Cases on Succession Fac Fortia Et Patere

INSTITUTION OF HEIRS: or undue influence, the will is not rendered invalid

by the fact that it is unnatural, unreasonable, or
A. Definition and Requisites unjust. Nothing can prevent the testator from
making a will as eccentric, as injudicious, or as
[No. 20374. October 11, 1923] unjust as caprice, frivolity, or revenge can dictate.
In re will of Dolores Coronel, deceased. LORENZO X X X (40 Cyc., 1079.)
PECSON, applicant and appellee, vs. AGUSTIN
CORONEL ET AL., opponents and appellants.
PARISH PRIEST OF VICTORIA V. RIGOR
FACTS: August 30, 1979
On November 28, 1922, the Court of First Instance
of Pampanga probated as the last will and Father Rigor, the parish priest of Pulilan, Bulacan,
testament of Dolores Coronel (testatrix) who left a will executed and was probated by the Court
named as her sole heir Lorenzo Pecson, the of First Instance of Tarlac in its order of December
husband of her niece. The relatives of testatrix by 5, 1935. Named as devisees in the will were the
consanguinity questioned the genuineness of the testators nearest relatives, his three sisters. In
will on the following grounds: First, that it was addition, the will provided that it be adjudicated in
improbable and exceptional that Dolores Coronel favor of the legacy purported to be given to the
should dispose of her estate by excluding her nearest male relative who shall take the
blood relatives; and second, that if such will was priesthood.
not expressed in fact, it was due to extraneous
illegal influence.
The will of the testator is the first and principal law
ISSUE: in the matter of testaments. When his intention is
Whether the decedent can exclude her blood clearly and precisely expressed, any interpretation
relatives in the disposition of her estate. must be in accord with the plain and literal
meaning of his words, except when it may
HELD: certainly appear that his contention was different
YES. It is true that the ties of relationship in the from that literally expressed.
Philippines are very strong but we understand that
cases of preterition of relatives from the The intent of the testator is the cardinal rule in the
inheritance are not rare. The liberty to dispose of construction of wills. It is the greatest rule in
ones estate by will when there are no forced giving effect to a will.
(compulsory) heirs is rendered sacred by the Civil
Code in force in the Philippines since 1989. From the testamentary provisions, it may be
deduced that the testator intended to devise the
The SC held that nothing is strange in the rice lands to his nearest male relative who would
preterition made by Dolores Coronel of her blood become a priest, who was forbidden to sell the rice
relatives, nor in the designation of Lorenzo Pecson lands, who would lose the devise if he
as her sole beneficiary. Furthermore, although the discontinued his studies for the priesthood, or
institution of the beneficiary here would not seem having been ordained a priest, he was
the most usual and customary, still this would not excommunicated, and who would be obligated to
be null per se. say masses for the repose of the souls of the
testator and his parents.
In the absence of any statutory restriction every
person possesses absolute dominion over his On the other hand, it is clear that the parish priest
property, and may bestow it upon whomsoever he of Victoria would administer the rice lands only in
pleases without regard to natural or legal claim two situations: (a) during the interval of time that
upon his bounty. If the testator possesses the no nearest male relative of the testator was
requisite capacity to make a will, and the studying for priesthood; and (b) in case the
disposition of his property is not affected by fraud testator's nephew became a priest and he was
1|Page
Cases on Succession Fac Fortia Et Patere

excommunicated. This is an appeal which involves a question which

arises from the interpretation of the first and
Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any second clauses of a codicil to the will of Filomena
nephew who became a priest, the unavoidable Uson.The court below found that the children of
conclusion is that the bequest in question was the deceased sisters should take only that portion
ineffectual or inoperative. Therefore, the which their respective mothers would have taken if
administration of the rice lands by the parish priest they been alive at the time the will was made; that
of Victoria as envisaged in the will was likewise the property should be divided into six equal parts
inoperative. corresponding to the number of sisters; that each
living sister should take one-sixth, and the children
The appellant in contending that a public of each deceased sister should also take one-sixth,
charitable trust was constituted by the testator in each one- sixth to be divided among said children
his favor assumes that he was a trustee or a equally. The appellants asserted that under a
substitute devisee. The contention is untenable. A proper construction of the paragraphs of the
reading of the testamentary provisions does not codicil, the property should be divided equally
support the view that the parish priest was a between the living sisters and the children of the
trustee or a substitute devisee in the event that deceased sisters, share and share alike, a niece
the testator was not survived by a nephew who taking the same share that a sister receives.
became a priest. Hence, this appeal.

