GALITA, Chloe Anne Sy

Student No.: 17-167510

 Ruben Austria Vs. Hon. Andres Reyes

FACTS:

Basilia Austria vda. de Cruz filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal a
petition for probate, ante mortem, of her last will and testament. The probate was
opposed by the present petitioners Ruben Austria, Consuelo Austria-Benta and
Lauro Austria Mozo, and still others who, like the petitioner, are nephews and
nieces of Basilia. This opposition was, however, dismissed and the probate of the
will allowed after due hearing.

The bulk of the estate of Basilia, admittedly, was destined under the will to pass on
to the respondents Perfecto Cruz, Benita Cruz-Meñez, Isagani Cruz, Alberto Cruz,
and Luz Cruz-Salonga, all of whom had been assumed and declared by Basilia as
her own legally adopted children.

More than two years after her will was allowed to probate, Basilia died. The
respondent Perfecto Cruz was appointed executor without bond by the same court
in accordance with the provisions of the decedent's will, notwithstanding the
blocking attempt pursued by the petitioner Ruben Austria.
Finally, the present petitioners filed in the same proceedings a petition in
intervention for partition alleging in substance that they are the nearest of kin of
Basilia, and that the five respondents Perfecto Cruz, et al., had not in fact been
adopted by the decedent in accordance with law, in effect rendering these
respondents mere strangers to the decedent and without any right to succeed as
heirs.

The lower court issued an order delimiting the petitioners' intervention to the
properties of the deceased which were not disposed of in the will. Hence this
petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the validity or invalidity of the adoption is not material nor decisive
on the efficacy of the institution of heirs;

HELD:
Before the institution of heirs may be annulled under article 850 of the Civil Code,
the following requisites must concur: First, the cause for the institution of heirs
must be stated in the will; second, the cause must be shown to be false; and third, it
must appear from the face of the will that the testator would not have made such
institution if he had known the falsity of the cause.

Said provision is a positive injunction to ignore whatever false cause the testator
may have written in his will for the institution of heirs. Such institution may be
annulled only when one is satisfied, after an examination of the will, that the
testator clearly would not have made the institution if he had known the cause for it
to be false. Now, would the late Basilia have caused the revocation of the
institution of heirs if she had known that she was mistaken in treating these heirs as
her legally adopted children? Or would she have instituted them nonetheless? But,
were we to exclude the respondents Perfecto Cruz, et al. from the inheritance, then
the petitioners and the other nephews and nieces would succeed to the bulk of the
testate by intestacy — a result which would subvert the clear wishes of the
decedent.

Whatever doubts one entertains in his mind should be swept away by these explicit
injunctions in the Civil Code: "The words of a will are to receive an interpretation
which will give to every expression some effect, rather than one which will render
any of the expressions inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting a will, that is
to be preferred which will prevent intestacy." 

Testacy is favored and doubts are resolved on its side, especially where the will
evinces an intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his whole
estate, as was done in this case. Moreover, so compelling is the principle that
intestacy should be avoided and the wishes of the testator allowed to prevail, that
we could even vary the language of the will for the purpose of giving it effect.3 A
probate court has found, by final judgment, that the late Basilia Austria Vda. de
Cruz was possessed of testamentary capacity and her last will executed free from
falsification, fraud, trickery or undue influence. In this situation, it becomes our
duty to give full expression to her will.

At all events, the legality of the adoption of the respondents by the testatrix can be
assailed only in a separate action brought for that purpose, and cannot be the
subject of a collateral attack.
 Heirs Of Ureta V. Heirs Of Ureta

FACTS:

In his lifetime, Alfonso Ureta (Alfonso) begot 14 children, namely, Policronio,

Liberato, Narciso, Prudencia, Vicente, Francisco, Inocensio, Roque, Adela,
Wenefreda, Merlinda, Benedicto, Jorge, and Andres. The children of
Policronio (Heirs of Policronio), are opposed to the rest of Alfonso's children and
their descendants (Heirs of Alfonso).

Alfonso was financially well-off during his lifetime. He owned several fishpens, a
fishpond, a sari-sari store, a passenger jeep, and was engaged in the buying and
selling of copra. Policronio, the eldest, was the only child of Alfonso who failed to
finish schooling and instead worked on his father's lands.

Alfonso and four of his children, namely, Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and
Francisco, met at the house of Liberato. Francisco, who was then a municipal
judge, suggested that in order to reduce the inheritance taxes, their father should
make it appear that he had sold some of his lands to his children. Accordingly,
Alfonso executed four (4)  Deeds of Sale covering several parcels of land in favor
of Policronio,Liberato, Prudencia  and his common-law wife, Valeriana Dela
Cruz. Since the sales were only made for taxation purposes and no monetary
consideration was given, Alfonso continued to own, possess and enjoy the lands
and their produce.

When Alfonso died, Liberato acted as the administrator of his father's estate. He
was later succeeded by his sister Prudencia, and then by her daughter, Carmencita
Perlas. Except for a portion of parcel 5, the rest of the parcels transferred to
Policronio were tenanted by the Fernandez Family. These tenants never turned
over the produce of the lands to Policronio or any of his heirs, but to Alfonso and,
later, to the administrators of his estate.

Subsequently, Policronio died. Except for the said portion of parcel 5, neither
Policronio nor his heirs ever took possession of the subject lands.

The Heirs of Alfonso were of the position that the absence of the Heirs of
Policronio in the partition or the lack of authority of their representative results, at
the very least, in their preterition and not in the invalidity of the entire deed of
partition. Assuming there was actual preterition, it did not render the Deed of
Extra-Judicial Partition voidable. Citing Article 1104 of the Civil Code, they aver
that a partition made with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs shall not be
rescinded, but the heirs shall be proportionately obliged to pay the share of the
person omitted. Thus, the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition should not have been
annulled by the CA. Instead, it should have ordered the share of the heirs omitted
to be given to them.

The Heirs of Alfonso also argued that all that remains to be adjudged is the right of
the preterited heirs to represent their father, Policronio, and be declared entitled to
his share. They contend that remand to the RTC is no longer necessary as the issue
is purely legal and can be resolved by the provisions of the Civil Code for there is
no dispute that each of Alfonso's heirs received their rightful share. Conrado, who
received Policronio's share, should then fully account for what he had received to
his other co-heirs and be directed to deliver their share in the inheritance.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a preterition exists in this case;

HELD:

These arguments cannot be given credence.

Their posited theory on preterition is no longer viable.  It has already been

determined that the Heirs of Policronio gave their consent to the Deed of Extra-
Judicial Partition and they have not been excluded from it. Nonetheless, even
granting that the Heirs of Policronio were denied their lawful participation in the
partition, the argument of the Heirs of Alfonso would still fail.

Under Article 854 of the Civil Code, 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.

Preterition has been defined as the total omission of a compulsory heir from the
inheritance. It consists in the silence of the testator with regard to a compulsory
heir, omitting him in the testament, either by not mentioning him at all, or by not
giving him anything in the hereditary property but without expressly disinheriting
him, even if he is mentioned in the will in the latter case Preterition is thus a
concept of testamentary succession and requires a will. In the case at bench, there
is no will involved. Therefore, preterition cannot apply.