RAFAEL and SOLEDAD MANINANG vs. CA, HON.

RICARDO PRONOVE (Judge of CFI Rizal) and

BERNARDO ASENETA
GR L-57848
June 19, 1982 1st Div: Pen:J Melencio Herrera, Chair Teehankee, Makasiar, Plana,
Relova, Gutierrez
CA = Special 5th Division: Justice de la Fuente, Victoriano and Villaluz, ponente.
Nature: Petition to Review the April 28, 1981 CA decision in CA GR 12032-R
Facts:
May 21, 1977: Clemencia Aseneta, single, died at the Manila Sanitarium at 81 years old. She left a
holographic will, bequeathing all her real properties in Manila, Makati, QC, Albay and Legaspi to Dra.
Soledad Maninang. She also disowned his adopted son Nonoy (Bernardo Aseneta)
June 9: Petitioner Soledad filed petition for probate of the will with CFI QC IV (Spec Pro Q-23304,
referred to as the Testate Case)
July 25: Bernardo Aseneta, as adopted son, claims to be sole heir. He instituted intestate proceedings
with CFI Pasig XI (Spec Pro 8569, referred to as the Intestate Case)
Dec 23 1977: Testate and Intestate Cases were ordered consolidated before Branch XI, judge herein
Bernardo then filed a MTD the Testate case on the ground that the Holographic will was null and void,
due to preterition, citing the cases of Neri v Akutin, Nuguid v Nuguid and Ramos v Baldovino
In her opposition to said MTD, petitioner Soledad averred that: general rule is still that in cases of
probate, the Courts area of inquiry is limited to an examination on the extrinsic validity of the will.
Sep 8, 1980: Lower court ordered dismissal of the Testate Case
Dec 19, 1980: Lower Court denied MR for lack of merit. It appointed Bernardo as admin of the intestate
estate considering that he is a forced heir, while Soledad is not. Also, Bernardo not shown to be unfit
Petitioners Maninang filed for certiorari before CA alleging excess of jurisdiction
April 28, 1981: Court denied certiorari and ruled that the Judges order of dismissal was final in nature.
Thus, appeal was the proper remedy, which petitioners failed to avail.
ISSUE: Whether probate of a will is mandatory?
HELD: YES. Art. 838 of the Civil Code states:
No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance
with the Rules of Court
Law requires such, because unless the Will is probated and notice given to the whole world, the right of
a person to dispose of his property by Will may be rendered nugatory.

Normally, the probate of a will does not look into its intrinsic validity, only if requirements as to form
have been met.
Bernardo is mistaken for having relied on the cases of Nuguid v Nuguid and Balanay v Martinez. These
are the exceptions, rather than the rule. The intrinsic validity of such wills were passed upon even
before probate because practical considerations so demanded.
In Nuguid, the Court ruled that the will was intrinsically invalid because it completely preterited the
parents of the testator. In this case, such was in the nature of a Disinheritance. In 854 of preterition, it
shall annul the institution of heirs. In 918 of disinheritance, such shall also annul the institution of heirs,
but only insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited.
By virtue of the dismissal of the Testate case, the determination of the controversial issue has not been
thoroughly considered. Trial Court conclusion is that Bernardo has been preterited; SC is of the opinion
that from the face of the Will, such is not unquestionable.
As to procedural aspect, Court deems that judge indeed had acted in excess of his jurisdiction, thus
Certiorari is a proper remedy.
Decision set aside, Orders of CFI XI Rizal are nullified. SP Q-23304 is hereby remanded to CFI XI, and
consolidated with SP 8569 for further proceedings.