Nuguid vs Nuguid, No.

L-23445, June 23, 1966; 17 SCRA
(Special Proceedings – Difference between Preterition and
Facts: Rosario died without descendants, legitimate or
illegitimate. Surviving her were her legitimate parents – Felix
and Paz, and 6 brothers and sisters.

Rabadilla vs CA | 334 SCRA 522
(Civil Law – Succession – Transmissible Obligations)
A certain Aleja Belleza died but he instituted in his will Dr.
Jorge Rabadilla as a devisee to a 511, 855 hectare land. A
condition was however imposed to the effect that:
1. the naked ownership shall transfer to Dr. Rabadilla;

Remedios, one of the sister filed in court a holographic will
allegedly executed by Rosario instituting the former as the
sole, universal heir of all her properties. She prayed that said
will be admitted to probate and that letter of administration be
issued to her.

2. he shall deliver the fruits of said land to Maria Belleza,
sister of Aleja, during the lifetime of said Maria Belleza;

Felix and Paz opposed to the probate of the will on the ground
that by the institution of Remedios as universal heir of the
deceased, oppositors – who are compulsory heirs in the direct
ascending line – were illegally preterited and that in
consequence, the institution is void.

4. that the said land may only be encumbered, mortgaged, or
sold only to a relative of Belleza.

Article 854 provides that preterition of one, some or all of the
compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time
of the execution of the will or born after the death of the
testator, shall annul the institution of heir.

In 1989, Maria Belleza sued Johnny Rabadilla in order to
compel Johnny to reconvey the said land to the estate of Aleja
Belleza because it is alleged that Johnny failed to comply with
the terms of the will; that since 1985, Johnny failed to deliver
the fruits; and that the the land was mortgaged to the
Philippine National Bank, which is a violation of the will.

Petitioners contention is that the present is a case of ineffective
disinheritance rather than one of preterition drawing the
conclusion that Article 854 does not apply in the case at bar.
Issue: WON the institution of one of the sister of the
deceased as the sole, universal heir preterited the compulsory
Held: Yes. Where the deceased left no descendants, legitimate
or illegitimate, but she left forced heirs in the direct ascending
line – her parents, and her holographic will does not explicitly
disinherit them but simply omits their names altogether, the
case is one of preterition of the parents, not a case of
ineffective disinheritance.
Preterition “consists in the omission in the testator’s will of the
forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not
mentioned therein, or, through mentioned, they are neither
instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited”.
Disinheritance, in turn, “is a testamentary disposition
depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for
a cause authorized by law”.
Where the one sentence will institutes the petitioner as the
sole, universal heir and preterits the parents of the testatrix,
and it contains no specific legacies or bequests, such universal
institution of petitioner, by itself, is void. And intestate
succession ensues.

3. that in case Dr. Rabadilla shall die before Maria Belleza, the
near descendants, shall continue delivering the fruits to Maria

In 1983, Dr. Rabadilla died. He was survived by Johnny

In his defense, Johnny avers that the term “near descendants”
in the will of Aleja pertains to the near descendants of Aleja
and not to the near descendants of Dr. Rabadilla, hence, since
Aleja had no near descendants at the time of his death, no can
substitute Dr. Rabadilla on the obligation to deliver the fruits
of the devised land.
ISSUE: Whether or not Johnny Rabadilla is not obliged to
comply with the terms of the Will left by Aleja Belleza.
HELD: No. The contention of Johnny Rabadilla is bereft of
merit. The “near descendants” being referred to in the will are
the heirs of Dr. Rabadilla. Ownership over the devised
property was already transferred to Dr. Rabadilla when Aleja
died. Hence, when Dr. Rabadilla himself died, ownership over
the same property was transmitted to Johnny Rabadilla by
virtue of succession.
Under Article 776 of the Civil Code, inheritance includes all
the property, rights and obligations of a person, not
extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr.
Rabadilla had by virtue of the Will 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 Will on
the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to
his compulsory heirs upon his death. It is clear therefore, that
Johnny should have continued complying with the terms of the
Will. His failure to do so shall give rise to an obligation for
him to reconvey the property to the estate of Aleja.

