4 Sayson vs CA
Intermediate Appellate Court
Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot five children, namely,
Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa, Remedios and Teodoro. Eleno died
on 1952, and Rafaela on 1976.
Teodoro, who had married Isabel Bautista, died on Mar. 23,
1972. His wife died nine years later on 1981. Their properties
were left in the possession of Delia, Edmundo and Doribel, all
surnamed Sayson, who claim to be their children.
On 1983, Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa and Remedios, together
with Juana (Isabels mother), filed a complaint for partition of
the intestate estate of Teodoro and Isabel.
Delia, Edmundo (both legally adopted) and Doribel (the
legitimate daughter), who alleged successional rights to the
estate as the decedents lawful descendants, resisted said
complaint and filed their own complaint for the partition of the
intestate estate of Eleno and Rafaela claiming that they are
entitled to inherit Teodoros share in his parents estate
by right of representation.
The trial court declared them entitled to inherit by right of
representation.
On appeal, the CA modified the decision disqualifying Delia and
Edmundo from inheriting from the estate of the deceased
spouses Eleno and Rafaela. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE is WON: Whether Delia, Edmundo and Doribel are
entitled to inherit their fathers share in the estate of his
(Teodoro) parents estate by right of representation.
Ruling: YES as to Doribel but NO as to Delia and Edmundo.
There is no question that as the legitimate daughter of
Teodoro and thus granddaughter of Eleno and Rafaela, Doribel
has a right to represent here deceased father in the
distribution of the intestate estate of her grandparents.
Under Art. 981 (NCC), she is entitled to the share her father
would have directly inherited had he survived, which shall be
equal to the shares of her grandparents other children.
But a different conclusion must be reached in the case of Delia
and Edmundo, to whom the grandparents were total
strangers. While it is true that the adopted child shall be
deemed to be a legitimate child and have the same right as
the latter, those rights do not include the right of
representation. The relationship created by the adoption is
between only the adopting parents and the adopted child
and does not extend to the blood relatives of either party.
In sum, the lower court is correct that Delia and Edmundo (as
the adopted children) and Doribel (as the legitimate daughter
of Teodoro Sayson and Isabel Bautista) are their exclusive heirs
and are under no obligation to share the estate of their parents
with the petitioners.
The CA was also correct in holding that only Doribel has the
right of representation in the inheritance of her grandparents
intestate estate, the other private respondents being only the
adoptive children of the deceased Teodoro.
Thus, the petition was denied.
5 Acain vs.
On 1984, Constantino Acain filed on the RTC of Cebu City, a
petition for the probate of the will of the late Nemesio Acain
and for the issuance to Acain of letters testamentary.
When Nemesio died, he left a will in which Acain and his
siblings were instituted as heirs. The will allegedly executed by
Nemesio was submitted by petitioner without objection raised
by private respondents.
Segundo, the brother of Nemesio, was initially instituted as the
heir, in case Segundo pre-deceases Nemesio, Segundos
children would then succeed.
After the petition was set for hearing, the respondents
(Virginia Fernandez, legally adopted daughter of Nemesio, and
the latter's widow, Rosa Acain) filed a motion to dismiss on the
following grounds: for the petitioner has no legal capacity to
institute these proceedings; he is merely a universal heir; and
that Rosa and Fernandez have been pretirited. Motion was
denied.
After the petition was denied, respondents filed with the SC a
petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction which was subsequently referred to the IAC.
The IAC granted the private respondents' petition and ordered
the TC to dismiss the petition for the probate of the will of
Nemesio.
His motion for reconsideration having been denied, Acain filed
this present petition for the review of IACs decision.
Issues are:
1. Whether private respondents have been preterited.
2. Whether Acain has legal standing to intervene in the probate
proceedings.
3. Whether the probate court went beyond its authority.
Ruling:
For first issue: No for the widow, yes for Fernandez.
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 of the Civil Code may not apply
as she does not ascend or descend from the testator, although
she is a compulsory heir. Stated otherwise, 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.
However, the same thing cannot be said of the other
respondent Virginia A. Fernandez, whose legal adoption by the
testator has not been questioned by petitioner. 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 has 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. Hence, this
is a clear case of preterition of the legally adopted child.
For 2nd issue: No. 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
either as executor or as a claimant of the estate and an
interested party is one who would be benefited by the estate.
Acain, at the outset, appears to have an interest in the will as
an heir, however, intestacy having resulted from the
preterition of Fernandez and the universal institution of heirs,
Acain 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 and must then be dismissed.
For 3rd issue: No. The general rule is that the probate court's
authority is limited only to the extrinsic validity of the will, the
due execution thereof, the testator's testamentary capacity
and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities
prescribed by law.
The intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the
Court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated.
The rule, however, 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.
Where circumstances demand that intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions be passed upon even before the
extrinsic validity of the will is resolved, the probate court
should meet the issue. The remedies of certiorari and
prohibition were properly availed of by private respondents.
The petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.