Austria v.

Reyes
31 SCRA 754

FACTS:

Basilia Austria vda. de Cruz filed with the CFI of Rizal a petition for probate, ante mortem, of her last
will and testament. The probate was opposed by the present petitioners, who are nephews and nieces
of Basilia. The will was subsequently allowed with the bulk of her estate designated for respondents,
all of whom were Basilia’s legally adopted children. The petitioners, claiming to be the nearest of kin
of Basilia, assert that the respondents had not in fact been adopted by the decedent in accordance
with law, thereby making them mere strangers to the decedent and without any right to succeed
as heirs. Petitioners argue that this circumstanceshould have left the whole estate of Basilia open to
intestacy with petitioners being the compulsory heirs.

It is alleged by petitioners that the language used imply that Basilia was deceived into believing that
she was legally bound to bequeath one-half of her entire estate to the respondents as the latter’s
legitime, with the inference that respondents would not have instituted the respondents as heirs had
the fact of spurious adoption been known to her. The petitioners inferred that from the use of the
terms, “sapilitang tagapagmana” (compulsory heirs) and “sapilitang mana” (legitime), the impelling
reason or cause for the institution of the respondents was the testatrix’s belief that under the law she
could not do otherwise. Thus Article 850 of the Civil Code applies whereby, “the statement of a false
cause for the institution of an heir shall be considered as not written, unless it appears from the will
that the testator would not have made such institution if he had known the falsity of such cause.”

ISSUE:

W/N the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in barring the petitioners nephews and
niece from registering their claim even to properties adjudicated by the decedent in her will.

HELD:

No. 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 ofheirs 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. The decedent’s
will does not state in a specific or unequivocal manner the cause for such institution ofheirs. Absent
such we look at other considerations. The decedent’s disposition of the free portion of her estate,
which largely favored the respondents, compared with the relatively small devise of land which the
decedent left for her blood relatives, shows a perceptible inclination on her part to give the
respondents more than what she thought the law enjoined her to give to them. Excluding the
respondents from the inheritance, considering that petitioner nephews and nieces would succeed to
the bulk of the testate by virtue of intestacy, would subvert the clear wishes of the decedent.

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. Intestacy
should be avoided and the wishes of the testator should be allowed to prevail. Granted that a probate
court has found, by final judgment, that the decedent possessed testamentary capacity and her last
will was executed free from falsification, fraud, trickery or undue influence, it follows that giving full
expression to her will must be in order.

NERI v. AKUTIN
GR No.L-47799, May 21, 1943
74 PHIL 185

FACTS: This is a case where the testator Agripino Neri in his will left all his property by universal title to
the children by his second marriage, the herein respondents, with omission of the children by his first
marriage, the herein petitioner. The omission of the heirs in the will was contemplated by the testator with
the belief that he had already given each of the children portion of the inheritance, particularly a land he
had abandoned was occupied by the respondents over which registration was denied for it turned out to
be a public land, and an aggregate amount of money which the respondents were indebted to their father.

ISSUE: Should there be cancellation of the will, in view of the omission of heirs? Is there disinheritance in
this case?

HELD: Yes. The Court annulled the institution of heirs and declared a total intestacy on the ground that
testator left all his property by universal title to the children by his second marriage, without expressly
disinheriting the children by his first marriage but upon the erroneous belief that he had given them
already more shares in his property than those given to the children by his second
marriage. Disinheritance made without a statement of the cause, if contested, shall annul the institution
of heirs in so far as it is prejudicial to the disinherited person. This is but a case of preterition which annuls
the institution of heirs.

Nuguid v. Nuguid
GR L-23445, June 23, 1966

FACTS:
Rosario died single, without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving were
her legitimate parents, Felix and Paz, and 6 brothers and sisters. One of thesiblings filed
a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario 11 years before her death and prayed that she be
admitted to the probate and be appointed administrator. The parents opposed saying that they are the
compulsory heirs of the decedent in the direct ascending line and that the will should be void on the
ground of absolute preterition.

ISSUE:

Is the will void on the ground of preterition?

RULING:

YES. The decedent 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; thus receiving nothing by the
testament, depriving them of their legitime; neither were they expressly disinherited. This is a clear
case of preterition. Note that A. 854 of the NCC merely nullifies the “institution of heir”. Considering
that the will presented solely provides for the institution of the petitioner as universal heir
and nothing more, the result is the same. The will isnull and void.

Morales vs. Olondriz 783 SCRA 151 , February 03

-WA KO KITA

RABADILLA vs. CA

June 29, 2000

FACTS:

In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,
predecessor-in-interest of the herein petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of parcel
of land. The Codicil provides that Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies, every year to give
Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, (75) (sic) piculs of Export sugar and (25) piculs of Domestic sugar,
until the said Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza dies.

Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died. Private respondent brought a complaint, to enforce the provisions of
subject Codicil.

ISSUE:

WON the obligations of Jorge Rabadilla under the Codicil are inherited by his heirs.

HELD:

Under Article 776 of the NCC, inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a
person, not extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue of
subject Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his death. And since obligations not
extinguished by death also form part of the estate of the decedent; corollarily, the obligations
imposed by the Codicil on the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory
heirs upon his death.

G. de Perez vs. Garchitorena and Casimiro 54 Phil. 431 , February 13, 1930

– WA KO KITA