the CFI held that Helen Garcia was preterited in the will thus. Aznar v.Nepomuceno v.00. The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary provisions. that at the time of the execution of the Will. HELD: The inheritance of Lucy should be merely reduced to cover the legitime of Helen Garcia. When a testator leaves to a forced heir a legacy worth less than the legitime. this cause of action is clearly barred. CA | 139 SCRA 206 | Rodriguez v. children and grandchildren of the deceased entered into an extra-judicial settlement of his estate. and no less than 9 years after the supposed culprit died. the court should meet the issue (Nuguid v. On August 21. after deducting the legacies. equivalent to ¼ of the entire estate. There is no question from the records about the fact of a prior existing marriage when Martin Jugo executed his Will. is not inflexible and absolute. should be equally divided or whether the inheritance of Lucy as instituted heir should be merely reduced to the extent necessary to cover the legitime of Helen Garcia. but without referring to the legatee as an heir or even as a relative. but only that the legitime be completed. an action based upon it must be brought within four years after it has ceased. and the present action was instituted only after 28 years after the intimidation is claimed to have occurred. On May 13. ISSUE: W/N the CA acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after declaring the last Will and Testament of the deceased Martin Jugo validly drawn. and willed the rest of the estate to other persons. What is more decisive is that duress being merely a vice or defect of consent. The respondent court declared the Will to be valid except that the devise in favor of the petitioner is null and void. Petitioner was named as sole executor. Therefore. the petitioner filed a petition for probate. Concepcion Felix. and Article 1028. The will was admitted to probate. Nuguid) The Will is void under Article 739. but he had been estranged from his lawful wife. even before it is probated.600. The Court of First Instance equally divided the properties of the estate of Christensen between Lucy Duncan (whom testator expressly recognized in his will as his daughter) and Helen Garcia. The following donations shall be void: (1) Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation. The lower court denied the probate of the Will on the ground that as the testator admitted in his Will to cohabiting with the petitioner. the testator was already very sick and that petitioner having admitted her living in concubinage with the testator. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon. the heir could not ask that the institution of the heirs be annulled entirely. Rufina Gomez and her children filed an opposition alleging undue and improper influence on the part of the petitioner. In fact. the testator Martin Jugo and the petitioner were married despite the subsisting first marriage. When Domingo Rodriguez died intestate. Petitioner appealed to CA. the respondent court set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal denying the probate of the will. the institution of Lucy Duncan as heir was annulled and the properties passed to both of them as if the deceased died intestate. Rodriguez | 532 SCRA 642 FACTS: Martin Jugo left a duly executed and notarized Last Will and Testament before he died. however. . it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the Will and declared the devise in favor of the petitioner null and void. Christensen refused to acknowledge Helen Garcia as his natural daughter and limited her share to a legacy of P3. The SC agreed with the trial Court that the evidence was not convincing that the contracts of transfer from the widow to her daughter. ISSUE: Whether the estate. The general rule is that in probate proceedings. violence and intimidation. Duncan | 17 SCRA 590 FACTS: Christensen died testate. The widow later on questioned the validity of this extrajudicial partition. he was survived by his widow. The widow. The rule. and from the latter to her mother and stepfather were executed through violence or intimidation (this was done to allegedly convert paraphernal property into conjugal). Given exceptional circumstances. In the order. HELD: No. 1974. saying that she entered such contract under duress. The court declared that Helen Garcia was a natural child of the deceased. his children grandchildren. On June 2. the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the Will. consisting of one-half of the properties allegedly belonging to the conjugal partnership. The prohibitions mentioned in Article 739. it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision. the court's area of inquiry is limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the Will. It is clearly stated in the Will that he was legally married to a certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children. 1975. The testator devised the free portion of his estate to petitioner. appellant entered into a series of subsequent transactions with appellees that confirmed the contracts that she now tries to set aside. On top of it. The respondent court acted within its jurisdiction when after declaring the Will to be validly drawn. 1982. The very wordings of the Will invalidate the legacy because the testator admitted he was disposing the properties to a person with whom he had been living in concubinage.

