Intestate Estate of Petra V. Rosales.

Irenea C. Rosales v. Fortunato Rosales, et. al.

G.R. No. L-40789, February 27, 1987

FACTS:

On February 26, 1971, Mrs. Petra Rosales died intestate. She was survived by her
husband Fortunato Rosales and their two children Magna Rosales Acebes
and Antonio Rosales. Another child, Carterio Rosario, predeceased her, leaving
behind a child, Macikequerox Rosales, and his widow Irenea C. Rosales, the
herein petitioner. Magna Rosales Acebes instituted the proceedings for the
settlement of the estate of the deceased. The trial court ordered that
Fortunato, Magna, Macikequerox and Antonio be entitled each to share in the
estate of decedent. Irenea, on the other hand, insisted in getting a share of the
estate in her capacity as the surviving spouse of the late Carterio Rosales, son of
the deceased, claiming that she is a compulsory heir of her mother-in-law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Irenea is entitled to inherit from her mother-in-law.

RULING:

No. Under the law, intestate or legal heirs are classified into two groups,
namely, those who inherit by their own right, and those who inherit by the right
of representation. There is no provision in the Civil Code which states that a
widow (surviving spouse) is an intestate heir of her mother-in-law. The law has
already meticulously enumerated the intestate heirs of a decedent.
The Court held that Irenea misinterpreted the provision of Article 887 because
the provision refers to the estate of the deceased spouse in which case the
surviving spouse is a compulsory heir. It does not apply to the estate of a parent-
in-law. Therefore, the surviving spouse is considered a third person as
regards the estate of the parent-in-law.

Teotico vs. Del Val

G.R. No. L-18753, March 26, 1965 Anna

Facts:
Maria Mortera y Balsalobre Vda. de Aguirre died on July 14, 1955 in the City of Manila with no ascendants or
descendants. She left properties worth P600,000.00 and a will written in Spanish which she executed at her
residence at No. 2 Legarda St., Quiapo, Manila. She affixed her signature at the bottom of the will and on
the left margin of each and every page thereof in the presence of three witnesses who in turn affixed their
signatures below the attestation clause and on the left margin of each and every page of the will in the
presence of the testatrix and of each other. Said will was acknowledged before a Notary Public by the
testatrix and her witnesses.
In said will Maria stated among others that she was possessed of the full use of her mental faculties; that
she was free from illegal pressure or influence of any kind from the beneficiaries of the will and from any
influence of fear or threat and that she freely and spontaneously executed said will.
She left P20,000.00 to Rene A. Teotico, married to her niece named Josefina Mortera; and the usufruct of
her interest in the Calvo building to the said spouses. However, the naked ownership of the building was
 left in equal parts to the legitimate children of said spouses. She also instituted Josefina Mortera as her sole
and universal heir to all the remainder of her properties not otherwise disposed of in the will.
Thereafter, Vicente B. Teotico filed a petition for the probate of the will before the Court of First Instance of
Manila. However, Ana del Val Chan, claiming to be an adopted child of Francisca Mortera, a deceased sister
of the testatrix, as well as an acknowledged natural child of Jose Mortera, a deceased brother of the same
testatrix.

Issues:
(1) Has oppositor Ana del Val Chan the right to intervene in this proceeding?;
(2) Has the will in question been duly admitted to probate?;
(3) Did the probate court commit an error in passing on the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will and
in determining who should inherit the portion to be vacated by the nullification of the legacy made in favor
of Dr. Rene Teotico?

Held:
1. Under the terms of the will, oppositor has no right to intervene because she has no
interest in the estate either as heir, executor, or administrator, nor does she have any claim
to any property affected by the will, because nowhere in the will was any provision
designating her as heir, legatee or devisee of any portion of the estate. She has also no
interest in the will either as administratrix or executrix. Neither has she any claim against
any portion of the estate because she is not a co-owner thereof.
Additionally, if the will is denied probate, she would not acquire any interest in any portion of the estate left
by the testatrix. She would acquire such right only if she were a legal heir of the deceased, but she is not
under our Civil Code. It is true that she claims to be an acknowledged natural child of Jose and also an
adopted daughter of Francisca. But the law does not give her any right to succeed to the estate of Maria
because being an illegitimate child she is prohibited by law from succeeding to the legitimate relatives of her
natural father. Thus, Article 992 of our Civil Code provides: An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; .
It thus appears that the oppositor has no right to intervene either as testamentary or as legal heir in this
probate proceeding contrary to the ruling of the court a quo.

2. On the secon issue, the claim that the will was not properly attested to is contradicted
by the evidence of record. The will was duly executed because it was signed by the testatrix
and her instrumental witnesses and the notary public in the manner provided for by law.
The claim that the will was procured by improper pressure and influence is also belied by the evidence.
Moreover, the mere claim that Josefina and her husband Rene had the opportunity to exert pressure on the
testatrix simply because she lived in their house several years prior to the execution of the will and that she
was old and suffering from hypertension in that she was virtually isolated from her friends for several years
prior to her death is insufficient to disprove what the instrumental witnesses had testified in court. The
exercise of improper pressure and undue influence must be supported by substantial evidence and must be
of a kind that would overpower and subjugate the mind of the testatrix as to destroy her free agency and
make her express the will of another rather than her own

3. On the third issue, the question of whether the probate court could determine the
intrinsic validity of the provisions of a will has been decided by this Court in a long line of
decisions. In Castaeda v. Alemany, the Court had stated, thus:
To establish conclusively as against everyone, and once for all, the facts that a will was executed with the
formalities required by law and that the testator was in a condition to make a will, is the only purpose of the
proceedings under the new code for the probate of a will. The judgment in such proceedings determines
and can determine nothing more. In them the court has no power to pass upon the validity of any
provisions made in the will. It can not decide, for example, that a certain legacy is void and another one is
valid.

Pursuant to the foregoing precedents the pronouncement made by the court a quo declaring invalid the
legacy made to Dr. Rene Teotico in the will Exhibit A must be set aside as having been made in excess of its
jurisdiction. Another reason why said pronouncement should be set aside is that the legatee was not given
an opportunity to defend the validity of the legacy for he was not allowed to intervene in this proceeding. As
a corollary, the other pronouncements touching on the disposition of the estate in favor of some relatives of
the deceased should also be set aside for the same reason.
De los Santos v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-29192,
22 February 1971
02OCT
[VILLAMOR, J.]
FACTS
The parties admit that the owner of the estate, subject matter of the extrajudicial partition
agreement, was Pelagia de la Cruz, who died intestate; that defendant-appellant (De la Cruz)is a
nephew of the said decedent; that plaintiff-appellee (De los Santos) is a grandniece of Pelagia de
la Cruz, her mother, Marciana de la Cruz, being a niece who predeceased said Pelagia de la
Cruz; and that the purpose of the extrajudicial partition agreement was to divide and distribute the
estate among the heirs of Pelagia de la Cruz.
ISSUE
What is the effect of an extra-judicial partition which included a person who is not an heir of the
deceased?
RULING
The extrajudicial partition agreement is void with respect to plaintiff-appellee.
Article 1105 of the Civil Code provides: A partition which includes a person believed to be a heir,
but who is not, shall be void only with respect to such person. Partition of property affected
between a person entitled to inherit from the deceased owner thereof and another person who
thought he was an heir, when he was not really and lawfully such, to the prejudice of the rights of
the true heir designated by law to succeed the deceased, is null and void. A fortiori, plaintiff-
appellee could hardly derive from the agreement the right to have its terms enforced.