SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011

RAMON S. CHING AND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC.,
Petitioners,
vs.
HON. JANSEN R. RODRIGUEZ, in his capacity as Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 6, JOSEPH
CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE AND LUCINA SANTOS,
substituted by her son, EDUARDO S. BALAJADIA, Respondents.
PONENTE: REYES, J.:

Facts:
In 1992, the respondents filed a complaint against petitioners
for, among others, disinheritance in RTC Manila alleging,
among others, that: (1) they are the children of decedent Lim
San with his common-law wife, respondent Mercedes Igne.
Respondent Lucina claimed that she was also a common-law
wife; (2) Ramon misrepresented himself as Antonios and
Lucinas son when in truth he was an adopted child; (3) In
1996, Antonio died of stab wound, and Ramon was identified
as the prime suspect; and (4) from these, and under Article
919 of NCC, Ramon can be legally disinherited, hence,
prohibited from receiving any share from the estate of
Antonio.

Petitioners [Belen Dy Tan Ching, Ramons wife], manages

Antonio's estate, and has no intent to convey to respondents
shares in the estate. They moved to dismiss the petition, but
was denied. When their motion to reconsider was denied, they
went to CA, which in turn, denied the petition for certiorari.
Hence, the present for review on certiorari.

Issue:
Whether or not Ramon, the prime suspect in the murder of the
decedent, can be disinherited from the decedents estate.
[NO]

Ruling:
 Petition is Denied.

Under Article 916 of the NCC, disinheritance can be effected

only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be
specified. This Court agrees with the RTC and the CA that while
the respondents in their Complaint and Amended Complaint
sought the disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any instrument
supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's estate was
ever mentioned. Hence, despite the prayer for Ramon's
disinheritance, Civil Case No. 02-105251 does not partake of
the nature of a special proceeding and does not call for the
probate court's exercise of its limited jurisdiction.

- Digested [25 October 2017, 22:14]

***