpond. Bibiano instituted his children Salud and Milagros and his sisters Rosa and Felisa as heirs. In her role as administratrix, Maria prepared a project of partition where SaludBarretto was given a share. It turned out that Salud was not a daughter of Bibiano and Maria. Held: The institution of Salud, although it reduced the share of the forced heir Milagros, did not constitute preterition because there was no total omission of a forced heir because they were both given a share in the will.
Aznar vs Duncan (1966) Facts: Trial Court approved the project of partition submitted by the executor wherein the properties of the estate were divided equally between Lucy 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. This was based on the proposition that Helen Garcia was pretirited in the will. Held: The Court held that there is no preterition of Helen Garcia and the annulment of the institution of heirs is not proper. The testator did not entirely omit Helen Garcia, but left her a legacy of P3,600.00.
J.L.T. Agro vs Balnsag (2005) Facts: Don Julian stipulated in a compromise agreement that his second wife and children would be exclusively adjudicated Lot No. 63 upon his death. Later on, he assigned the lot to his children from his first marriage. Second wife sold the lot to the Balansags while children from first marriage assigned the lot to the family corporation JLT Agro. Held: While Lot No. 63 was exclusively adjudicated to the second family in a compromise agreement when a decedent was alive, it could be validly revoked during the decedents lifetime it being a partition inter vivos which can only become effective only after the death of the owner of the property.
b. Distinguished from Disinheritance Preterition Disinheritance Tacit method of deprivation of legitime Express method of deprivation of legitime Always done voluntarily Presumed by law that it is involuntary There must be legal cause Done by oversight or mistake Heir completely excluded from inheritance, and if inheritance is not lawfully made, he is merely restored to his legitime Omitted heir gets not only his legitime but also his share in the free portion not disposed of by way of legacies and devisees
c. Who are covered The provision expressly states that those who are compulsory heirs in the direct line are affected by preterition. This direct line initially refers to descendants of the testator, after which those further stated in Article 887 become qualified.
Acain vs CA (1987) Facts: ConstantinoAcain filed with the RTC a petition for the probate of the will of his late Uncle, Nemesio, on the premise that the latter died leaving a will in which the former and his brothers and sisters were instituted as heirs. Virginia, the legally adopted daughter of Nemesio, and Rosa Diongson, the widow of the deceased, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) ConstantinoAcain has no legal capacity to institute the proceedings; (2) he is merely a universal heir; and (3) the widow and the adopted daughter have been pretirited. Held: Insofar as the widow is concerned, Article 854 may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from the testator, although she is a compulsory heir. However, the same thing cannot be said of the legally adopted daughter. Under Article 39 of P.D. No. 603, known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, adoption gives to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. It cannot be denied that she was totally omitted and preterited in the will and that both the adopted child and the widow were deprived of at least their legitime. Neither can it be denied that they were not expressly disinherited. Hence, this is a clear case of preterition of Virgina. d. Effects Article 855. The share of a child or descendant omitted in a will must first be taken from the part of the estate not disposed of by the will, if any; if that is not sufficient, so much as may be necessary must be taken proportionally from the shares of the other compulsory heirs. (1080a)
Nuguid vs Nuguid (1966) Facts: Rosario Nuguid died without descendants. Remedios, her sister, brings to probate a holographic will where Rosario bequeaths her entire estate to Remedios. Their parents Feliz and Paz opposed, claiming that if Remedios is instituted as universal heir, they (parents) would be illegally preterited. Held: The deceased Rosario left no descendants, but left forced heirs in the direct ascending line her parents. The will completely omits both of them, depriving them of their legitime. Neither were they expressly disinherited. There was only one provision in the will where Roasario instituted Remedios as universal heir. That institution is null and void. Thus, intestate succession ensues.
Solano vs CA(1983) [Case was not discussed, Maam says it was an erroneous decision] Facts: Bienvenido and Emeteria Garcia file a case against Solano for their recognition as his illegitimate children. Solano dies during trial and is substituted by Zonia, who was previously declared to be Solano sole and universal heir in a probate proceeding that Solano instituted BEFORE he died. Zonia argued the status of the Garcias and put forward her own status. The Garcia presented evidence challenging Zonias status as heir and natural child as well as establishing their illegitimacy. The TC and CA ruled, not only that the Garcias were Solanos children, but that Zonia was not sola and universal heir and natural child of Solano and that all three were on the same footing and should share in the estate of Solano equally. Zonia challenges the jurisdiction of the TC and CA to rule on matters already previously ruled on in a probate proceeding. Held: SC is bound by the factual findings of the lower courts. Since Zonia, in being substituted for Solano in the recognition case, not only contested the status of the Garcias but also put forward her status, she converted the recognition case into a contest of both parties statuses, giving the lower courts jurisdiction to declare null and void Zonias status as heir and natural child. As to the declaration of the lower courts in the division of shares which was allegedly already ruled in a previous probate proceeding, the SC relied on Article 854 of the Civil Code; The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. ...