1.

Nuguid vs Nuguid
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.

2. Reyes vs. Barretto-Datu

Facts: Bibiano Barretto was married to Maria Gerardo. During their lifetime, they acquired vast estate (real property
inManila, Pampanga and Bulacan). When Bibiano died (Feb. 18, 1936), he left his share in a will to Salud Barretto(mother
of the minors) and Lucia Milagros Barretto; and a small portion as legacies to his sisters Rosa Barretto and Felisa Barretto
and his nephew and nieces. The usufruct of a fishpond was reserved for Maria (the widow). As appointed administratrix,
Maria prepared a project of partition, signed by her in her own behalf and as guardian ofthe minor Milagros. It was
approved, and the estate was distributed and the shares delivered. Salud took immediate possession of her share and
secured the cancellation of OCTs and issuance of new titles in her name.
Upon Marias death (Mar. 5, 1948), it was discovered that she executed two wills: in the first, she instituted Salud
and Milagros as her heirs; in the second, she revoked the same and left all her properties in favor of Milagros alone. The
later will was allowed and the first rejected. In rejecting the first will presented by Tirso Reyes (as guardian of the children
of Salud Barretto), the TC held that Salud was not the daughter of the decedent Maria by her husband Bibiano. The SC
affirmed the same.
TC: The project of partition submitted in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Bibiano is null and void
ab initio (not merely voidable) because the distributee (Salud), predecessor of Tirso et. al., was not a daughter of the Sps.
Bibiano and Maria. The nullity of the project of partition was decreed on the basis of Art. 1081 (OCC) (A partition in which
a person was believed to be an heir, without being so, has been included, shall be null and void). As Milagros was the only
true heir of Bibiano, she was entitled to recover from Salud and her successors all the properties received by her from
Bibianos estate, in view of Art. 1456 (NCC) which states that property acquired by mistake or fraud is held by its acquirer
in implied trust for the real owner.
Having lost the fight for a share in the estate of Maria as her legitimate heir, Tirso now falls back upon the remnant
of the estate of Bibiano (the fishpond), which was given in usufruct to Maria.
Hence, this action for the recovery of the one-half portion thereof. This action afforded Milagros an opportunity to
set up her right of ownership; not only of the fishpond under litigation, but of all the other properties willed and delivered to
Salud, for being a spurious heir, and not entitled to any share in the estate of Bibiano, thereby directly attacking the
validity, not only of the project of partition, but of the decision of the court based thereon as well.
Issues:
(1) W/N the partition from which Salud acquired the fishpond in question is void ab initio and Salud did not acquire
valid title to it.
(2) W/N Milagros action is barred by the statute of limitations.
Ratio:
(1) NO. Art. 1081 (OCC) is misapplied! Salud admittedly had been instituted heir in Bibianos last will and
testament together with Milagros. Hence, the partition had between them could not be one such had with a party who was
believed to be an heir without really being one, and was not null and void under Art. 1081. The legal precept of Art. 1081
does not speak of children, or descendants, but of heirs (without distinction between forced, voluntary or intestate ones),
and the fact that Salud did not happen to be a daughter of the testator does not preclude her being one of the heirs

expressly named in his testament; for Bibiano was at liberty to assign the free portion of his estate to whomsoever he
chose. While the share () assigned to Salud impinged on the legitime of Milagros, Salud did not for that reason cease to
be a testamentary heir of Bibiano. Nor does the fact that Milagros was allotted in her fathers will a share smaller than her
legitime invalidate the institution of Salud as heir, since there was no preterition or total omission of a forced heir here.
The view that the partition in question is void for being a compromise on the civil status of Salud, in violation of Art. 1814
(OCC) is erroneous. A compromise presupposes the settlement of a controversy through mutual concessions of the
parties; and the condition of Salud as daughter of the testator Bibiano, while untrue, was at no time disputed during the
settlement of the estate of testator. There can be no compromise over issues not in dispute. While a compromise over civil
status is prohibited, the law nowhere forbids a settlement by the parties over the share that should correspond to a
claimant to the estate.
At any rate, independently of the project of partition (a mere proposal for distribution of estate), it is the court alone
that makes the distribution of the estate and determines the persons entitled thereto and the parts to which each is
entitled. It is that judicial decree of distribution, once final, that vests title in the distributees. Where a court has validly
issued a decree of distribution of the estate, and the same has become final, the validity or invalidity of the project of
partition becomes irrelevant.
(2) YES. Milagros contends that as Maria could not have ignored that Salud was not her child, the act of Maria in agreeing
to the partition and distribution was a fraud on her rights and entitles her to belief. This contention is unfounded.
First, there is no evidence that when Bibianos estate was judicially settled and distributed, Salud knew that she
was not Bibianos child. Thus, if fraud was committed, it was Maria who was solely responsible; and neither Salud nor her
minor children can be held liable therefor.
Second, granting there was such fraud, relief therefor can be obtained within 4 years from its discovery, and the
record shows that this period had elapsed a long time ago. At the time of distribution, Milagros was only 16. She became
of age 5 years later (1944). On that year, her cause of action accrued to contest on the ground of fraud the court decree
distributing her fathers estate and the 4-year period of limitation started to run, to expire in 1948. Conceding that Milagros
only became aware of the true facts in 1946, her action still became extinct in 1950. Her action was barred in Aug. 1956,
when she filed her counterclaim in this case contesting the decree of distribution of Bibianos estate. There is no evidence
of an alleged verbal promise by Tirso to reconvey the properties received by Salud, which allegedly induced Milagros to
delay the filing of the action. Granting that there was such promise, it would not bind Tirsos wards, who are the real
parties-in-interest. An abdicative waiver of rights by a guardian, being an act of disposition, and not of administration,
cannot bind his wards, being null and void as to them unless duly authorized by the proper court

3. BALANAY, JR. vs. MARTINEZ

Facts: Leodegaria Julian died. She was survived by her husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., and six legitimate children.
Felix Balanay, Jr. filed a petition for the probate of his mothers notarial will, which was written in English. In
thatwill, Leodegaria declared that it was her desire her properties should not be divided among her heirs during
her husband's lifetime and that their legitimes should be satisfied out of the fruits of her properties. She devised
andpartitioned the conjugal lands as if they were all owned by her. She disposed of in the will her husband's onehalf share of the conjugal assets.
Felix Balanay, Sr. and Avelina B. Antonio opposed the probate of the will. Thereafter, Felix Balanay, Sr. signed an
instrument waiving and renouncing his right in Leodegarias estate in favor of their 6 children.
Issue/s: Whether or not the probate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will, before ruling on
itsallowance or formal validity, and in declaring it void.
Ruling: The trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been
established. The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. But the
probate court erred in declaring that the will was void and in converting the testate proceeding into an intestate
proceeding. The will is intrinsically valid and the partition therein may be given effect if it does not prejudice the creditors
and impair the legitimes. The distribution and partition would become effective upon the death of Felix Balanay, Sr. In the
meantime, the net income should be equitably divided among the children and the surviving spouse.
(Relate to Articles 779 and 780 : In this case, there is testamentary succession because it resulted from
the designation of heirs by the testatrix, made in a will executed in the form prescribed by law. It can be considered as
a mixed succession because there is partly by will (execution of the will and execution of the waiver) and by operation of
law (as to the share of the husband of the conjugal party of which he eventually waived

4. Pecson vs. Coronel

Facts: Dolores Coronel had suspicions that her nephew was accomplices in the robbery of her house. Thus, in her will,
she bequeathed all her properties to her nieces husband, Lorenzo Pecson. Upon the probate of the will, the deceaseds

relatives opposed its contending that it was improbable for her to give her properties to a stranger, or not even her close
relatives.
Issue/s: Whether the will was valid for preteriting the said heirs of Dolores.
Ruling: No. the liberty to dispose of ones estate by will when there are no forced heirs is valid. Although the institution of
the beneficiary is not usual, it is not void for Lorenzo hasrendered services to Dolores. In the absence of any statutory
restriction, every person possesses absolute dominion over his property and may bestow to anyone he please.

