Art. 804. Every will must be in writing and executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.

Art. 810. A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the
testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.

Art. 812. In holographic wills, the dispositions of the testator written below his signature must be dated and signed by him in
order to make them valid as testamentary dispositions. (n)

Art. 813. When a number of dispositions appearing in a holographic will are signed without being dated, and the last
disposition has a signature and a date, such date validates the dispositions preceding it, whatever be the time of prior
dispositions.

Art. 854. The preterition or omission 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; but the devises and
legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious.

If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual, without prejudice to the
right of representation. (814a)

Art. 855. The share of a child or descendant omitted in a will must first be taken from the part of the estate not disposed of
by the will, if any; if that is not sufficient, so much as may be necessary must be taken proportionally from the shares of the
other compulsory heirs.

Art. 906. Any compulsory heir to whom the testator has left by any title less than the legitime belonging to him may demand
that the same be fully satisfied.

Art. 918. Disinheritance without a specification of the cause, or for a cause the truth of which, if contradicted, is not proved,
or which is not one of those set forth in this Code, shall annul the institution of heirs insofar as it may prejudice the person
disinherited; but the devises and legacies and other testamentary dispositions shall be valid to such extent as will not impair
the legitime.
SEANGIO v. REYES

G.R. Nos. 140371-72 November 27, 2006

FACTS:

Private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the late Segundo Seangio, praying for the
appointment of private respondent Elisa D. Seangio–Santos as special administrator and guardian ad litem of petitioner Dy
Yieng Seangio. Petitioners, all surnamed Seangio, opposed the petition, contending, among others, that Segundo left a
holographic will, disinheriting one of the private respondents, Alfredo Seangio, for cause.

Subsequently, a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Segundo was filed by petitioners.

Private respondents moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings primarily on the ground that the document purporting
to be the holographic will of Segundo does not contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased and thus does not meet
the definition of a will under Article 783 of the Civil Code.

According to private respondents, the will only shows an alleged act of disinheritance by the decedent of his eldest son,
Alfredo, and nothing else; that all other compulsory heirs were not named nor instituted as heir, devisee or legatee, hence,
there is preterition which would result to intestacy. Such being the case, private respondents maintained that while
procedurally the court is called upon to rule only on the extrinsic validity of the will, it is not barred from delving into the
intrinsic validity of the same, and ordering the dismissal of the petition for probate when on the face of the will it is clear that it
contains no testamentary disposition of the property of the decedent.

The RTC dismissed the petition for probate proceedings.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the document executed by Segundo can be considered as a holographic will.
2. Whether or not there was preterition.

RULING:

1.

Segundo’s document, although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of
a holographic will prescribed by law. It is written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to dispose mortis
causa can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the
latter’s property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself.

In other words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the testator Segundo in favor of those who would
succeed in the absence of Alfredo.

Moreover, it is a fundamental principle that the intent or the will of the testator, expressed in the form and within the limits
prescribed by law, must be recognized as the supreme law in succession. All rules of construction are designed to ascertain and
give effect to that intention. It is only when the intention of the testator is contrary to law, morals, or public policy that it
cannot be given effect.
Holographic wills, therefore, being usually prepared by one who is not learned in the law, as illustrated in the present case,
should be construed more liberally than the ones drawn by an expert, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the
execution of the instrument and the intention of the testator.

In this regard, the Court is convinced that the document, even if captioned as Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, was intended by
Segundo to be his last testamentary act and was executed by him in accordance with law in the form of a holographic will.
Unless the will is probated, the disinheritance cannot be given effect.

2.

With regard to the issue on preterition, the Court believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the
will. It was, in the Court’s opinion, Segundo’s last expression to bequeath his estate to all his compulsory heirs, with the sole
exception of Alfredo. Also, Segundo did not institute an heir to the exclusion of his other compulsory heirs. The mere mention
of the name of one of the petitioners, Virginia, in the document did not operate to institute her as the universal heir. Her name
was included plainly as a witness to the altercation between Segundo and his son, Alfredo.

Considering that the questioned document is Segundo’s holographic will, and that the law favors testacy over intestacy, the
probate of the will cannot be dispensed with. Article 838 of the Civil Code provides that no will shall pass either real or personal
property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. Thus, unless the will is probated, the right of a
person to dispose of his property may be rendered nugatory.

In view of the foregoing, the trial court, therefore, should have allowed the holographic will to be probated. It is settled that
testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the decedent take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same
purpose.
NUGUID v. NUGUID

G.R. No. L-23445 June 23, 1966

FACTS:

Rosario Nuguid died single, without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were her legitimate parents and six (6)
brothers and sisters.