No. Both documents contained the thumbmarks of decedent. In the case at bench. Thus. CA reversed and the probate thus was dismissed ISSUE: Whether or not there was preterition of “compulsory heirs in the direct line” thus their omission shall not annul the institution of heirs. Mt. However. RULING: Preterition consists in the omission of the forced heirs because they are not mentioned there in. . The named executor filed a Petition for its allowance. opposed the Petition filed by Calde. left behind nine thousand pesos (P9. starting from decedent’s thumb marking thereof. and acknowledged before Tomas A. CLEMENTE CALDE vs. In addition. respondent appellate court erred in concluding that both decedent’s Last Will and Testament. based on the evidence submitted. She also left a Last Will and Testament. Neither did respondent court err when it did not accord great weight to the testimony of Judge Tomas A. to the alleged signing of the instrumental witnesses thereto in consecutive order. 1987 FACTS: Constantino filed for probate of the will of his deceased brother Nemesio. or trough mentioned they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. No legacies and devisees having been provided in the will. ISSUE: Whether or not. from which a court or tribunal may properly acquire knowledge for making its decision. Two (2) of the six (6) witnesses testified that only one ball pen was used in signing the two testamentary documents and were subscribed and attested by the instrumental witnesses during a single occasion. RTC dismissed the petition of the wife. he died during the pendency of the proceedings. the signatures of some of the attesting witnesses in the decedent’s will and its codicil were written in blue ink while the others were in black. The universal institution of petitioner together with his brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of the testator results in totally abrogating the will because the nullification of such institution of universal heirs without any other testamentary disposition in the will amounts to a declaration that nothing was written. the decedent. Province. They were also signed by three (3) attesting witnesses each. the autoptic proference contradicts the testimonial evidence produced by petitioner. 93980 | June 27. 1994 FACTS: Calibia Lingdan Bulanglang. Tolete. on the face of the document. the whole property of the deceased has been left by universal title to petitioner and his brothers and sisters.00) worth of property. However. THE COURT OF APPEALS G. it was not erroneous nor baseless for respondent court to disbelieve petitioner’s claim that both testamentary documents in question were subscribed to in accordance with the provisions of Art.The Supreme Court affirmed in toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals.000. testimonial evidence and circumstantial evidence. this is a clear case of preterition. The petition for review is denied. 805 of the Civil Code. Adoption gives to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if he where a legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person a legal heir hence. and was duly substituted by petitioner. Judge Tomas A. As for the widow there is no preterit ion because she is not in the direct line. and its Codicil were subscribed by the instrumental witnesses on separate occasions. questioning the legality and validity of the said documents under Art. the same cannot be said for the adopted child whose legal adoption has not been questioned by the petitioner. Private respondents. Unfortunately. namely: real evidence or autoptic preference. 805 of the Civil Code. and a Codicil and named Nicasio Calde the executor or the Will and Codicil. HELD: Evidence may generally be classified into three (3) kinds. then the Municipal Judge and Notary Public Ex-Officio of Bauko. Tolete testified in narration as to how the documents in question were subscribed and attested. Tolete since nowhere in Judge Tolete’s testimony is there any kind of explanation for the different-colored signatures on the testaments. ACAIN VS IAC | GR No 72706 | OCTOBER 27.R. The spouse and adopted child of the decedent opposed the probate of will because of preterition. relatives of decedent.