5. ACAIN vs. IAC

Facts: Constantino filed a petition for the probate of the will of the late Nemesio. The will provided that all his shares from
properties he earned with his wife shall be given to his brother Segundo (father of Constantino). In case Segundo dies, all
such property shall be given to Segundos children. Segundo pre-deceased Nemesio.
The oppositors Virginia, a legally adopted daughter of the deceased, and the latter's widow Rosa filed a motion to
dismiss on the following grounds:
(1) the petitioner has no legal capacity to institute these proceedings;
(2) he is merely a universal heir and
(3) the widow and the adopted daughter have been preterited.
Issue/s: Was there preterition?
Ruling: Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them either because they
are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited.
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. Even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir, there is no preterition even if she is
omitted from the inheritance, for she is not in the direct line.
The same thing cannot be said of the other respondent Virginia, whose legal adoption by the testator has not been
questioned by petitioner. 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 of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were deprived of at least their legitime.
Neither can it be denied that they were not expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of preterition of the legally adopted
child.
Preterition annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to intestate succession the entire
inheritance. The only provisions which do not result in intestacy are the legacies and devises made in the will for they
should stand valid and respected, except insofar as the legitimes are concerned.
The universal institution of petitioner together with his brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of the testator
results in totally abrogating the will because the nullification of such institution of universal heirs - without any other
testamentary disposition in the will - amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written.
In order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding he must have an interest in the estate,
or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it. Petitioner is not the appointed executor, neither a devisee or a legatee
there being no mention in the testamentary disposition of any gift of an individual item of personal or real property he is
called upon to receive. At the outset, he appears to have an interest in the will as an heir. However, intestacy having
resulted from the preterition of respondent adopted child and the universal institution of heirs, petitioner is in effect not an
heir of the testator. He has no legal standing to petition for the probate of the will left by the deceased.

6. JOHNNY S. RABADILLA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et.al. [G.R. No. 113725. June 29, 2000.]
Facts: Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, in a codicil (a supplement to a will; an appendix) of Aleja Belleza, was instituted devisee of Lot
No.1392 with an area of 511,855 square meters with the obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar to herein private
respondent every year during the latter's lifetime.
The codicil provides that the obligation is imposed not only on the instituted heir but also to his successors-ininterestand that in case of failure to deliver, private respondent shall seize the property and turn it over to the testatrix's
"near descendants."
Dr. Rabadilla died and was survived by his wife and children, one of whom is herein petitioner.
Private respondent, alleging failure of the heirs to comply with their obligation, filed a complaint with the RTC
praying for the reconveyance of the subject property to the surviving heirs of the testatrix.
During the pre-trial, a compromise agreement was concluded between the parties wherein the lessee of the
property assumed the delivery of 100 piculs of sugar toprivate respondent; however, only partial delivery was made.
The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action stating that, While there may be the nonperformance of the command as mandated, exaction from them (the petitioners), simply because they are the children of
Jorge Rabadilla, the title holder/owner of the lot in question, does not warrant the filing of the present complaint.

The CA, reversed the decision and held that the institution of Dr. Rabadilla is in the nature of a modal institution
and a cause of action in favor of private respondent arose when petitioner failed to comply with their obligation under the
codicil, and in ordering the reversion of Lot 1392 to the estate of testatrix.
Thus, the present petition.
Issue/s: Whether or not private respondent has a legally demandable right against the petitioner, as one of the
compulsory heirs of Dr. Rabadilla.
Ruling: YES. It is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights are transmitted from the moment
of death of the decedent and compulsory heirs are called to succeed by operation of law. The legitimate children and
descendants, in relation to their legitimate parents, and the widow or widower, are compulsory heirs. Thus, the petitioner,
his mother and sisters, as compulsory heirs of the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latter by operation of
law, without need of further proceedings, and the successional rights were transmitted to them from the moment of death
of the decedent, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code, inheritance includes all the property, rights
and obligations of a person,not extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue
of subject Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his death. Andsince obligations not extinguished by
death also form part of the estate of the decedent; corollarily, the obligations imposed by the Codicil on the deceased Dr.
Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his death.