3. Lim V CA - GR No.

124715, January 24, 2000

FACTS:
In 1994, Pastor Lim died. His wife, Rufina Lim petitioned with the lower court, acting as
a probate court, for the inclusion of 5 corporations into the inventory of the estate of
Pastor Lim. The 5 corporations were: Auto Truck Corporation, Alliance Marketing
Corporation, Speed Distributing, Inc., Active Distributing, Inc. and Action Company.
Rufina alleged that the assets of these corporations were owned wholly by Pastor; that
these corporations themselves are owned by Pastor and they are mere dummies of
Pastor. The corporations filed a motion for exclusion from the estate. They presented
proof (Torrens Titles) showing that the assets of the corporations are in their respective
names and titles. The probate court denied their motion. The Court of Appeals reversed
the decision of the probate court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the corporations and/or their assets should be included in the
inventory of the estate.

HELD: No. As regards the assets, the corporations were able to present their respective
Torrens Titles over the disputed assets. It is true that a probate court may pass upon the
question ownership albeit in a provisional manner but still, a Torrens Title cannot be
attacked collaterally in a probate proceeding, it must be attacked directly in a separate
proceeding

23. Nuguid vs Nuguid, No. L-23445, June 23, 1966; 17 SCRA 449
FACTS: Rosario died without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were
her legitimate parents Felix and Paz, and 6 brothers and sisters.
Remedios, one of the sister filed in court a holographic will allegedly executed by
Rosario instituting the former as the sole, universal heir of all her properties. She prayed
that said will be admitted to probate and that letter of administration be issued to her.
Felix and Paz opposed to the probate of the will on the ground that by the institution of
Remedios as universal heir of the deceased, oppositors who are compulsory heirs in
the direct ascending line were illegally preterited and that in consequence, the
institution is void.
Article 854 provides that preterition 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.
Petitioners contention is that the present is a case of ineffective disinheritance rather
than one of preterition drawing the conclusion that Article 854 does not apply in the case
at bar.
ISSUE: WON the institution of one of the sister of the deceased as the sole, universal
heir preterited the compulsory heirs.
HELD: Yes. Where the deceased left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate, but she
left forced heirs in the direct ascending line her parents, and her holographic will does
not explicitly disinherit them but simply omits their names altogether, the case is one of
preterition of the parents, not a case of ineffective disinheritance.
Preterition consists in the omission in the testators will of the forced heirs or anyone of
them, either because they are not mentioned therein, or, through mentioned, they are
neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. Disinheritance, in turn, is a
testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a
cause authorized by law.
Where the one sentence will institutes the petitioner as the sole, universal heir and
preterits the parents of the testatrix, and it contains no specific legacies or bequests,
such universal institution of petitioner, by itself, is void. And intestate succession
ensues.

63. In Re-Petition for habeas corpus of CAPT. GARY ALEJANO, PN, et. al. v. GEN.
PEDRO CABUAY,et al., GR 160792, August 25, 2005

FACTS:
A directive was issued to all Major Service Commanders to take into custody the military
personnel under their command who took part in the Oakwood incident. Petitioners filed
a petition for habeas corpus with SC. The SC issued a resolution, which required
respondents to make a return of the writ and to appear and produce the persons of the
detainees before the CA. CA dismissed the petition because the detainees are already
charged of coup detat. Habeas corpus is unavailing in this case as the detainees
confinement

is

under

valid

indictment.

ISSUE: What is the objective of the writ of habeas corpus?

HELD: The duty to hear the petition for habeas corpus necessarily includes the
determination of the propriety of the remedy. The remedy of habeas corpus has one
objective: to inquire into the cause of detention of a person. The purpose of the writ is to
determine whether a person is being illegally deprived of his liberty. If the inquiry reveals
that the detention is illegal, the court orders the release of the person. If, however, the
detention is proven lawful, then the habeas corpus proceedings terminate. The use of
habeas corpus is thus very limited. It is not a writ of error. Neither can it substitute for an
appeal.