RAFAEL E. MANINANG and SOLEDAD L.

MANINANG
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RICARDO L. PRONOVE, JR., as
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal
and BERNARDO S. ASENETA
G.R. No. L-57848, June 19, 1982
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.

Facts:
Soledad Maninang filed a petition with the Court of First
Instance in Quezon City for the probate of the holographic will of
Clemencia Aseneta who instituted her and her husband as heirs.
Later on, Bernardo Aseneta, claiming to be the adopted child of the
deceased and her sole heir instituted intestate proceedings with the
CFI-Rizal. The two cases were consolidated with the latter court.
Bernardo filed a motion to dismiss the testate case on the ground
that the will was null and void because he, being the only compulsory
heir, was preterited; thus, intestacy should ensue. In her opposition,
Soledad averred that the court’s area of inquiry is limited to an
examination of and resolution on the extrinsic validity of the will and
that Bernardo was effectively disinherited by the decedent. The
motion was granted. The motion for reconsideration by Soledad
Maninang was denied for lack of merit. In the same order, the court
appointed Bernardo Aseneta as administrator considering he is a
forced heir and is not shown to be unfit to perform the trust. Soledad
Maninang filed petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. It was
denied. Hence, this petition was filed.

Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal of the court a quo of the testate
case is proper.

Ruling:
No, it was not proper. Probate of a will is mandatory as
required by law and public policy. Ordinarily, the probate of the will
does not look into its intrinsic validity; but on the extrinsic validity
which includes the capacity of the testator to make a will and the
compliance with the requisites or solemnities which the law
prescribes for the validity of wills. However, when practical
considerations demand, the intrinsic validity of the will may be
passed upon like when on its face there is really preterition or invalid
disinheritance making the will void. The probate might become an
idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Such
would shorten the proceedings if the issues are decided as early as
during the probate proceedings. In the instant case, there is still
doubt to the alleged preterition or disinheritance of the private
respondent cannot be clearly seen on the face of the will and needs
further determination which can only be made if the will is allowed to
be probated.