Petitioner’s sister Remedios filed a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario Nuguid some 11 years before her demise.
Petitioner prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letters of administration with the will annexed be issued to her.

The legitimate parents of the deceased entered their opposition to the probate of her will, on the ground that by the institution
of petitioner Remedios Nuguid as universal heir of the deceased, oppositors — who are compulsory heirs of the deceased in the
direct ascending line — were illegally preterited and that in consequence the institution is void.

The court held that “the will in question is a complete nullity and will perforce create intestacy of the estate of the deceased
Rosario Nuguid” and dismissed the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was preterition.

RULING:

The deceased Rosario Nuguid left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. But she left forced heirs in the direct ascending
line her parents. And the will completely omits both of them: They thus received nothing by the testament; tacitly, they were
deprived of their legitime; neither were they expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of preterition.

Such preterition in the words of Manresa “anulara siempre la institucion de heredero, dando caracter absoluto a este
ordenamiento referring to the mandate of Article 814, now 854 of the Civil Code. The one-sentence will here institutes
petitioner as the sole, universal heir — nothing more. No specific legacies or bequests are therein provided for. It is in this
posture that we say that the nullity is complete.

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.”

Disinheritance, in turn, “is a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause
authorized by law. ” In Manresa’s own words: “La privacion expresa de la legitima constituye la desheredacion. La privacion
tacita de la misma se denomina pretericion.” Sanchez Roman emphasizes the distinction by stating that disinheritance “es
siempre voluntaria“; preterition, upon the other hand, is presumed to be “involuntaria“.

Express as disinheritance should be, the same must be supported by a legal cause specified in the will itself.

The will here does not explicitly disinherit the testatrix’s parents, the forced heirs. It simply omits their names altogether. Said
will rather than be labeled ineffective disinheritance is clearly one in which the said forced heirs suffer from preterition.
On top of this is the fact that the effects flowing from preterition are totally different from those of disinheritance. Preterition
under Article 854 of the Civil Code, we repeat, “shall annul the institution of heir”. This annulment is in toto, unless in the will
there are, in addition, testamentary dispositions in the form of devises or legacies. In ineffective disinheritance under Article
918 of the same Code, such disinheritance shall also “annul the institution of heirs”, put only “insofar as it may prejudice the
person disinherited”, which last phrase was omitted in the case of preterition.

In disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the estate of which the disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived.

Considering, however, that the will before us solely provides for the institution of petitioner as universal heir, and nothing
more, the result is the same. The entire will is null.
MILAGROS DE BELEN VDA. DE CABALU v. SPS. RENATO TABU AND DOLORES LAXAMANA, GR No. 188417, 2012-09-24

Facts:

The property subject of the controversy is a 9,000 square meter lot situated in Mariwalo, Tarlac, which was a portion of a
property registered in the name of the late Faustina Maslum (Faustina)

On December 8, 1941, Faustina died without any children. She left a holographic will, dated July 27, 1939, assigning and
distributing her property to her nephews and nieces. The said holographic will, however, was not probated. One of the heirs
was the father... of Domingo Laxamana (Domingo), Benjamin Laxamana, who died in 1960. On March 5, 1975, Domingo
allegedly executed a Deed of Sale of Undivided Parcel of Land disposing of his 9,000 square meter share of the land to Laureano
Cabalu.[3]

On August 1, 1994, to give effect to the holographic will, the forced and legitimate heirs of Faustina executed a Deed of Extra-
Judicial Succession with Partition. The said deed imparted 9,000 square meters of the land covered by TCT No. 16776 to
Domingo.

Thereafter, on December 14, 1995, Domingo sold 4,500 square meters of the 9,000 square meters to his nephew, Eleazar
Tabamo. The document was captioned Deed of Sale of a Portion of Land.

On August 4, 1996, Domingo passed away.

On October 8, 1996, two months after his death, Domingo purportedly executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of TCT No. 281353 in
favor of respondent Renato Tabu (Tabu).

On January 15, 1999, respondent Dolores Laxamana-Tabu, together with Julieta Tubilan-Laxamana, Teresita Laxamana, Erlita
Laxamana, and Gretel Laxamana, the heirs of Domingo, filed an unlawful detainer action,... against Meliton Cabalu, Patricio

Abus, Roger Talavera, Jesus Villar, Marcos Perez, Arthur Dizon, and all persons claiming rights under them.

The heirs claimed that the defendants were merely allowed to occupy the subject lot by their late father, Domingo, but, when
asked to vacate the property, they... refused to do so.