The CA correctly rules that this case is covered by ISSUE:

Article 956 of the Civil Code which provides that if Whether or not the living sisters and the
"the bequest for any reason should be inoperative, children of the deceased sisters shall take
it shall be merged into the estate, except in cases per capita and in equal parts the property
of substitution and those in this the right of passing under the codicil in this case.
accretion exists."
RULING:
This case is also covered by Article 960(2) which
provides "legal succession takes place when the Yes. The appellants' contention is well founded.
will does not dispose of all the belongings to the The court finds expressions which seem to indicate
testator." There being no substitution nor with fair clearness that it was the intention of the
accretion as to the said ricelands, the same should testatrix to divide her property equally between
be distributed among the legal heirs. The effect is her sisters and nieces.
as if the testator had made no disposition as to the
said rice lands. Upon looking at the codicil, it can be observed
that: first that the testatrix, in the first paragraph
The Civil Code recognizes that a person may die thereof, declares that after her husband's death
partly testate and partly intestate, or that there she desires that "my sisters and nieces, as
may be mixed succession. If a conditional legacy hereinafter named, shall succeed him as heirs in
does not take effect, there will be intestate the second place, that the testatrix, in the second
succession as to the property recovered by the paragraph of the codicil, names and identifies each
said legacy. one of her heirs then living, in each one of the
persons whom she desires shall succeed her
B. Equal Sharing; Collective and husband in the property. Among those mentioned
Simultaneous Institution specially are the nieces as well as the sisters. The
nieces are referred to in no way different from the
Nable vs. Uson sisters. Each one stands out in the second
March 10, 1914 paragraph of the codicil as clearly as the other and
under exactly the same conditions; and in the third
FACTS: place, the last clause of the second paragraph of
the codicil, taken together with the last clause of
2|Page
Cases on Succession Fac Fortia Et Patere

the first paragraph, is decisive of the intention of Whether or not the institution of the heir is
the testatrix. In the last clause she says that she valid
names all of the persons whom she desires to take
under her will be name "so that they must take RULING:
and enjoy the property in equal parts as good Yes. The general rule is that the falsity of the
sisters and relatives. stated cause for the testamentary institution does
not affect the validity or efficacy of the institution.
We have then in the first paragraph a declaration An exception to the rule is that the falsity will set
as to who the testatrix desires shall become the aide the institution if certain factors are present.
owners of her property on the death of her Before the institution of the heirs will be annulled
husband her nieces as well as her sisters. We under Art. 850 the following requisites must
have also the final declaration of the testatrix that concur; 1) the cause must be stated in the will, 2)
she desires that the sisters and the nieces shall the cause is shown to be false, and 3) it must
take and enjoy the property in equal parts. Thus, appear from the face of the will that the testator
of the property passing under the codicil, the living would not have made such institution if he had
sisters and the children of the deceased sisters known the falsity. Moreover, testacy is favored and
shall take per capita and in equal parts. doubts are resolved on its side especially when the
will shows a clear intention on the part of the
C. Statement of a False Cause in the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate
Institution of Heirs as in this case.
D. Preterition
Austria v. Reyes
Feb 27, 1970 Nuguid v. Nuguid
GR L-23445, June 23, 1966
Facts:
1. Basilia Austria executed a will wherein the bulk FACTS:
of her estate was given to the respondents, alll Rosario died single, without descendants,
have been declared by the former as her legally legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving were her
adopted children. legitimate parents, Felix and Paz, and 6 brothers
and sisters. One of the siblings filed a holographic
2. During her lifetime, Basilia filed a petition for will allegedly executed by Rosario 11 years before
the probate of her will. It was opposed by the her death and prayed that she be admitted to the
petitioners who are the nephews and nieces. The probate and be appointed administrator. The
opposition was dismissed and the will was allowed. parents opposed saying that they are the
compulsory heirs of the decedent in the direct
3. In 1954, the petitioners filed a petition for ascending line and that the will should be void on
intervention for partition alleging that they were the ground of absolute preterition.
the nearest kin of Basilia and that the respondent
had not been in fact adopted by the decedent in ISSUE:
accordance with law, hence the latter were Is the will void on the ground of preterition?
strangers with no right to succeed as heirs.
RULING:
4. The lower court held that the validity or YES. The decedent left no descendants, legitimate
invalidity is not material to the institution of heirs. or illegitimate. But she left forced heirs in the
It held that the testator was possessed of direct ascending line her parents. And, the
testamentary capacity and her last will was will completely omits both of them; thus receiving
executed free from falsification, fraud, trickery or nothing by the testament, depriving them of their
undue influence. legitime; neither were they expressly disinherited.
This is a clear case of preterition. Note that A. 854
Issue: of the NCC merely nullifies the institution of heir.
Considering that the will presented solely provides
3|Page
Cases on Succession Fac Fortia Et Patere

for the institution of the petitioner as universal heir This is a case where the testator Agripino Neri in
and nothing more, the result is the same. The will his will left all his property by universal title to the
is null and void. children by his second marriage, the herein
respondents, with omission of the children by his
first marriage, the herein petitioner. The omission
ACAIN VS IAC of the heirs in the will was contemplated by the
OCTOBER 27, 1987 testator with the belief that he had already given
each of the children portion of the inheritance,
FACTS: particularly a land he had abandoned was
Constantitno filed for probate of the will of his occupied by the respondents over which
decased brother Nemesio. The spouse and registration was denied for it turned out to be a
public land, and an aggregate amount of money
adopted child of the decedent opposed the
which the respondents were indebted to their
probate of will because of preterition. RTC father.
dismissed the petition of the wife. CA reversed and
the probate thus was dismissed. ISSUE:
Should there be cancellation of the will, in view of
ISSUE: the omission of heirs? Is there disinheritance in
Whether or not there was preterition of this case?
compulsory heirs in the direct line thus their
HELD:
omission shall not annul the institution of heirs. Yes. The Court annulled the institution of heirs and
declared a total intestacy on the ground that
RULING: testator left all his property by universal title to the
Preterition consists in the omission of the forced children by his second marriage, without expressly
heirs because they are not mentioned there in, or disinheriting the children by his first marriage but
upon the erroneous belief that he had given them
trough mentioned they are neither instituted as
already more shares in his property than those
heirs nor are expressly disinherited. As for the given to the children by his second
widow there is no preterit ion because she is not in marriage. Disinheritance made without a
the direct line. However, the same cannot be said statement of the cause, if contested, shall annul
for the adopted child whose legal adoption has not the institution of heirs in so far as it is prejudicial
been questioned by the petitioner. Adoption gives to the disinherited person. This is but a case of
to the adopted person the same rights and duties preterition which annuls the institution of heirs.
as if he where a legitimate child of the adopter
and makes the adopted person a legal heir hence,
Petitioners, in their petition for review
this is a clear case of preterition.
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
seek a reversal of the 29th May 1996 decision of
The universal institution of petitioner together with the Court of Appeals, basically affirming that
his brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of rendered on 30 April 1991 by the Regional Trial
the testator results in totally abrogating the will Court ("RTC") of Quezon City, Branch 23,
because the nullification of such institution of adjudicating the property subject matter of the
universal heirs without any other testamentary litigation to respondents. The case and the factual
setting found by the Court of Appeals do not
disposition in the will amounts to a declaration that
appear to deviate significantly from that made by
nothing was written. No legacies and devisees the trial court.
having been provided in the will, the whole
property of the deceased has been left by Viado Non V. CA
universal title to petitioner and his brothers and February 15, 2000
sisters.
Full text:
NERI v. AKUTIN
GR No.L-47799, May 21, 1943 During their lifetime, the spouses Julian C. Viado
74 PHIL 185 and Virginia P. Viado owned several pieces of
property, among them a house and lot located at
FACTS: 147 Isarog Street, La Loma, Quezon City, covered

