Constantino C. Acain v. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-72706, October 27, 1987 En Banc — Paras, J.

 

FACTS

Nemesio Acain died leaving a will allegedly executed on February 17, 1960. On May 29, 1984, Constantino C. Acain filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City a petition for the probate of Nemesio's will and for the issuance of letters testamentary. The will instituted Constantino and his brothers and sisters as heirs. It was written in Bisaya and accompanied by an English translation.

The will contained provisions concerning the testator's burial, payment of debts, appointment of an executor, and disposition of his property. It stated that Nemesio's shares in the properties he had acquired jointly with his wife, Rosa Diongson, would be given to the children of his predeceased brother, Segundo Acain.

Virginia A. Fernandez, the legally adopted daughter of Nemesio, and Rosa Diongson, his surviving spouse, opposed the probate proceedings. They argued that the will completely omitted them and that such omission constituted preterition. They sought dismissal of the probate proceedings on the ground that the preterition of Virginia, a compulsory heir in the direct line, annulled the institution of heirs under Article 854 of the Civil Code.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Intermediate Appellate Court. The appellate court granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the probate proceeding. Constantino elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the probate court could determine only the extrinsic validity of the will and that the respondents' remedy was improper.

ISSUE

The first issue was whether the probate court could consider the intrinsic validity of the will before its formal validity had been established through probate.

The second issue was whether the omission of Virginia Fernandez, the legally adopted daughter of Nemesio Acain, constituted preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code.

The third issue was whether the preterition of Virginia annulled the institution of heirs and resulted in intestate succession, thereby depriving Constantino of legal standing to seek probate of the will.

HELD

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court ordering the dismissal of the probate proceeding. The Court held that although the general rule is that probate courts determine the extrinsic validity of a will, there are exceptional circumstances where the intrinsic validity may be determined before probate. The Court applied the practical considerations recognized in Nuguid v. Nuguid and Maninang v. Court of Appeals, where proceeding with probate would serve no useful purpose because the will was already shown to be intrinsically ineffective.

The Court held that Virginia Fernandez was the legally adopted daughter of Nemesio and therefore a compulsory heir in the direct line. Her complete omission from the will constituted preterition. The Court explained that preterition consists of the omission of compulsory heirs in the direct line, either because they are not mentioned or, although mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor expressly disinherited. Adoption makes the adopted child the legal heir of the adopter.

Under Article 854 of the Civil Code, the preterition of one or all compulsory heirs in the direct line annuls the institution of heirs. Since the will contained a universal institution of Constantino and his brothers and sisters, the annulment of that institution resulted in intestate succession. The Court noted that the will contained no legacies or devises that could remain effective after the institution of heirs was annulled.

The Court distinguished the position of Rosa Diongson, the surviving spouse. Although she was also a compulsory heir, Article 854 does not apply to her because she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line. The preterition of Virginia, however, was sufficient to annul the institution of heirs. Consequently, Constantino, having been deprived of his status as an heir by the operation of Article 854, had no legal standing to continue the petition for probate.

The Supreme Court therefore denied Constantino Acain's petition and affirmed the dismissal of the probate proceeding.