On February 4, 2002, petitioners Milagros de Belen Vda. De Cabalu, Meliton Cabalu, Spouses Angela Cabalu and Rodolfo
Talavera, and Patricio Abus (petitioners), filed a case for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale, Joint Affidavit of Nullity
of Transfer

Certificate of Title Nos. 291338 and 291339, Quieting of Title, Reconveyance, Application for Restraining Order, Injunction and
Damages (Civil Case No. 9290) against respondent spouses

In... their complaint, petitioners claimed that they were the lawful owners of the subject property because it was sold to their
father, Laureano Cabalu, by Domingo, through a Deed of Absolute Sale, dated March 5, 1975.

the RTC dismissed the complaint as it found the Deed of Absolute Sale, dated March 5, 1975, null and void for lack of capacity
to sell on the part of Domingo. Likewise, the Deed of Absolute Sale, dated October 8, 1996, covering the remaining 4,500
square... meters of the subject property was declared ineffective having been executed by Domingo two months after his death

Although the CA found Domingo to be of sound mind at the time of the sale on March 5, 1975, it sustained the RTC's
declaration of nullity of the sale on the ground that the deed of sale was simulated.

The core issues to be resolved are 1] whether the Deed of Sale of Undivided Parcel of Land covering the 9,000 square meter
property executed by Domingo in favor of Laureano Cabalu on March 5, 1975, is valid; and 2] whether the Deed of Sale, dated
October 8, 1996, covering the

4,500 square meter portion of the 9,000 square meter property, executed by Domingo in favor of Renato Tabu, is null and void.

Issues:

The core issues to be resolved are 1] whether the Deed of Sale of Undivided Parcel of Land covering the 9,000 square meter
property executed by Domingo in favor of Laureano Cabalu on March 5, 1975, is valid; and 2] whether the Deed of Sale, dated
October 8, 1996, covering the

4,500 square meter portion of the 9,000 square meter property, executed by Domingo in favor of Renato Tabu, is null and void.
Even on the assumption that the March 5, 1975 deed was not simulated, still the sale cannot be deemed valid because, at that
time, Domingo was not yet the owner of the property. There is no dispute that the original and registered owner of the subject
property covered by

TCT No. 16776, from which the subject 9,000 square meter lot came from, was Faustina, who during her lifetime had executed
a will, dated July 27, 1939. In the said will, the name of Benjamin, father of Domingo, appeared as one of the heirs. Thus, and
as correctly... found by the RTC, even if Benjamin died sometime in 1960, Domingo in 1975 could not yet validly dispose of the
whole or even a portion thereof for the reason that he was not the sole heir of Benjamin, as his mother only died sometime in
1980.

Ruling:

To reiterate, the RTC and later the CA had ruled that the sale, dated March 5, 1975, had the earmarks of a simulated deed,
hence, the... presumption was already rebutted.

Even on the assumption that the March 5, 1975 deed was not simulated, still the sale cannot be deemed valid because, at that
time, Domingo was not yet the owner of the property. There is no dispute that the original and registered owner of the subject
property covered by

TCT No. 16776, from which the subject 9,000 square meter lot came from, was Faustina, who during her lifetime had executed
a will, dated July 27, 1939. In the said will, the name of Benjamin, father of Domingo, appeared as one of the heirs. Thus, and
as correctly... found by the RTC, even if Benjamin died sometime in 1960, Domingo in 1975 could not yet validly dispose of the
whole or even a portion thereof for the reason that he was not the sole heir of Benjamin, as his mother only died sometime in
1980.

In this case, at the time the deed was executed, Faustina's will was not yet probated; the object of the contract, the 9,000
square meter property, still formed part of the inheritance of his father from the estate of Faustina; and Domingo had a mere
inchoate hereditary right... therein.

Regarding the deed of sale covering the remaining 4,500 square meters of the subject property executed in favor of Renato
Tabu, it is evidently null and void. The document itself, the Deed of Absolute Sale, dated October 8, 1996, readily shows that it
was executed on

August 4, 1996 more than two months after the death of Domingo.

Principles:

under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, "No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly
authorized by law." Paragraph 2 of Article 1347, characterizes a contract entered into upon future inheritance as void. The law
applies when... the following requisites concur: (1) the succession has not yet been opened; (2) the object of the contract forms
part of the inheritance; and (3) the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a right which is purely hereditary
in nature.

Contracting parties must be juristic entities at the time of the consummation of the contract. Stated otherwise, to form a valid
and legal agreement it is necessary that there be a party capable of contracting... and a party capable of being contracted with.
Hence, if any one party to a supposed contract was already dead at the time of its execution, such contract is undoubtedly
simulated and false and, therefore, null and void by reason of its having been made after the death of the... party who appears
as one of the contracting parties therein. The death of a person terminates contractual capacity.