MANINANG V. CA G.R. No.

57848

TOPIC: Production and Probate of Will [Rule 75]

SUMMARY: Clemencia Aseneta died leaving a holographic will in which she left her properties to
Soledad Maninang and mentioned her displeasure towards her “nephew” Bernardo. Soledad sought the
probate of the will, while Bernardo, claiming to be the decedent’s adopted son and sole heir, filed an
intestate case (argument: he was preterited from the will, hence intestacy should ensue). The cases were
consolidated, but Bernardo later had the testate case dismissed. SC held that the dismissal was not
proper; generally, the probate of a will is MANDATORY.

NATURE: Petition to Review the CA’s decision in the consolidated Petition for Probate and Intestate Cases

 May 21, 1977 – Clemencia Aseneta, 81, single, died at the Manila Sanitarium Hospital. Her
holographic will left her real and personal properties to Dra. Soledad Maninang, with whose
family she had lived for the last 30 years.
o In the will, she said, “I have found peace and happiness with them even during the time
when my sisters were still alive and especially now when I am now being troubled by my
nephew Bernardo and niece Salvacion. I am not incompetent as Nonoy would like me to
appear. I know what is right and wrong. I can decide for myself. I do not consider Nonoy
as my adopted son. He has made me do things against my will.”
 June 1977 – Soledad filed a Petition for Probate of the Will at CFI QC (the “Testate Case”).
 July 1977 – Bernardo Aseneta, claiming to be the adopted son and sole heir of Clemencia,
instituted intestate proceedings with the CFI Pasig, Rizal (the “Intestate Case”).
 Dec. 1977 - the Testate and Intestate Cases were ordered consolidated before CFI Pasig.
 Bernardo filed a Motion to Dismiss the Testate Case on the ground that the holographic will was
null and void because he, as the only compulsory heir, was preterited and, therefore, intestacy
should ensue. o In her Opposition, Soledad averred in a case for probate of a will, the Court’s
area of inquiry is limited to the extrinsic validity of the will, and that Bernardo was effectively
disinherited (not preterited).
 CFI DISMISSED the Testate Case. It later denied Soledad’s MR and appointed Bernardo as
administrator of the estate.
 Soledad filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. CA denied it, ruling that the order of
dismissal was final in nature. Even granting that CFI committed errors, those are errors of
judgment reviewable only by appeal, not by certiorari.

ISSUE:

W/N the Testate Case was properly dismissed ⇒NO. REMANDED to CFI for further proceedings.

HELD:

 Generally, the probate of a will is mandatory.

o NCC Art. 838: "No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and
allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court."
o The law enjoins the probate of the will and public policy requires it, because unless the
will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a person to
dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory.
  Normally, the probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic validity (capacity of the testator
and the compliance with those requisites or solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity
of wills).
o Bernardo relies on Nuguid v. Nuguid, where the Court held that “where practical
considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before
it is probated, the Court should meet that issue.” However, this is the exception rather
than the rule. In the cited case, the meat of the controversy was the intrinsic validity.
Here, probate is being insisted on.
o In Nuguid, the will was invalid because it completely preterited the testator’s parents
who were her compulsory heirs. In the instant case, a crucial issue that calls for
resolution is whether under the terms of the decedent's will, Bernardo had been
preterited or disinherited, and if the latter, whether it was a valid disinheritance.
Preterition and disinheritance are two diverse concepts.
 PRETERITION – 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. Preterition
annuls the institution of heirs.
 DISINHERITANCE – a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of
his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law.
 By virtue of the dismissal of the Testate Case, the determination of that controversial issue
(whether Bernardo was preterited/ disinherited) has not been thoroughly considered. SC is of
the opinion that, contrary to CFI’s findings, from the face of the will, there can be no certainty
that Bernardo was preterited.

Note on procedure: Certiorari is a proper remedy, in view of the finding that the CFI Judge acted in
excess of his jurisdiction in dismissing the Testate Case. Even assuming appeal is available, in the broader
interests of justice, a petition for certiorari may be entertained, particularly where appeal would not
afford speedy and adequate relief.