The probate was opposed by Heracio’s 8 brothers and sisters on the grounds that: . Issue: Whether or not the court erred in disallowing the second will. as well as those of the three (3) . During his lifetime. A petition for reconstitution of the records was filed and it was granted. That provision in his first will. Cayetano declared that he did not execute another last will and testament after the original will had been probated. But apparently. No. and if it were prepared at his own behest. the will was produced. Only then were they able to penetrate the iron curtain that Heracio had placed around their uncle. he never informed that he revoked the will executed in 1978 . To isolate Don Cayetano and make him inacessible to the private respondents. In 1978. it would have been Heracio's strongest argument against the reconstitution of the probate of the first will. for his personal benefit. If the second will already existed on November 27. not only from the court and the private respondents. He recognized the original will and acknowledged that he signed it. There was fraud because Don Cayetano was not apprised that the document he was signing with Co. he was unaware of the second will which he supposedly made. CA Revilla v CA | G. Barredo and Lim ( as witnesses) was a second will revoking the dispositions of property that he made in his first will. held incommunicado. the instrument was foisted on him without his being aware of its true nature which the petitioner assiduously concealed. Heracio did not cease his efforts to monopolize Don Cayetano and his estate.That the alleged will was executed with undue pressure and influence .The 1982 will was not executed in accordance with law and the signature of Cayetano was different from his usual and customary signature . Heracio transferred him from his own house in Manila to Heracio's house in Quezon City. he did not reveal the second will which Don Cayetano supposedly made only 2months before he testified in the reconstitution proceeding. A videotape.Cayetano acted by mistake and the signatures in the alleged will were procured by fraud and he did not intend that the instrument be his will at the time of fixing his signature The trial court disallowed the second will. Significantly. the CA affirmed the trial court. The execution of the second will in an environment of secrecy and seclusion and the disinheritance of his 8 other nephews and nieces. These properties are worth P30M. the testimonies of the notary public. 1982. would not have been deleted by Don Cayetano if his only purpose in making a second will was to disinherit his nephews and nieces. Don Cayetano sought the probate of his will to which the CFI Manila admitted. After Don Cayetano died. That the dispositions in the second will were not made by Don Cayetano is proven by the omission of Don Cayetano's reservation of one-tenth of his properties and the income thereof to pay for holy masses and to be spent for the maintenance of his family chapel. During the reconstitution proceedings. the City Hall of Manila was burned by fire where the records were also burned. Heracio Revilla. he gave 1/10 of his estate reserving the last tenth for masses to be said after his death and for the care of religious images he kept in a chapel in Bulacan. 95329 Facts: Don Cayetano Revilla. However. but from Don Cayetano himself. In the court records. Despite Judge Bengzon's order. It was placed in a browned envelope stating “Buksan ito pagkalibing ko” to which Cayetano agreed to open. bequeathing all his properties to his 9 nephews and nieces including petitioner. To each.REVILLA V. as he did with his first will. He could not have executed a second will because he was sick in the hospital during that time (he stayed there for 2 months) and he could not sign any papers while he was confined in the hospital. He identified his first will and declared that it was his true and only will.R. Judge Eduardo Bengson had to issue an order commanding the petitioner to allow his 8 brothers and sisters to visit Don Cayetano. in his house. He wanted everything. belied Heracio's allegation that Don Cayetano was displeased with his said nephews and nieces that was why he left them out of his second will. although the petitioner opposed the reconstitution of Don Cayetano's first will. On appeal. taken during their visit and shown in court. Since the execution of the second will could not have occurred on the alleged date (September 13. *Assuming for the sake of arguments that the second will was executed. Heracio Revilla filed another petition of a will wherein he instituted Heracio as sole heir of his uncle’s estate and executor of the will allegedly executed in 1982. owned 2 pieces of land with buildings in Manila and 6 parcels of land in his hometown in Bulacan.Since 1978 up to Cayetano’s death. But Heracio overdid himself.That the 1978 will is void for the reason that it was executed under duress or the influence of fear or threats . justified the trial court's and the Court of Appeals' belief that undue influence was exercised by Horacio over Don Cayetano to make him sign the second will (which Don Cayetano did not know to be such) in order to deprive his brothers and sisters of their rightful share in their uncle's estate. Held: When Don Cayetano testified in the reconstitution proceedings. he executed a 13-page last will and testament. a bachelor. He would probably have caused it to be probated while he was still alive. Had he been aware that it was a second will.Cayetano was of unsound mind when he executed the will . he would not have denied that he made it. 1982) appearing therein (for Don Cayetano was admittedly sick in the hospital then) it must have been procured at the time when the testator was a virtual prisoner.

.instrumental witnesses were not given credit because of major contradictions in testimonies.