Morales v. Olondriz G.R. No. 198994, February 3, 2016 Second Division — Brion, J.

 

FACTS

Alfonso Juan P. Olondriz, Sr. died on June 9, 2003, leaving his widow, Ana Maria Ortigas de Olondriz, and several children. Believing that he died intestate, his heirs filed a petition for partition of his estate and for the appointment of a special administrator before the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City. Iris Morales later filed a separate petition alleging that the decedent had left a will dated July 23, 1991, and sought its probate and her appointment as special administratrix. The two proceedings were subsequently consolidated.

The will provided that the entire estate would be divided into six equal parts among Iris Morales Olondriz, four of the decedent's children, and their mother. The will, however, omitted Francisco Javier Maria Bautista Olondriz, an illegitimate son of the decedent. The respondent heirs moved to dismiss the probate proceedings on the ground that Francisco had been preterited.

The RTC ordered the parties to present evidence regarding the alleged preterition. Morales agreed to the evidentiary hearing but failed to appear on the scheduled hearing dates and thereby waived her opportunity to present evidence on the issue. The RTC subsequently found that Francisco was a compulsory heir in the direct line, that he had been completely omitted from the will, and that he had therefore been preterited.

The RTC consequently reinstated Alfonso Jr. as administrator and ordered the case to proceed as an intestate proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Morales then went to the Supreme Court, arguing that probate of a will was mandatory, that the probate court could not determine its intrinsic validity, and that Francisco had not been preterited because he had allegedly received a house and lot from the decedent as an advance on his legitime.

ISSUE

The first issue was whether Francisco Javier Maria Bautista Olondriz had been preterited from the will.

The second issue was whether the probate court could pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will before its formal probate when the preterition of a compulsory heir would render the will ineffective.

The third issue was whether the RTC properly ordered the estate to proceed intestate despite its previous order setting the case for probate.

HELD

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. It held that Francisco had been preterited. Preterition consists of the complete and total omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line from the inheritance, without express disinheritance. It requires that the heir receive nothing under the will, including no legacy, devise, or advance on his legitime.

Francisco, being the decedent's illegitimate son, was a compulsory heir in the direct line. He was completely omitted from the will and was not instituted as an heir, legatee, or devisee. Morales had been given the opportunity to prove that Francisco had received donations inter vivos or advances on his legitime, but she failed to appear at the evidentiary hearings. The Court therefore found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals that Francisco had been preterited.

Under Article 854 of the Civil Code, preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line annuls the institution of heirs. Since the will contained no specific legacies or devises that could remain valid after the annulment of the institution of heirs, the preterition resulted in the total abrogation of the will and total intestacy.

The Court held that although the general rule is that a probate court determines only the extrinsic validity of a will, this rule is not absolute. When exceptional circumstances make it apparent that probate would be an idle ceremony because the will is intrinsically void, the probate court may determine its intrinsic validity even before probate. In this case, Francisco's preterition annulled the institution of heirs and rendered the will ineffective, making separate proceedings on its intrinsic validity unnecessary.

The Court also held that the earlier order setting the case for probate was merely interlocutory. It had not become final and executory and could still be modified or rescinded by the RTC before final judgment. Thus, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it subsequently ordered the estate to proceed intestate. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed Morales' petition, with costs against her.