TodayisTuesday,June14,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L47799June13,1941
AdministrationoftheestateofAgripinoNeriyChavez.ELEUTERIONERI,ETAL.,petitioners,
vs.
IGNACIAAKUTINANDHERCHILDREN,respondents.
Ozamiz&Capistranoforpetitioners.
Gullas,Leuterio,Tanner&Laputforrespondents.
MORAN,J.:
AgripinoNeriyChavez,whodiedonDecember12,1931,hadbyhisfirstmarriagesixchildrennamedEleuterio,
Agripino, Agapito, Getulia, Rosario and Celerina and by his second marriage with Ignacia Akutin, five children
named Gracia, Godofredo, Violeta, Estela Maria, and Emma. Getulia, daughter in the first marriage, died on
October2,1923,thatis,alittlelessthaneightyearsbeforethedeathofsaidAgripinoNeriyChavez,andwas
survived by seven children named Remedios, Encarnacion, Carmen, Trinidad, Luz, Alberto and Minda. In
Agripino Neri's testament, which was admitted to probate on March 21, 1932, he willed that his children by the
first marriage shall have no longer any participation in his estate, as they had already received their
correspondingsharesduringhislifetime.Atthehearingforthedeclarationofheirs,thetrialcourtfound,contrary
towhatthetestatorhaddeclaredinhiswill,thatallhischildrenbythefirstandsecondmarriagesintestateheirsof
thedeceasedwithoutprejudicetoonehalfoftheimprovementsintroducedinthepropertiesduringtheexistence
of the last conjugal partnership, which should belong to Ignacia Akutin. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court'sdecisionwiththemodificationthatthewillwas"validwithrespecttothetwothirdspartwhichthetestator
couldfreelydisposeof."ThisjudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisnowsoughttobereviewedinthispetitionfor
certiorari.
The decisive question here raised is whether, upon the foregoing facts, the omission of the children of the first
marriageannulstheinstitutionofthechildrenofthefirstmarriageassoleheirsofthetestator,orwhetherthewill
maybeheldvalid,atleastwithrespecttoonethirdoftheestatewhichthetestatormaydisposeofaslegacyand
totheotheronethirdwhichhemaybequeathasbetterment,tosaidchildrenofthesecondmarriage.
TheCourtofAppealsinvokedtheprovisionsofarticle851oftheCivilCode,whichreadinpartasfollows:
Disinheritancemadewithoutastatementofthecause,orforacausethetruthofwhich,ifcontradicted,is
notproven,...shallannultheinstitutionoftheheirinsofarasitprejudicesthepersondisinheritedbutthe
legacies, betterments, and other testamentary dispositions, in so far as they do no encroach upon the
legitime,shallbevalid.
Theappellatecourtthusseemedtohaveresteditsjudgmentupontheimpressionthatthetestatorhadintended
todisinherit,thoughineffectively,thechildrenofthefirstmarriage.Thereisnothinginthewillthatsupportsthis
conclusion.True,thetestatorexpresslydeniedthemanyshareinhisestatebutthedenialwaspredicated,not
uponthedesiretodisinherit,butuponthebelief,mistakenthoughitwas,thatthechildrenbythefirstmarriage
hadalreadyreceivedmorethantheircorrespondingsharesinhislifetimeintheformofadvancement.Suchbelief
conclusivelynegativesallinferenceastoanyintentiontodisinherit,unlesshisstatementtothateffectisproveto
be deliberately fictitious, a fact not found by the Court of Appeals. The situation contemplated in the above
provisionisoneinwhichthepurposetodisinheritisclear,butuponacausenotstatedornotproved,asituation
whichdoesnotobtainintheinstantcase.
TheCourtofAppealsquotesManresathus:
Enelterrenodelosprincipios,lasolucionmasjustadelproblemaquehemoshechonotaralcomentarel
articulo, seria distinguir el caso en que el heredero omitido viviese al otorgarse el testamento, siendo
conocidasuexistenciaporeltestador,deaquelenque,onaciesedespues,oseignorasesuexistencia,

aplicandoenelprimercasoladoctrinadelarticulo851,yenelsegundoladel814.(6Manresa,354355.)
Butitmustbeobservedthatthisopinionisfoundedonmereprinciples(enelterrenodelosprincipios)andnoton
theexpressprovisionsofthelaw.Manresahimselfadmitsthataccordingtolaw,"noexistehoycuestionalguna
en esta materia: la pretericion produce siempre los mismos efectos, ya se refiera a personas vivas al hacer el
testamento o nacidas despues. Este ultimo grupo solo puede hacer relacion a los descendientes legitimos,
siemprequeademastenganderechoalegitima."(6Manresa,381.)
Appellants,ontheotherhand,maintainthatthecaseisoneofvoluntarypreteritionoffourofthechildrenbythe
firstmarriage,andofinvoluntarypreteritionofthechildrenbythedeceasedGetulia,alsoofthefirstmarriage,and
isthusgovernedbytheprovisionsofarticle814oftheCivilCode,whichreadinpartasfollows:
Thepreteritionofoneoralloftheforcedheirsinthedirectline,whetherlivingatthetimeoftheexecution
of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall void the institution of heir but the legacies and
bettermentsshallbevalid,insofarastheyarenotinofficious.
Preteritionconsistsintheomissioninthetestator'swilloftheforcedheirsoranyoneofthem,eitherbecausethey
are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly
disinherited.(Cf.6Manresa,346.)Intheinstantcase,whilethechildrenofthefirstmarriagewerementionedin
the will, they were not accorded any share in the heriditary property, without expressly being disinherited. It is,
therefore,aclearcaseofpreteritionascontendedbyappellants.Theomissionoftheforcedheirsoranyoneof
them,whethervoluntaryorinvoluntary,isapreteritionifthepurposetodisinheritisnotexpresslymadeorisnot
atleastmanifest.
Exceptasto"legaciesandbetterments"which"shallbevalidinsofarastheyarenotinofficious"(art.814ofthe
CivilCode),preteritionavoidstheinstitutionofheirsandgivesrisetointestatesuccession.(Art.814,CivilCode
DecisionsoftheSupremeCourtofSpainofJune17,1908andFebruary27,1909.)Intheinstantcase,nosuch
legaciesorbettermentshavebeenmadebythetestator."Mejoras"orbettermentsmustbeexpresslyprovided,
accordingtoarticles825and828oftheCivilCode,andwherenoexpressprovisionthereforismadeinthewill,
thelawwouldpresumethatthetestatorhadnointentiontothateffect.(Cf.6Manresa,479.)Inthewillherein
question, no express betterment is made in favor of the children by the second marriage neither is there any
legacyexpresslymadeintheirbehalfconsistingofthethirdavailableforfreedisposal.Thewholeinheritanceis
accorded the heirs by the second marriage upon the mistaken belief that the heirs by the first marriage have
alreadyreceivedtheirshares.Wereitnotforthismistake,thetestator'sintention,asmaybeclearlyinferredfrom
hiswill,wouldhavebeentodividehispropertyequallyamongallhischildren.
JudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisreversedandthatofthetrialcourtaffirmed,withoutprejudicetothewidow's
legalusufruct,withcostsagainstrespondents.
Avancea,C.J.,Diaz,LaurelandHorrilleno,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation