Natalia Opulencia v. Court of Appeals, Aladin Simundac and Miguel Olivan G.R. Mo.

125835; July 30, 1998

Facts:
PRs Aladin Simundac and Miguel Oliven filed a complaint for specific performance again Natalia
Carpena Opulencia on the ground that the latter executed in their favor a 'contract to sell' of lot 2125.
The defendant, despite demands, failed to comply with her obligations under the contract. The
defendant averred that the property subject of the contract formed part of the Estate of Demetrio
Carpena, in respect of which a petition for probate was filed with the RTC of Binan. The court ordered
the parties to submit their evidence. Pet, instead of submitting evid, filed a demurrer. Moreover, the
petitioner maintained that the contract was null and void for want of approval of the probate court.
Meanwhile, the court a quo granted the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the
appellate court set aside hte trial court's dismissal of the complaint.

Issue:
WON a contract to sell a real property involved in estate proceedings valid and binding without the
approval of the probate court.

Ruling:
Yes. Hereditary rights are vested in the heir or heirs from the moment of the decedent's death.
Petitioner, therefore, became the owner of her hereditary share the moment her father died. Thus, the
lack of judicial approval does not invalidate the Contract to Sell, because the petitioner has the
substantive right to sell the whole or a part of her share in the estate of her late father. Petitioner
contends that "[t]o sanction the sale at this stage would bring about a partial distribution of the
decedent's estate pending the final termination of the testate proceedings." Petitioner's contention is
not convincing. The Contract to Sell stipulates that petitioner's offer to sell is contingent on the
"complete clearance of the court on the Last Will Testament of her father." Consequently, although
the Contract to Sell was perfected between the petitioner and private respondents during the
pendency of the probate proceedings, the consummation of the sale or the transfer of ownership over
the parcel of land to the private respondents is subject to the full payment of the purchase price and
to the termination and outcome of the testate proceedings. Therefore, there is no basis for petitioner's
apprehension that the Contract to Sell may result in a premature partition and distribution of the
properties of the estate. Indeed, it is settled that "the sale made by an heir of his share in an
inheritance, subject to the pending administration, in no wise stands in the way of such
administration."

NUGUID v NUGUID
17 SCRA 449
Sanchez J; June23, 1966

FACTS
-Rosario Nuguid died on December 30, 1962, single, without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate.
Surviving her were her legitimate parents, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, and six brothers
and sisters
-Petitioner Remedios Nuguid, one of the brothers filed a holographic will allegedly executed by
Rosario Nuguid on November 17, 1951, 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.
On June 25, 1963, parents Felix and Nuguid, concededly the legitimate father and mother of the
deceased Rosario Nuguid, entered their opposition to the probate of her will. Ground therefor, inter
alia, is 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.

ISSUE
WON the will is void due to preterition
HELD
YES
-Will stated Nov. 17, 1951
I, ROSARIO NUGUID, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, having amassed a certain
amount of property, do hereby give, devise, and bequeath all of the property which I may have when I
die to my beloved sister Remedios Nuguid, age 34, residing with me at 38-B Iriga, Q.C. In witness
whereof, I have signed my name this seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.
(Sgd.) Illegible
T/ ROSARIO NUGUID
-the law in the CC provides: 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. ...
-Definition of ANNUL:. To reduce to nothing; annihilate; obliterate; to make void or of no effect; to
nullify; to abolish; to do away with. Ex parte Mitchell
-The deceased Rosario Nuguid left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. But she left forced
heirs in the direct ascending line her parents, now oppositors Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid.
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 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.
-Remedios contends that an ineffective disinheritance was made instead of preterition and thus Art.
854 does not apply. This contention was held invalid by the court.
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."
16
Disinheritance, in turn, "is a testamentary disposition depriving any
compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law disinheritance must
expressly be stated. In this case, no such express inheritance was mentioned.
Effect of preterition vs 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 disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the estate of which the disinherited heirs have
been illegally deprived.
CHUA v CFI (SUSANA DE LA TORRE)
78 SCRA 406
MARTIN; August 31, 1977

NATURE
Petition for review of the decision of CFI which dismissed the complaint of petitioners

FACTS
- It appears that in the first marriage of Jose Frias Chua with Patricia S. Militar alias Sy Quio he sired
three children, namely: Ignacio, Lorenzo and Manuel. When Patricia died, Jose Frias Chua
contracted a second marriage with Consolacion de la Torre with whom he had a child by the name of
Juanita Frias Chua.
- Manuel died without leaving any issue.
- Then in 1929, Jose died intestate leaving his widow Consolacion and his son Juanito of the second
marriage and sons Ignacio and Lorenzo of his first marriage.
- In the Intestate Proceeding, the lower court issued an order adjudicating, among others, the one-half
portion of Lot No. 399 and the sum of P8,000.00 in favor of Jose's widow, Consolacion, the other half
of Lot No. 399 in favor of Juanito; P3,000.00 in favor of Lorenze; and P1,550.00 in favor of Ignacio.
By virtue of said adjudication, a TCT was issued by the Register of Deeds in the names of
Consolacion and Juanito.
- On Feb.27, 1952, Juanito died intestate without any issue. After his death, his mother Consolacion
succeeded to his pro-indivisio share of Lot No. 399. In a week's time, Consolacion executed a
declaration of heirship adjudicating in her favor the pro-indiviso share of her son Juanito as a result of
which a TCT covering the whole lot was issued in her name. Then on March 5, 1966, Consolacion
died intestate leaving no direct heir either in the descending or ascending line except her brother and
sisters.
- In the "Intestate Estate of Consolacion de la Torre", the petitioners herein, Ignacio, of the first
marriage and Dominador and Remedios Chua, the supposed legitimate children of the deceased
Lorenzo Chua, also of the first marriage filed the complaint before the respondent CFI of Negros
Occidental, praying that the one-half portion of Lot No. 399 which formerly belonged to Juanito but
which passed to Consolacion upon the latter's death, be declared as a reservable property for the
reason that the lot in question was subject to reserval troncal pursuant to Article 981 of the NCC.
- the respondent Court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint of petitioner.

ISSUE
WON the property in question was acquired by Juanito Frias Chua from his father Jose Frias Chua
gratuitously or not. (In relation to the first requisite of reserva troncal)

HELD
YES.
Ratio In Cabardo v. Villanueva, "The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the
recipient does not give anything in return." It matters not whether the property transmitted be or be
not subject to any prior charges; what is essential is that the transmission be made gratuitously, or by
an act of mere liberality of the person making it, without imposing any obligation on the part of the
recipient; and that the person receiving the property gives or does nothing in return; or, as ably put by
an eminent Filipino commentator, "the essential thing is that the person who transmits it does so
gratuitously, from pure generosity, without requiring from the transferee any prestation." It is evident
from the record that the transmission of the property in question to Juanito Frias Chua upon the death
of his father Jose Frias Chua was by means of a hereditary succession and therefore gratuitous.
The obligation of paying the Standard Oil Co. of New York the amount of P3,971.20 is imposed upon
Consolacion and Juanito not personally by the deceased Jose in his last will and testament but by an
order of the court in the Testate Proceeding. As long as the transmission of the property to the heirs
is free from any condition imposed by the deceased himself and the property is given out of pure
generosity, it is gratuitous. It does not matter if later the court orders one of the heirs, in this case
Juanito, to pay the Standard Oil Co. This does not change the gratuitous nature of the transmission of
the property to him. This being the case the lot in question is subject to reserva troncal under Art,
891.
Reasoning
- The pertinent provision of reserva troncal provides:
ART. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have
acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such
property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the
third degree and belong to the line from which said property came.
- In order that a property may be impressed with a reservable character the following requisites must
exist: (1) that the property was acquired by a descendant from an ascendant or from a brother or
sister by gratuitous title; (2) that said descendant died without an issue; (3) that the property is
inherited by another ascendant by operation of law; and (4) that there are relatives within the third
degree belonging to the line from which said property came.
- In this case, all of the foregoing requisites are present. Juanito died intestate; he died without
leaving any issue; his pro-indiviso of 1/2 share of Lot No. 399 was acquired by his mother; Juanito
who died intestate had relatives within the third degree. These relatives are Ignacio and Dominador
and Remidios, the supposed legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo, who are the petitioners
herein.