4|Page
Cases on Succession Fac Fortia Et Patere

by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42682. Virginia three parties thereto, namely, Julian Viado, Nilo
P. Viado died on 20 October 1982. Julian C. Viado Viado and Leah Viado Jacobs had already died. Sc
died three years later on 15 November 1985. jj
Surviving them were their children -- Nilo Viado,
Leah Viado Jacobs, and herein petitioners Rebecca Assessing the evidence before it, the trial court
Viado, married to Jose Non, and Delia Viado. Nilo found for respondents and adjudged Alicia Viado
Viado and Leah Viado Jacobs both died on 22 April and her children as being the true owners of the
1987. Nilo Viado left behind as his own sole heirs disputed property.
herein respondents --- his wife Alicia Viado and
their two children Cherri Viado and Fe Fides Viado. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court with modification by
Petitioners and respondents shared, since 1977, a ordering the remand of the records of the case to
common residence at the Isarog property. Soon, the court a quo for further proceedings to
however, tension would appear to have escalated determine the value of the property and the
between petitioner Rebecca Viado and respondent amount respondents should pay to petitioner Delia
Alicia Viado after the former had asked that the Viado for having been preterited in the deed of
property be equally divided between the two extrajudicial settlement.
families to make room for the growing children.
Respondents, forthwith, claimed absolute Petitioners are now before the Supreme Court to
ownership over the entire property and demanded seek the reversal of the decision of the Court of
that petitioners vacate the portion occupied by the Appeals.
latter. On 01 February 1988, petitioners, asserting
co-ownership over the property in question, filed a
The appellate court ruled correctly.
case for partition before the Quezon City RTC
(Branch 93). Jj sc
When Virginia P. Viado died intestate in 1982, her
part of the conjugal property, the Isarog property
Respondents predicated their claim of absolute
in question included, was transmitted to her heirs -
ownership over the subject property on two
-- her husband Julian and their children Nilo Viado,
documents --- a deed of donation executed by the
Rebecca Viado, Leah Viado and Delia Viado. The
late Julian Viado covering his one-half conjugal
inheritance, which vested from the moment of
share of the Isarog property in favor of Nilo Viado
death of the decedent,[1] remained under a co-
and a deed of extrajudicial settlement in which
ownership regime[2] among the heirs until
Julian Viado, Leah Viado Jacobs (through a power
partition.[3] Every act intended to put an end to
of attorney in favor of Nilo Viado) and petitioner
indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees
Rebecca Viado waived in favor of Nilo Viado their
would be a partition although it would purport to
rights and interests over their share of the
be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, a donation
property inherited from Virginia Viado. Both
or an extrajudicial settlement.[4]
instruments were executed on 26 August 1983 and
registered on 07 January 1988 by virtue of which
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42682 was In debunking the continued existence of a co-
cancelled and new Transfer Certificate of Title No. ownership among the parties hereto, respondents
373646 was issued to the heirs of Nilo Viado. rely on the deed of donation and deed of
extrajudicial settlement which consolidated the
title solely to Nilo Viado. Petitioners assail the due
Petitioners, in their action for partition, attacked
execution of the documents on the grounds
the validity of the foregoing instruments,
heretofore expressed. Sj cj
contending that the late Nilo Viado employed
forgery and undue influence to coerce Julian Viado
to execute the deed of donation. Petitioner Unfortunately for petitioners, the issues they have
Rebecca Viado, in her particular case, averred that raised boil down to the appreciation of the
her brother Nilo Viado employed fraud to procure evidence, a matter that has been resolved by both
her signature to the deed of extrajudicial the trial court and the appellate court. The Court
settlement. She added that the exclusion of her of Appeals, in sustaining the court a quo, has
retardate sister, Delia Viado, in the extrajudicial found the evidence submitted by petitioners to be
settlement, resulted in the latter's preterition that utterly wanting, consisting of, by and large, self-
should warrant its annulment. Finally, petitioners serving testimonies. While asserting that Nilo
asseverated at the assailed instruments, although Viado employed fraud, forgery and undue
executed on 23 August 1983, were registered only influence in procuring the signatures of the parties
five years later, on 07 January 1988, when the to the deeds of donation and of extrajudicial

5|Page
Cases on Succession Fac Fortia Et Patere

settlement, petitioners are vague, however, on

how and in what manner those supposed vices
occurred. Neither have petitioners shown proof
why Julian Viado should be held incapable of
exercising sufficient judgment in ceding his rights
and interest over the property to Nilo Viado. The
asseveration of petitioner Rebecca Viado that she
has signed the deed of extrajudicial settlement on
the mistaken belief that the instrument merely
pertained to the administration of the property is
too tenuous to accept. It is also quite difficult to
believe that Rebecca Viado, a teacher by
profession, could have misunderstood the tenor of
the assailed document.

The fact alone that the two deeds were registered

five years after the date of their execution did not
adversely affect their validity nor would such
circumstance alone be indicative of fraud. The
registration of the documents was a ministerial
act[5] and merely created a constructive notice of
its contents against all third persons.[6] Among the
parties, the instruments remained completely valid
and binding. Supreme

The exclusion of petitioner Delia Viado, alleged to

be a retardate, from the deed of extrajudicial
settlement verily has had the effect of preterition.
This kind of preterition, however, in the absence of
proof of fraud and bad faith, does not justify a
collateral attack on Transfer Certificate of Title No.
373646. The relief, as so correctly pointed out by
the Court of Appeals, instead rests on Article 1104
of the Civil Code to the effect that where the
preterition is not attended by bad faith and fraud,
the partition shall not be rescinded but the
preterited heir shall be paid the value of the share
pertaining to her. Again, the appellate court has
thus acted properly in ordering the remand of the
case for further proceedings to make the proper
valuation of the Isarog property and ascertainment
of the amount due petitioner Delia Viado.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED, and

the decision, dated May 29, 1996, in CA-G.R. No.
37272 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. No
special pronouncement on costs.

6|Page